Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Current application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/951,609 which is issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,146,346.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because specification is silent about the limitation “a radial flange” in claim 21, and “a first side of the radial flange” and “a second side of the radial flange” in claim 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-25, and 29 are objected to because the specification is silent about limitations “radial flange”, “first side” and “second side.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Stunnebrink et al., EP 2 962 920) in view of D2 (Muerza, EP 1,834,864).
For claim 21, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-12, a ring lock, comprising:
a case having a body defining an aperture (The structure 2, 3 that encloses the bolt 11 defines the case. The case has an aperture for the bolt 11 to slide from right to left side of 2, 3.);
a shackle (11) at least partially positioned in the aperture and movable between an open position and a closed position (Figure 1 shows the shackle in open position. When the shackle engages the left side of the case denotes closed position.); and
a lock mechanism operable to selectively retain the shackle in the closed position; and
wherein the case comprises a radial flange (7, 7 in Figure 5) extending radially outward from the body (2,3) and having a radial depth dimension (as shown below), and wherein at least a portion of the radial flange slopes (as shown below) along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping.
D2 teaches a ring lock with shackle (7) and locking mechanism (4, 5) operable to selectively retain the shackle in the closed position (P3, last paragraph) to provide a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a lock mechanism, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
PNG
media_image1.png
707
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 22, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 21, wherein the at least a portion of the radial flange comprises at least one ramp that slopes along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping (The slope has a ramp, as shown above.)
For claim 23, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 22, wherein the radial flange comprises a plurality of the at least one ramp that each slope along the radial depth dimension (Ramp slopes along the radial depth, as shown above.)
For claim 24, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 22, wherein the plurality of the at least one ramp are positioned about an outer periphery of the case (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 25, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 22, wherein a first side of the radial flange comprises a first plurality of the at least one ramp; wherein a second side of the radial flange opposite the first side comprises a second plurality of the at least one ramp; and wherein each of the first and second plurality of the at least one ramp slopes along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping of the radial flange (Each radial flange on both sides of the case 2, 3 has a ramp. Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 26, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 25, wherein the first plurality of the at least one ramp is aligned with the second plurality of the at least one ramp (Ramps on both sides of the case 2, 3 are aligned with each other. Figure 5, and as shown above.)
For claim 27, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 25, wherein the first plurality of the at least one ramp is offset from the second plurality of the at least one ramp (Figure 5, and as shown above.)
For claim 28, D1 discloses he ring lock of claim 21, except for wherein the radial depth dimension is one centimeter or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the radial depth dimension is one centimeter or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One skill in the art would realize that having a radial depth of one centimeter or less would yield the expected result for the intended environment.
For claim 29, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 21, wherein the case (2, 3) further comprises an arcuate wall (Figure 5); wherein the radial flange extends radially outward from the arcuate wall (Figure 5); and wherein the at least a portion of the radial flange slopes along the radial depth dimension from the arcuate sidewall to an edge of the radial flange (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 30, the combination teaches the ring lock of claim 21, further comprising: an outer housing positioned about the case (5a of D1), the outer housing including a lip that at least partially defines a guide path (The lip of the slot that guides 9, D2); and an actuator (9) operable to move the shackle (7) between the closed position and the open position (Figures 3 and 5 of D2), the actuator (9) comprising a knob including a channel (D2); and wherein the lip of the outer housing is received in the channel of the knob to limit the knob to movement along the guide path (Figure 3 of D2. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 31, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 21, wherein the case comprises: a first case portion comprising a first flange; and a second case portion comprising a second flange; and wherein the first flange and the second flange are secured to one another to define the radial flange of the case (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 32, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 31, wherein at least a portion of each of the first flange and the second flange are sloped along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping of the first flange and the second flange (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 33, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 31, wherein the at least one ramp comprises: a first ramp formed on the first flange; and a second ramp formed on the second flange; and wherein the first ramp and the second ramp each slope along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping of the first flange and the second flange (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 34, D1 discloses he ring lock of claim 33, wherein the first ramp and the second ramp are positioned opposite one another (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 35, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 33, wherein the first ramp and the second ramp are offset from one another (First and second ramps are located on the left and right side, as in Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 36, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 33, wherein a plurality of the first ramp are formed on the first flange; and wherein a plurality of the second ramp are formed on the second flange (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 37, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-12, discloses a ring lock, comprising:
a case (2, 3) having a body defining an aperture, the case including:
a first case portion comprising a first flange (radial flange 7); and
a second case portion comprising a second flange (radial flange 7) welded to the first flange to define a radial flange of the case (Figures 5 and as shown above);
a shackle (11) at least partially positioned in the aperture and movable between an open position and a closed position (Figure 1 shows the shackle in open position. When the shackle engages the left side of the case denotes closed position.); and
a lock mechanism operable to selectively retain the shackle in the closed position; and
wherein the radial flange of the case has a radial depth dimension, and wherein at least a portion of the radial flange slopes along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping (As shown above.)
D2 teaches a ring lock with shackle (7) and locking mechanism (4, 5) operable to selectively retain the shackle in the closed position (P3, last paragraph) to provide a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a lock mechanism, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
For claim 38, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 37, wherein the at least a portion of the radial flange comprises at least one ramp that slopes along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 39, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 38, wherein the radial flange comprises a plurality of the at least one ramp positioned about an outer periphery of the case and each sloping along the radial depth dimension (Figure 5 and as shown above.)
For claim 40, D1 discloses the ring lock of claim 38, wherein the at least one ramp comprises: a plurality of first ramps formed on the first flange; and a plurality of second ramps formed on the second flange; and wherein the plurality of first ramps and the plurality of second ramps each slope along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping of the first flange and the second flange (Each slope has a ramp. Slopes and ramps are located on the left and right side of eth locking ring. Figure 5 and as shown above.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,146,346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
the subject matter of the current application is directed to a ring lock having a case with an aperture, a shackle in the aperture, a lock mechanism operable to selectively retain the shackle in the closed position, a radial flange with a radial depth dimension, and a portion of the radial flange slopes along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping. Invention includes at least one ramp on the radial flange (claims 22-27, 33, and 38.)
The subject matter of the issued patent is directed to a ring lock having a case, a shackle in the case, a lock mechanism operable to selectively retain the shackle in the closed position. The case has a first flange and a second flange with respective radial depth dimension. One ramp on at least one of the first flange or second flange, and slopes along the radial depth dimension to discourage gripping.
The subject matter of the current application and the issued patent are not patentably distinct from each other.
A continuation application will have claims directed to different aspects of what is set forth in the original description and drawings.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Arnold (US 5,802,889); Chen (US 9,976,321); and Wieth (US 4,635,782).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675