DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, “at a connection point that allows for the connection point to be moveable… a variety of diameters” is unclear and not fully understood in the context of the claim language. How, in what way, and by what means is the particular function achieved?
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brushaber, US Patent 5,988,694 in view of Gabus, US Patent 4,660,869.
Regarding claim 1, Brushaber shows the great majority of the claimed invention, including a locking device, comprising a first lock arm (including 14) and a second lock arm (including 12), the first lock arm rotatably coupled to the second lock arm; a pin (34 and/or 32) the pin rotatably coupled to the second lock arm; a lever (including 30) having a first end and a second end, the first end of the lever rotatably coupled to the pin, as claimed.
Regarding claim 1, Brushaber discloses the claimed invention except explicit teaching of the first lock arm having a retaining ring, and where in an unlocked state the second end of the lever is external to the retaining ring and in a locked state the second end of the lever is within the retaining ring. However, Gabus teaches a retaining ring 15 (see figure 3), which behaves in the claimed manner, retaining a lever 9 therein when in the closed condition. Such an arrangement at least allows for the stowing away (or retaining) of the lever arm to retain it against unintended opening movement. It would have been obvious at the time the effective filing date of the invention was made for one skilled in the art to included such a retaining ring feature in the device of Brushaber, for the purpose of stowing away (or retaining) of the lever arm to retain it against unintended opening movement.
Claims 2-6 are clearly provided by the combination of Brushaber and Gabus. Note that with respect to claim 6, a thin wire cable could be inserted through the retaining ring, both in and out of the closed position, if desired.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner serves Official Notice that the use of rubber lining and similar materials as use as buffering against noise and/or surface contact damage between components is very all and well known in an entire range of applications, including locking devices. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have included such a modification in the design of the combination for the purpose of providing as buffering against noise and/or surface contact damage between components, as well known in the art. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The same or similar reasoning as above apply for the remaining claims 8-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-16-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues secondary applied art of provides a spring clip and not the claimed lever. However, at least broadly, the applied art is at least structurally and/or functionally equivalent to the presently claimed invention. There is no patentably distinct claimed structure or function that is provided by the claim to overcome the applied art.
Applicant argues that the claim pin is patentably distinct from the pin identified by the examiner in the applied art. However, as best understood, applied art is at least structurally and/or functionally equivalent to the presently claimed invention. There is no patentably distinct claimed structure or function that is provided by the claim to overcome the applied art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, 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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights