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 .
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are drawn to a theft prevention device for a shipping container. However, the claims fail to establish how the prevention is made. Here is the invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
399
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen, the device is required placed so as to be secured on the bottom of the container and engaging a rod of the container latch. That is how it interacts with the container and that is how it works.
However, even with that, how it prevents theft? Anyone can take it out. There is no lock or the like to allow the device to perform the prevention of theft.
It appears that the intention is to claim that when in use, the device will be positioned between the bottom of the container and a surface (floor or another container), so that when in use, the weight of the container will aid for preventing withdraw.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claims will be interpreted as mentioned above, since it is the only way the device can be “theft prevented”. Correction is required.
Claims 9 and 20 requires that “at least” the first plate is made from AR500 steel. At the instant, the limitation is indefinite. The term “at least” requires that only the first plate or both the first and the second plate or all plates are made from AR500 steel. There is no support for the 1st and 2nd plates and the base plate to be separate elements fastened together so as to have one or two of them made from the AR500 steel.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the base, 1st and 2nd plates being made from the AR500 steel. Correction is required.
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 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2596369 to Favas in view of US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Favas discloses a theft prevention device (1) for a shipping container. The device comprises a channel defined by a base plate (3) having a first side and a second side (top and bottom sides respectively); a first plate (2) extending from a first edge of the base plate in a longitudinal direction away from and perpendicular to the first side of the base plate; and a second plate (4) extending from a second edge of the base plate opposite the first edge of the base plate in the longitudinal direction away from and perpendicular to the first side of the base plate, the first plate extending away from the base plate farther than the second plate.
Favas fails to disclose that the device comprises a plurality of magnets coupled to the first plate on a channel side of the first plate.
PNG
media_image3.png
565
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Millsap teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device (10) with a plurality of magnets (24) coupled so as to secure the device to a structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device described by Favas with magnets, as taught by Millsap, in order to aid in securing the device in place against the desired structure.
As to claim 8, Favas discloses that the first plate further comprises a handle (11) disposed on the side of the first plate opposite the channel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2596369 to Favas in view of US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20230010432 to Summerfield.
Favas, as modified by Millsap, fails to disclose that the plates are made from AR500 steel.
Summerfield teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock body (11) that is made from a AR500 steel (par 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the device described by Favas, as modified by Millsap, with a AR500 steel, as taught by Summerfield, in order to aid in the durability and wear resistance of the device.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2596369 to Favas in view of US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat No 7,819,441 to Coman et al (Coman).
Favas, as modified by Millsap, fails to disclose that at least one of the plurality of magnets is a neodymium magnet.
Coman teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a magnetic security device with a magnet that is a neodymium magnet (col 5 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the magnets described by Favas, as modified by Millsap, as a neodymium magnet, as taught by Coman, in order to provide a high magnetic force.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 5,701,768 to Khalsa in view of FR 2596369 to Favas and US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap.
PNG
media_image4.png
542
1220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Khalsa discloses a theft prevention device (100) for a shipping container. The device comprises a channel defined by a base having a first side and a second side (top and bottom sides respectively); a first plate extending from the base in a longitudinal direction away from and perpendicular to the base; and a second plate extending from the base opposite the first plate in the longitudinal direction away from and perpendicular to the base, the first plate extending away from the base plate farther than the second plate.
First, Khalsa fails to disclose that the base is a base plate. Khalsa discloses a curved base.
Favas teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a base as a base plate, defining a channel with 1st and 2nd plates extending from the base plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the base described by Khalsa as a base plate, as taught by Favas, in order to provide a surface that corresponds to the end surface desired to be engaged to.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Second, Khalsa fails to disclose that the device comprises a plurality of magnets coupled to the first plate on a channel side of the first plate.
Millsap teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device (10) with a plurality of magnets (24) coupled so as to secure the device to a structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device described by Khalsa with magnets, as taught by Millsap, in order to aid in securing the device in place against the desired structure.
As to claim 8, Favas teaches that the first plate further comprises a handle (11) disposed on the side of the first plate opposite the channel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 5,701,768 to Khalsa in view of FR 2596369 to Favas, US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20230010432 to Summerfield.
Khalsa, as modified by Favas and Millsap, fails to disclose that the plates are made from AR500 steel.
Summerfield teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock body (11) that is made from a AR500 steel (par 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the device described by Khalsa, as modified by Favas and Millsap, with a AR500 steel, as taught by Summerfield, in order to aid in the durability and wear resistance of the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 5,701,768 to Khalsa in view of FR 2596369 to Favas, US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat No 7,819,441 to Coman et al (Coman).
Khalsa, as modified by Favas and Millsap, fails to disclose that at least one of the plurality of magnets is a neodymium magnet.
Coman teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a magnetic security device with a magnet that is a neodymium magnet (col 5 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the magnets described by Khalsa, as modified by Favas and Millsap Khalsa, as modified by Favas and Millsap, as a neodymium magnet, as taught by Coman, in order to provide a high magnetic force.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2537551 to Comte et al (Comte) in view of FR 2596369 to Favas and US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap.
PNG
media_image5.png
455
1152
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Comte discloses a theft prevention device for a shipping container (1). The device comprises a channel defined by a base plate (17) having a first side and a second side; and a second plate (18) extending from a second edge of the base plate opposite a first edge of the base plate (where the rod 14 is connected) in the longitudinal direction away from and perpendicular to the first side of the base plate.
First, Comte fails to disclose that the channel is further defined by a first plate extending from a first edge of the base plate in a longitudinal direction away from and perpendicular to the first side of the base plate; and a plurality of magnets to couple to the first plate on a channel side of the first plate.
Comte discloses a rod (14) extending from the first edge, extending perpendicular to the base plate and farther than the second plate.
Favas teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an additional plate, so as to clearly define the channel and provide support to the structure that is positioned in the channel.
Millsap teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a security device (10) with a plurality of magnets (24) coupled so as to secure the device to a structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the channel described by Comte, with an additional plate, as taught by Favas, in order to support to the structure that is positioned in the channel.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide magnets, as taught by Millsap, in order to aid in securing the device in place against the desired structure.
As to claim 8, Favas teaches that the first plate further comprises a handle (11) disposed on the side of the first plate opposite the channel.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2537551 to Comte et al (Comte) in view of FR 2596369 to Favas, US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat No 3,938,839 to Collier.
PNG
media_image6.png
587
322
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claims 2 and 11, Comte discloses that the device further comprises an angle bracket having two perpendicular bracket plates connected along a seam.
However, Comte fails to disclose that one of the bracket plates has an elongate slot disposed therethrough, the elongate slot having a long dimension oriented transverse to the seam; a threaded member extending from a side of the first plate opposite the channel, the threaded member disposed through the elongate slot of the angle bracket, and an internally threaded sleeve disposed around the threaded member, the internally threaded sleeve configured to be tightened against the angle bracket to secure the angle bracket against the first plate so that the other of the bracket plates extends parallel to the base plate.
Comte illustrates that the bracket appears to be welded to a tube (13) and the channel is adjustable by means of the tube (13), a rod (14) and a pin (20).
PNG
media_image7.png
497
814
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Collier teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an angle bracket (6, 7) that is adjustable connected to the device (7) by means of an elongated slot (9), a threaded member (14) and an internal threaded sleeve (17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device described by Comte, as modified by Favas and Millsap, with an angle bracket connection, as taught by Collier, in order to adjustably connect the device to the desired structure at any desired position.
As to claims 3 and 12, Collier teaches that the internally threaded sleeve includes an arm extending from an exterior of the sleeve to provide a moment arm for rotating the sleeve.
As to claims 4 and 13, Collier illustrates that the long dimension of the elongate slot is capable of being about 2 inches.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2537551 to Comte et al (Comte) in view of FR 2596369 to Favas, US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20230010432 to Summerfield.
Comte, as modified by Favas and Millsap, fails to disclose that the plates are made from AR500 steel.
Summerfield teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock body (11) that is made from a AR500 steel (par 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the device described by Comte, as modified by Favas and Millsap, with a AR500 steel, as taught by Summerfield, in order to aid in the durability and wear resistance of the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2537551 to Comte et al (Comte) in view of FR 2596369 to Favas, US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap and further in view of US Pat No 7,819,441 to Coman et al (Coman).
Comte, as modified by Favas and Millsap, fails to disclose that at least one of the plurality of magnets is a neodymium magnet.
Coman teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a magnetic security device with a magnet that is a neodymium magnet (col 5 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the magnets described by Comte, as modified by Favas and Millsap Khalsa, as modified by Favas and Millsap, as a neodymium magnet, as taught by Coman, in order to provide a high magnetic force.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 18-20 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claim 17 above.
Claims 5 and 14 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.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claims 5 and 14 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
March 5, 2026