DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on December 22nd 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-18 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.
With regard to claim 1: The claim recites that the movable chuck is mounted “in a snap-in manner on a side of the housing that is opposite to the fixed chuck”. It is unclear what structure is required by the recitation that the movable chuck mounting is done in a “snap-in manner”. The specification does not point to any features which are discussed as retaining the movable chuck, merely reciting that the mounting is “snap-in” in ¶0006 and ¶0041 (¶0005 and ¶0041 as published) without pointing to any structure or describing how the mounting works or is advantageous in a way which would provide guidance as to the scope of “snap-in”. There also does not appear to be any features in the drawings (labeled or unlabeled) which a person having skill in the art would recognize or reasonably consider as enabling what could be considered to be a “snap-in” connection (e.g. a resilient claw member which flexes to allow mounting and then bears against a portion of a mounted member to retain it)
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and inherit this indefiniteness.
The examiner notes that machine translation of the Chinese Publication of the priority application (CN119435904A, English machine translation attached) has the term “movable” in place of “snap-fit” in the specification. This appears to indicate that “snap-fit” might be a translation artifact, and for the purpose of examination with respect to the prior art “snap-fit” is being interpreted as meaning “movably retained” (that is, movable relative to the housing but not able to be easily removed from the housing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al (CN 114607906 A, English machine translation attached).
With regard to claim 1: Luo discloses a quick locking device 1 which comprises a base (bottom surface 1112 and a housing (the side walls of element 111 and cover 112) fixedly arranged on the base, with a top of the housing having a fixed chuck 1114 and a movable chuck 12 which is movably retained by the housing on a side opposite to the fixed chuck. A side of the movable chuck which faces the fixed chuck is connected to a driving body (sliding body portion 122) and a triggering member (combination of members 131, 134, and 133 and springs 152 and 151) for shifting the driving body to move to drive the movable chuck to get away from or close to the fixed chuck for clamping is mounted to the base (mounting via 1118 and 111a, best seen in Figures 11 and 13) with the close configuration shown in Figure 15 and the away configuration shown in Figure 13. The triggering member of Luo is discloses as incorporating a locking head (cam member 132) such that when the movable chuck moves to get close to the fixed chuck under the action of the triggering member the locking head is quickly inserted into the driving body by the triggering member to abut against the inner wall of hole 1221 and lock the driving member in place. See ¶0122 disclosing cam 132 acting as a locking feature by being inserted into the gap opened by movement of the driving body.
With regard to claims 4 and 6: Luo discloses a configuration in which the compression spring 151 and linear actuation body 131 of Figure 11 is replaced with the driving member of Figure 6 which includes a mounting column 1120 on an inward facing side of the base which an outer circumferentially located surface of the triggering member 131 being provided with a support lug 1311 thereon, and a tension spring 151 is positioned between the mounting column and support lug, see ¶0127. Luo discloses this since the modified arrangement is expressly described in significant detail by ¶0127, with the parts to be substituted specifically noted. In this configuration a wrench (the portion of 131 which extends outward of the housing to allow a person to apply torque to the assembly) is configured to extend out of a sliding groove provided on an outer circumferential surface of the housing (best seen in Figure 5, the end portion of 131 extends out of a slot to allow for it to move rotationally to actuate the inner components) with the other end of the wrench being fixedly connected to the triggering member (see ¶0127).
With regard to claim 5: In Luo a limiting mechanism is mounted on the movable chuck (combination of 1222 and 14, see ¶0093, 0119, 0123, and 0125 disclosing the operation of the mechanism) and a limiting hole 1124 is provided on the housing such that when the movable chuck moves to cause the limiting mechanism to be aligned with the limiting hole (both of 1222 and 14 are aligned with the hole) the limiting mechanism extends into the limiting hole (by movement of elements 141 of 14 into 1222, allowing movement of the body of 14 further into the hole) to limit movement of the movable chuck (see ¶0119 and ¶0093).
With regard to claims 13 and 16-18: The device of Luo is disclosed as being part of a kit which comprises a camera conversion clamp holder (the locking device itself, which converts a portable camera into a fixed camera attached to a support, see ¶0013) and a quick release insert plate (shown in Figure 2).
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Wang et al (US Patent 12,535,178 B2), Lemieux (US patent 6,234,690 B1) and Johnson et al (US Patent 12,644,560 B2)
With regard to claims 7 and 10-12: Luo does not go into detail regarding the equipment which the quick locking device is intended to be used with, stating in ¶0002-0003 that the system is intended to act as an intermediate component between photography equipment and a support. Luo thus does not teach the inclusion of a threaded connection at the bottom of the base which is attached to a plane-thrust pan-tilt head.
It is known in the art of photography to attach quick release systems to support heads of various types in order to allow for the quick attachment and detachment of photography or videography equipment from the head (see Wang, Background section). It is additionally known to use a threaded interface between the head and the quick release device as such threaded connections are standard in the industry (see Lemieux column 4 lines 40-52). The prior art also indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to attach a quick release system to nearly any type of support head, with the exact choice of head being a matter of user preferences arising from user skill and shooting conditions (see Johnson column 1 line 36 through column 2 line 4, note per column 1 lines 36-41 that quick release clamps are known to be attached to supports using threaded connections and column 1 line 63 through column 2 line 2 discussing pan-tilt heads which move in multiple planes).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have used the quick locking device of and of claims 1 and 4-6 as part of a photography kit which includes a plane thrust pan-tilt head and the quick locking device in order to allow for the use of the device to quickly attach and detach photographic equipment from the pan-tilt head, improving the operability of the head and allowing a camera attached to the quick locking devices via the plate shown in Figure 2 of Luo to be supported by the pan-tilt head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claim 2 and claims dependent thereupon: The prior art does teach the use of skewed (angled) grooves which receive a positioning column of another member to cause movement of a member with a movable chuck portion of a quick locking device, the prior art does not teach using such structure in combination with the insertion of a locking head of a triggering member which has the structure and function claimed in claim 1. In general the prior art locking devices use engagement between a chuck-holding member and a triggering member to lock the chuck in place and either the same structure of a spring bearing directly on the chuck to facilitate return of the chuck to the most open position, see Vogt (US Patent 8,794,575 B2) for an example of a chuck guided by a single cam member and Johnson (US Patent 8,827,576 B2) for an example of a spring-return system. Ye et al (CN 116123391 A) discloses a chuck system which uses both a locking surface and secondary cam surface to guide movement of a movable chuck jaw, however in addition to the pillar 212 being on the movable chuck member and the cam which the pillar is being pressed against not being a slot, but the locking portion is not “inserted” into the driving member of the chuck instead being moved contact with an outer surface of a rear portion of the chuck in a way that inhibits movement in the direction which the locking surface (311) is occupying when in the locking position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights