DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
Claims 9 and 17 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/04/2026 has been considered.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract have made moot the previous specification objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fox et al. (US 5410894), (hereinafter, Fox).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
824
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Fox discloses a lockout (see Figs. 1-7 and above) for use with a gladhand connector, comprising: a body (the body of 10) defined by a lockout first end (1001) and a lockout second end (the end of 2001), the body comprising:
a grip portion (46, 68 and 2002) forming a rearmost portion of the body (the portion at 2001),
a lockout compartment (28) positioned proximate to the lockout first end (see above, at 1001),
a lockout protruding member (3002, 3003, and 3004), wherein the lockout protruding member comprises a lockout planar portion (at 3002) extending upwardly from the grip portion (46, 48 and 2002) and a lockout lipped portion (at 3003) coupled to the lockout planar portion (at 3002) and extending above and towards the grip portion, and an opening (the opening for 16 and or 100) configured to receive at least a portion of a locking member (16 and 100); and
a mounting post (74) positioned on the body and located between (vertically or longitudinally between) the lockout compartment (28) and the lockout protruding member (3002 and 3003).
Note that the gladhand connector is not a positively recited member of the claim.
Re Clm 2: Fox discloses wherein the body of the lockout has substantially the same shape as a body of the gladhand connector (see Figs. 1-3, as an example).
Re Clm 3: Fox discloses wherein the lockout compartment includes a lockout sidewall (26, alternatively, the wall opposite 26) and a lockout end wall (48), and wherein the lockout sidewall and the lockout end wall at least partially define a lockout cavity (the cavity that receives 30) configured to receive a portion of the gladhand connector.
Re Clm 4: Fox discloses wherein the lockout end wall is configured to engage a portion of the gladhand connector to inhibit rotation of the lockout with respect to the gladhand connector when the lockout is in use (see Fig. 4).
Re Clm 5: Fox discloses wherein the opening is positioned on the lockout sidewall (when the lockout side wall is the wall opposite 26) and extends entirely therethrough (see Figs. 5-7).
Re Clm 6: Fox discloses that the mounting post is made to or is configured to be received within a seal opening of a seal member positioned on the gladhand connector.
Re Clm 8: Fox discloses wherein the lockout is configured to be installed on the gladhand connector by: positioning the lockout adjacent to the gladhand connector in an initial position where the lockout is oriented at an angle with respect to the gladhand connector and the mounting post is received within the seal opening; rotating the lockout into a locking position where the lockout is substantially parallel with respect to the gladhand connector; and coupling the locking member to the lockout (the lockout of Fox is made to or is capable of being employed in the manner set forth in the claim).
Re Clm 10: Fox discloses wherein the lockout protruding member is configured to be received within a connector cavity of the gladhand connector, and wherein the connector cavity is at least partially defined by a connector end wall configured to engage the lockout protruding member to inhibit rotation of the lockout with respect to the gladhand connector when the lockout is in use (the lockout of Fox is made to or is capable of being employed in the manner set forth in the claim).
As for claim 11: the recitation of “the locking member is a padlock” is merely further defining a non-positively recited element of the claim. A padlock is made to or is capable of functioning with the recited structure of claim 1.
Re Clm 12: Fox discloses a gladhand lockout device (see Figs. 1-7), comprising: a gladhand connector (12) defined by a connector first end and a connector second end, the gladhand connector including a mounting face (the face that 34 is adjacent with) with an opening (the opening that contains 34 and/or the opening that contains the deep recessed portion of 34 that forms 36);
a lockout (10) removably installable on the gladhand connector, the lockout defined by a lockout first end (the end containing 24) and a lockout second end (the end containing 62),
wherein the lockout includes a mounting post (74) configured to be received within the opening when the gladhand lockout device is in use (see Fig. 3); and
a locking member (46 and 66 and not 68) configured to secure the lockout in a substantially fixed position with respect to the gladhand connector (see Figs. 1-7), wherein the mounting face (the face that 34 is adjacent with) includes a housing (the housing that contains 34 and/or 36) and a seal member (34) positioned within the housing (see Fis. 1-3, see how 36 is within 32), the opening provided in the form of a circular (circular being defined as relating to a circle, and note that the opening is circular in nature as it retains a circular member 34 and/or 36, alternatively, an opening is a void and the void around 34 and/or within 36 is circular) opening extending at least partially through the seal member (the opening retaining 34 and the opening that contains the deep recessed portion of 34 that forms 36 is circular in nature and since the opening is a void a portion of that void extends into 36).
Re Clm 13: Fox discloses wherein the lockout further includes: a lockout cavity (the cavity that receives 30) positioned proximate to the lockout first end; and a lockout protruding member (68) positioned proximate to the lockout second end.
Re Clm 14: Fox discloses wherein the gladhand connector further includes: a connector cavity (76) positioned proximate to the connector first end (see Figs. 1-3); and a connector protruding member (30) positioned proximate to the connector second end (see Figs. 1-3).
Re Clm 15: Fox discloses wherein the lockout cavity is configured to receive the connector protruding member and the connector cavity is configured to receive the lockout protruding member when the gladhand lockout device is in use (see Figs. 1-3).
Re Clm 16: Fox discloses wherein the lockout cavity (the cavity that receives 30) is at least partially enclosed by a lockout compartment comprising a lockout sidewall (26) and a lockout end wall (48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 5410894), (hereinafter, Fox) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 above, in view of Menzie (US 4325237).
Re Clm 7: Fox discloses wherein the mounting post includes a cylindrical portion (where 74 mounts to the main structure/body) coupled to the body and a second portion (the outer portion of 74) coupled to the cylindrical portion, wherein the second portion is imparted with a tapered geometry (see Fig. 3), and wherein the cylindrical portion is imparted with a diameter that is slightly oversized with respect to the seal opening (see Fig. 3) such that the mounting post applies an outward force that compresses the seal member when the mounting post is received within the seal opening (see Fig. 3).
Fox fails to disclose that the disclosed portion is frustoconical.
However, Menzie discloses a glad hand and a lockout means for the glad hand, similar to that of Fox. Menzie also teaches a member having a portion that mates with the gladhand that is frustoconical in shape. Where such would aid in piloting members together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Fox, to have employed a frustoconical shape, as taught by Menzie, with a reasonable expectation of success because the shape of the post is merely being altered, for the purpose of aiding in the piloting of members together, alternatively, such a change of shape would have yielded the same predicate result of sealing off an opening.
Note that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The prior art of record does not anticipate all the limitations as recited in independent claim 18.
The prior art does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation (TSM) to modify the prior art as such.
There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant’s invention.
Even though, the individual parts are known per se, there is nothing to teach the specific structures and structural combinations as claimed. More specifically, it is the totality of that which is claimed that is not found in the art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As for applicant’s arguments directed towards claims 1-8, 10, and 11, it is noted that alternative interpretations of Fox was/were applied in making the rejections because of the amendments applicant made to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments towards claims 18-20 are moot as the rejections of these claims have not been maintained.
As for claims 12-16, it is noted that element 34 and 36 are not being used for the housing and the seal. The housing is the structure that houses (or contains) 34 and/or 36 and not 34 and/or 36 themselves.
In order to make the rejection clearer for the applicant’s understanding 46 and 66 have been clearly separated from 68 in claims 12 and 13.
All claims not specifically argued will stand or fall with the claim(s) from which it/they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
07/20/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights