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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114179943 to Peng.
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses:
A lock (fig 3), comprising: a power source (51); a driving block (42) connected to the power source in a transmission manner (via 422), the driving block capable of moving between a first position (when 42 is retracted and 424 abuts 64 as seen in fig 8) and a second position (when 42 is extended and 424 does not abut 64 as seen in fig 8) under a drive of the power source; a driven assembly (41,43) comprising a driven block (43) and a latching tongue (41) connected to each other, the driven assembly capable of moving between a locking position (when 41 is extended) and an unlocking position (when 41 is retracted); and an elastic transmission component (45) connected between the driving block and the driven block in a transmission manner (see fig 3), wherein when the driving block is disposed on the second position, the elastic transmission component has a tendency to drive the driven assembly to move to the locking position (fig 3, 45 is biased to the locking position); and the driven block is provided with a groove (see G in figure produced below), a part of the elastic transmission component is disposed in the groove (fig 3), the driving block is provided with an accommodating groove (421) along an axis of the elastic transmission component and an abutting groove (groove of 42 that 45 connects to) in communication with the accommodating groove, a part of the driven block is inserted into the accommodating groove, and at least part of the elastic transmission component protruding from the groove is located in the abutting groove (fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 1, wherein when the driving block moves between the first position and the second position, the driving block is capable of moving along an axis of the elastic transmission component (see fig 3); and/or, when the driven assembly moves between the locking position and the unlocking position, the driven assembly is capable of moving along an axis of the elastic transmission component (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 1, wherein the elastic transmission component is disposed on a path (horizontal axis) where the driving block moves from the first position to the second position and from the second position to the first position (45 is on the horizontal axis where 42 moves on); and the elastic transmission component is disposed on a path (horizontal axis) where the driven block moves from the locking position to the unlocking position and from the unlocking position to the locking position (45 is on the horizontal axis where 42 and 43 move on).
Regarding claim 9, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 1, further comprising an elastic component (44), wherein the elastic component is configured to act on the driven assembly, the elastic component has a tendency to drive the driven assembly to move to the unlocking position (44 biases 41 to the extended position and thereby applies a force on 43 pushing it back to the unlocked position).
Regarding claim 10, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 1, further comprising a housing (right half of 1), wherein the driving block and the driven block are both disposed in the housing (fig 2), when the driven block is disposed on the locking position, at least part of the latching tongue extends outside the housing (41 extends into the left half of 1 as seen in fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 10, wherein a gap (gap that 42 moves in) is defined between the driving block disposed on the first position and an inner wall (inner wall of left half of 1) of the housing, the driving block is capable of moving along an extending path of a path where the driving block moves from the second position to the first position (when 42 slides along the path); and/or a gap is defined between the driving block disposed on the second position and an inner wall of the housing, the driving block is capable of moving along an extending path of a path where the driving block moves from the first position to the second position.
Regarding claim 12, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 11, further comprising a transmission gear set (52), wherein the transmission gear set is connected to the power source and the driving block in a transmission manner (fig 3), the driving block is provided with teeth (422) configured to be engaged with the transmission gear set (via 522); when the driving block moves along the extending path of the path where the driving block moves from the second position to the first position and/or from the first position to the second position, the teeth is capable of being detached from the transmission gear set (when 42 is in the second position, 422 is capable of being detached from 522).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114179943 to Peng.
Regarding claim 7, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 1, further comprising a first position detecting component (46), wherein the first position detecting component is disposed on a side (bottom side) of a path (horizontal axis as seen in fig 2) where the driven assembly moves between the locking position and the unlocking position, the first position detecting component is configured to be triggered when the driven assembly is disposed on the locking position (46 is abutted by 42 via 424 in the locking position);
Peng does not explicitly disclose: the first position detecting component is configured to be triggered when the driven assembly is disposed on the unlocking position. However, Pend does teach triggering 46 in the locking position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a detecting component that is triggered in the unlocking position rather than the locking position at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a detecting component. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 8, Peng discloses:
The lock of claim 7, wherein the first position detecting component is disposed on an extending path (bottom area) of a path (horizontal axis) where the driven assembly moves from the locking position to the unlocking position, and the driven assembly abuts against the first position detecting component when the driven assembly is disposed on the unlocking position (as per the 103 rejection above).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114179943 to Peng in view of WO 2019098180 to Masubuchi.
Regarding claim 13, Peng does not explicitly disclose:
A bicycle, comprising a frame, a rear wheel, a hook and a lock disc, wherein the hook is connected between the frame and the rear wheel, the lock disc is coaxially and rotatably disposed with the rear wheel, the bicycle further comprises the lock of claim 1, the lock is connected to the hook, and a periphery of the lock disc is provided with at least one locking hole fitting with the latching tongue.
However, Masubuchi teaches that it is well known in the art for: A bicycle (1), comprising a frame (3), a rear wheel (7), a hook (43) and a lock disc (9b), wherein the hook is connected between the frame and the rear wheel (fig 1), the lock disc is coaxially and rotatably disposed with the rear wheel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Masubuchi into Pend at least because doing so would provide additional utility by allowing the lock of Peng to be used in different situations, including a bike tire. As per the combination, Peng in view of Masubuchi discloses: the bicycle further comprises the lock of claim 1, the lock is connected to the hook (43 of Masubuchi connects to 41 of Peng as per the combination), and a periphery of the lock disc is provided with at least one locking hole fitting with the latching tongue (see opening of 3 that 41 enters, Peng).
Regarding claim 14, Peng in view of Masubuchi discloses:
The bicycle of claim 13, wherein a periphery (front end of 41) of the latching tongue is provided (via 42) with a restricting groove (422), the lock further comprises a movable restricting assembly (61), the restricting assembly fits with the restricting groove of the latching tongue disposed at the unlocking position, the restricting assembly is capable of moving relative to the latching tongue to partially insert into the restricting groove and retract from the restricting groove (612 is moved up and down to restrict/unrestrict 42 and 41).
Regarding claim 15, Peng in view of Masubuchi discloses:
The bicycle of claim 14, further comprising a kickstand (21) rotatably connected to the frame, wherein the kickstand is capable of rotating between a retracted position (fig 7) and a standing position (fig 6), the restricting assembly is disposed on a path where the kickstand moves from a standing position to the retracted position (62 is disposed on the top end of 21, see figs 6 and 7), resulting in the restricting assembly is driven to partially insert into the restricting groove during a process of the kickstand moving to the retracted position (movement between figs 7 and 6, see 63, 64, and 61 moving downwards and being partially inserted as 21 rotates from fig 7 to 6).
Regarding claim 16, Peng in view of Masubuchi discloses:
The bicycle of claim 14, further comprises a first elastic reset component (spring seen at the bottom of 64 in fig 6), wherein the first elastic reset component is capable of acting on the restricting assembly and has a tendency to drive the restricting assembly to retract from the restricting groove (spring of 64 biases 64 to the retracted position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that 43 does not have a groove on its back, see G on the figure produced above. The spring does not hang in the air, but rather attaches to a groove on 43 and a groove on 42.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the whole sliding block 43 is disposed in the accommodating groove and that the claim recites a part of the driven block, Examiner notes that the recitation of “a part of the driven block” does not necessitate “only” a part. A part of 43 is indeed inserted into the accommodating groove, and if Applicant wishes to mean only a portion is disposed, then it needs to be claimed. Therefore, Rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
