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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the L-shape of the limiting member” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He; Qingping et al. (US 20170295748 A1 ), in view of SPAETH IRVIN J et al. (US 3255554 A).
Regarding claim 1 He discloses a door lock (Fig. 5; 162) for a pet crate (100), comprising: a crate body, wherein the crate body is provided with a door opening (shown in Fig. 5) at a side of the crate body; a door body (142); [0051], wherein the door body is connected to a side of the crate body adjacent to the door opening; and a locking assembly (162), wherein the locking assembly is connected to the door body [0055];
a first fixed member (164), wherein the first fixed member is connected to a side of the door body away from the crate body (Fig. 6B), and is provided with first protrusions (170); [0055]; a rotating rod (172) that runs in a left-right direction, wherein the rotating rod passes through the first protrusions, and is rotatably connected inside the first protrusions [0056]; and a limiting member (174), wherein the limiting member is connected to the rotating rod, and located at a right side of the door body (Fig. 6A); the limiting member has a U shape and defines an angle between two arms of the U-shape, wherein when the door body is in a locked position, the angle of the limiting member faces an outside of the crate body (Fig. 6A; the angle formed by 174), and a limiting rod of the crate body (124a) is locked inside the angle of the limiting member.
He does not disclose a length of the rotating rod is larger than a length of the door body; and two limiting members, wherein the two limiting members are respectively connected to two ends of the rotating rod, wherein the door body is provided with one or more second fixed members provided at a side of the first fixing member, the one or more second fixed members are each provided with a second protrusion, the rotating rod passes through the second protrusion and is rotatably connected to the second protrusion, and the second protrusion cooperates with a side wall of the door body to fix a position of the rotating rod.
Spaeth teaches a length of the rotating rod (Fig. 1; 25); (Col. 1, lines 65-72) is larger than a length of the door body; and two limiting members (27, 29), wherein the two limiting members are respectively connected to two ends of the rotating rod (Col. 1, lines 65-72), wherein the door body is provided with one or more second fixed members (15, 26), and the one or more second fixed members are disposed at a side of the first fixed member (15, 26), the one or more second fixed members are each provided with a second protrusion (Fig. 1, corresponding to raised portion through which the rod passes), the rotating rod passes through the second protrusion and is rotatably connected to the second protrusion, and the second protrusion cooperates with a side wall of the door body (33, 31) to fix a position of the rotating rod (Col. 1, lines 65-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locking assembly of He to include a length of the rotating rod is larger than a length of the door body; and two limiting members, wherein the two limiting members are respectively connected to two ends of the rotating rod, wherein the door body is provided with one or more second fixed members provided at a side of the first fixing member, the one or more second fixed members are each provided with a second protrusion, the rotating rod passes through the second protrusion and is rotatably connected to the second protrusion, and the second protrusion cooperates with a side wall of the door body to fix a position of the rotating rod to avoid deformation of the rotating rod, as taught by Spaeth, in order to provide a more secure locking mechanism, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
He in view of Spaeth does not explicitly disclose a V-shape or L-shape.
It would have been a matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U-shape of the limiting members of He and Spaeth to be a V-shape, in order to provide a more secure locking engagement, and as an obvious change in shape. Applicant has not disclosed criticality to the shape of the limiting member, and states in [0031] of the instant disclosure that the limiting member could be V, L, U, or arc shaped, and still function as intended.
Regarding claim 3 He, in view of Spaeth, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses wherein at least one connecting rod (156) is connected to the crate body; the at least one connecting rod is located at an upper side and/or a lower side of the door opening; and the door body is slidably connected to the connecting rod [0052].
Regarding claim 4 He, in view of Spaeth, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses wherein an end of the door body is rotatably connected to an end of the door opening [0030].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He; Qingping et al. (US 20170295748 A1 ), in view of SPAETH IRVIN J et al. (US 3255554 A), and further in view of Kolozsvari; Kevin (US 6192834 B1).
Regarding claim 6 He, in view of Spaeth, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses wherein the first fixed member comprises a hollow structure in a middle of the first fixed member (Fig. 6B) in the front-to-back direction, wherein a handle (166) is connected to the rotating rod, two ends (176, 178) of the handle are fixedly connected to the rotating rod and are located inside the hollow structure (Fig. 6B).
He, in view of Spaeth does not explicitly disclose wherein two ends of the handle are respectively located at a left end and a right end.
Kolozsvari teaches wherein two ends of the handle are respectively located at a left end and a right end (Fig. 3; 134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ends of the handle of He, in view of Spaeth to be located at a left end and a right end, as taught by Kolozsvari, in order to lock the handle in place (Col. 5, lines 55-59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Spaeth is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the instant invention and the prior art reference of Spaeth generally relate to door locks for crates.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that, “Besides, the Examiner asserts, on page 4 of the Office Action, that Spaeth teaches aa length of the rotating rod is larger than a length of the door body in a left-right direction (corresponding to a left to right when the container is viewed on its side).” Is not persuasive.
The Examiner has modified the rejection above to explicitly define what the secondary reference of Spaeth teaches, which is, a rotating rod which is longer than a length of the door body. The primary reference of He already discloses a limiting member, and a rotating rod which runs in a left to right direction. The only difference between He and the instant invention is the length of the rod and the addition of another limiting member, which Spaeth teaches. Thus, for clarity of the record, the Examiner has relied only on these teachings from Spaeth. The resulting device would function essentially the same as the instant invention.
In response to applicant’s argument, “Therefore, even if He combined with Spaeth does not teach the feature of "the rotating rod passes through the second protrusion and is rotatably connected to the second protrusion, and the second protrusion cooperates with a side wall of the door body to fix a position of the rotating rod to avoid deformation of the rotating rod" recited in the amended claim 1 of the present application.” Is not persuasive since Spaeth discloses that the rod passes through a second protrusion and rotates freely within said second protrusion. The amendment at issue is functional. However, the bearing of Spaeth would still function to avoid deformation of the rotating rod.
In response to applicant’s argument against the shape of the limiting members not being disclosed by He or Spaeth, it is noted that the features upon which the applicant relies are not critical to the device. [0031] of the instant invention lists a plurality of shapes such as V, L, U, or arc shaped that would still function as intended, see change in shape rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights