DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/22/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Foreign patent document KR 10-2023-0125112 and an abstract/explanation of relevance thereof, do not appear to be filed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a forward interlocking rotating part”, “a reverse interlocking rotating part” in claim 1 and “a forward-reverse interlocking invalid section” in Claim 2. It is noted that while these are not explicitly numbered by the specification, they are understood to be stepped portion S and groove portion G, respectively ([0066], Claim 11).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 4, “the first cable” is recited however it is unclear which of the “pair of first cables” this refers to.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by dependency.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tindall et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0225118 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tindall et al. discloses
a pair of first cables (154a, 633, Figs. 20-21) installed to release a walk-in locking mechanism;
a second cable (154b) installed to release a folding locking mechanism;
a rotating unit (598, 641, 622) configured to apply tension independently and respectively to the first cable and the second cable based on a forward rotation and a reverse rotation ([0074]); and
a driving unit (570) configured to provide a rotational force to the rotating unit in a forward direction and a reverse direction ([0069]),
wherein the rotating unit includes a forward interlocking rotating part (689a) configured to provide tension to one among the first cable and the second cable based on a forward rotation; and a reverse interlocking rotating part (689b) configured to provide tension to another one among the first cable and the second cable based on a reverse rotation, and
wherein the forward interlocking rotating part and the reverse interlocking rotating part are configured to be set in directions opposite to each other based on a rotational direction of the rotating unit (Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 2, Tindall et al. discloses
a forward-reverse interlocking invalid section (i.e. the groove portions of hooks 689a, 689b) configured to not to provide tension to the first cable and the second cable, respectively, in a forward direction and a reverse direction is provided between the forward interlocking rotating part and the reverse interlocking rotating part.
It is noted that when 622 rotates in a direction such as to tension one cable, the other cable is stationary ([0077], [0079]) such that the groove portions of the hooks at least partially act as the invalid section (see Fig. 25).
Regarding Claim 3, Tindall et al. discloses
the rotating unit includes a rotating gear (598) receiving a rotational force from the driving unit, and a rotating ring (641, 622) installed coaxially with a rotational center of the rotating gear and configured to set the forward interlocking rotating part and the reverse interlocking rotating part.
Regarding Claim 4, Tindall et al. discloses
the rotating ring consists of at least a pair of members installed in a coaxial layered arrangement structure on both side surfaces about the rotating gear (641 and 622 are on either side of 598 in the coaxial direction).
Regarding Claim 5, Tindall et al. discloses
the rotating gear (598) includes a body part (i.e. the part to which ‘598’ points in Fig. 20) having a disk shape and a boss part (i.e. the boss protruding from 598 and located within 606, see Fig. 21) protruding outward from a center of the body part, and the rotating ring (622) includes a body part (i.e. the part to which ‘622’ points in Fig. 20) having a disk shape and a boss part (i.e. the boss protruding from the center of 622 as seen in Fig. 20) protruding outward from a center of the body part, and
wherein the boss part of the rotating gear and the boss part of the rotating ring are disposed at positions opposite to each other about the rotating gear (i.e. as seen from Figs. 20-21, when assembled they are opposite each other and both extend in the circumferential direction).
Regarding Claim 6, Tindall et al. discloses
the rotating gear includes a tooth part (i.e. the teeth on the outer circumferential surface of 598, that engage with 594) configured to provide power to the driving unit and disposed along an outer circumferential surface of the body part. It is noted that this tooth part provides “power to the driving unit” in as much as the Applicant’s device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record shows a first gap and second gap (Claims 7-10) or each of a rotating gear and rotating ring to have an arcuate groove portion and stepped portions (Claims 11-13) as claimed, in combination with the remaining elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0149751) discloses cables 3 tensioned by rotating unit 13 as in Fig. 5.
Bach (US Pub No. 2009/0079240) discloses cables 113, 115 and rotating unit 102, 106, 107 in Fig. 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 October 6, 2026
