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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 6/9/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species of Figs. 1-12, 16-20 in the interview held 9/16/26 is acknowledged (interview summary attached).
Currently Claims 1-20 are pending, with Claims 1-12 under examination and Claims 13-20 withdrawn from consideration.
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 biaser operably engaging with the piston to bias the piston to the locked position” in Claim 4 (interpreted as 26, ex. [0065])
“a retainer operably engaging with the biaser and the base and the outer tube for retaining the biaser and the piston inside of the base” in Claim 4 (interpreted as 28 [0066], or 128 [0087], or 328 [0096], or 428 [0099])
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.
Examiner notes on Claim Interpretation:
In Claim 1, “at least one latch mechanism operably engaged with the base inside of at least one locking passageway defined in the base; wherein the at least one latch mechanism is configured to lock the inner tube with the base and the outer tube, collectively, at the retracted position” was considered for interpretation under 112(f) however the presence of “latch” was considered to connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein when the outer tube is in the retracted position, the at least one latch mechanism is free from being under load.” This is indefinite. For example, in applicant’s specification at [0078] the latched position is described as (begin excerpt/):
As the locking end 22b of each piston 22 reaches the end of the ramp 12e, the respective biaser 26 continues to apply an outward force on the piston 22 so that the piston 22 automatically locks the outer tube 14 and base 16 with inner tube 12 at the annular groove 12d (see FIG.8D). It should be noted that the piston 22 is also considered to be in the locked position once the locking end 22b of a respective piston 22 is positioned inside of the annular groove 12d of inner tube 12 and engages with at least one internal surface or wall that defines the annular groove 12d of inner tube 12.
(/end excerpt)
See also Fig. 8D for example. Piston 22 (part of the latch mechanism) would seem to be under load in the retracted position as both the biaser 26 is pushing the piston 22 towards the tube 12 and the surface 22b is contacting the tube 12. The claimed scenario (“free from being under load”) is not understood as this appears to be opposite to the disclosed scenario (that the latch mechanism is under load).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 12, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter (US 2493875).
Regarding Claim 1,
A locking cylinder, comprising:
an inner tube (24, Figs. 1-4);
an outer tube (10 in Fig. 1 or 41 in Fig. 4) slideably engaged with the inner tube between a retracted position and an extended position;
a base (20 in Fig. 1 or 43, 36, 38 in Fig. 4) removably engaged with the outer tube and is in communication with the inner tube to partially receive the inner tube in the retracted position; and
at least one latch mechanism (with 51) operably engaged with the base inside of at least one locking passageway (Figs. 1, 3, 4) defined in the base;
wherein the at least one latch mechanism is configured to lock the inner tube with the base and the outer tube, collectively, at the retracted position (Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 2,
The locking cylinder of claim 1, wherein when the outer tube is in the retracted position, the at least one latch mechanism is free from being under load (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3,
The locking cylinder of claim 1, wherein when the outer tube is in the extended position, the at least one latch mechanism is under load (from fluid in cylinder and from springs 53) and is free from engaging with the inner tube.
Regarding Claim 4,
The locking cylinder of claim 1, wherein the at least one latch mechanism further comprises:
a piston (51) moveably engageable inside the base between a locked position and an unlocked position relative to the inner tube;
a biaser (53) operably engaging with the piston to bias the piston to the locked position; and
a retainer (50) operably engaging with the biaser and the base and the outer tube for retaining the biaser and the piston inside of the base.
Regarding Claim 5,
The locking cylinder of claim 4, wherein the piston comprises:
a locking end (part engaging with 60) operably engageable with the inner tube;
a non-locking end (part engaging with 53) opposite to the locking end and operably engages with the biaser; and
a shoulder (part of 51 engaging with 56) positioned between the locking end and the non-locking end to engage with the base when the piston locks the inner tube with the outer tube and base, collectively.
Regarding Claim 7,
The locking cylinder of claim 5, wherein the piston further comprises:
a cavity (for 53) defined between the non-locking end and a base surface of the piston that is positioned between the locking end and the non-locking end and configured to engage with the biaser;
wherein the cavity is configured to house a portion of the biaser (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8,
The locking cylinder of claim 4, wherein the at least one latch mechanism further comprises:
an annular channel (for 52) defined in the piston at a position between the locking end and non-locking end; and
a seal (52) operably engaging with the piston inside of the annular channel and with an internal surface of the base inside of the at least one locking passageway.
Regarding Claim 11,
The locking cylinder of claim 1, wherein the inner tube comprises:
a first end (right side in Figs. 1 and 4);
a second end (left side in Figs. 1 and 4) opposite to the first end and housed inside of the base when the outer tube and the base, collectively, are at the retracted position;
an annular groove (58’) defined between the first end and the second end; and
a ramp (part of 59) extending from the second end to the annular groove;
wherein a piston of the at least one latch mechanism is configured to ride along the ramp and engage with the inner tube inside of the annular groove when the outer tube translates from the extended position to the retracted position (Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 12,
The locking cylinder of claim 1, wherein when the outer tube is in the retracted position, the at least one latch mechanism is free from being under a hydraulic load (Figs. 1 and 4, ex. Col. 4, lines 61-73); and
wherein when the outer tube is in the extended position, the at least one latch mechanism is under the hydraulic load and is free from engaging with the inner tube (ex. Col. 4, line 73-Col. 5, line 5).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Liu et al. (US 4635563).
Regarding Claim 6, Hunter teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the non-locking end engages with and is housed inside of the biaser.
Liu teaches
For a locking cylinder (ex. Fig. 1),
wherein the non-locking end (end at left, example annotation below) engages with and is housed inside of the biaser (70).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since both references are directed to locking cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-locking end and biaser of Hunter to be arranged as taught by Liu in order to provide an alternative construction of a non-locking end and biaser that would perform with predictable results that provides the added benefit of guiding the biaser from the inside of the biaser when assembling.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Fabyan et al. (US 4784037)
Regarding Claim 9, Hunter teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the at least one latch mechanism further comprises:
a first end of a latch plate operably engaging with the retainer;
a second end of the latch plate operably engaging with the biaser; and
a passage defined between the first end and the second end and is in fluid communication with the at least one locking passageway of the base.
Fabyan teaches
For a locking cylinder (Figs. 1-2),
wherein the at least one latch mechanism further comprises:
a first end of a latch plate (example annotation below) operably engaging with a retainer;
a second end of the latch plate (example annotation below) operably engaging with a biaser (50); and
a passage (example annotation below) defined between the first end and the second end and is in fluid communication with the at least one locking passageway of the base.
PNG
media_image2.png
385
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since both references are directed to locking cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retainer of Hunter to use a retainer and latch plate as taught by Fabyan in order to provide alternative manner of securing the biaser and piston in place with predictable results with the added benefit of providing venting of the biaser space, thereby reducing the possibility of a malfunction of the piston due to pressure buildup because of trapped fluid.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Caldwell (US 2685275).
Regarding Claim 10, Hunter teaches
The locking cylinder of claim 1, wherein the latch mechanism comprises:
a piston (51) moveably engageable inside the base between a locked position and an unlocked position relative to the inner tube;
a first biaser (53) operably engaging with the piston to bias the piston to the locked position; and
a retainer (50) operably engaging with the first biaser, and the base for retaining the first biaser, the and the piston inside of the base.
Hunter does not teach
a second biaser operably engaging with the piston to bias the piston to the locked position and housed inside of the first biaser
a retainer operably engaging with the first biaser, the second biaser, and the base for retaining the first biaser, the second biaser, and the piston inside of the base.
Hunter teaches one biaser and associated elements but not a second biaser.
Caldwell teaches
For a locking cylinder,
a first biaser (outer one of 17, Fig. 1) operably engaging with a piston (15) to bias the piston to the locked position,
a second biaser (inner one of 17) operably engaging with the piston to bias the piston to the locked position and housed inside of the first biaser,
a retainer (4) operably engaging with the first biaser, the second biaser, and the base for retaining the first biaser, the second biaser, and the piston inside of the base.
Since both references are directed to locking cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biaser of Hunter to also include a second biaser as taught by Caldwell in order to provide a redundant biaser thereby improving the resilience of the system against malfunction and also providing the opportunity to further adjust the biaser (spring) response characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention related to locking cylinders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
