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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18731227 in view of Hanfit (US 20200093625 A1). A table comparing the claims of each application are provided below, wherein the copending application ‘227 portions have been bolded that anticipate the instant application, and language in the instant application has been underlined that is missing and thus taught by the above further references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application 19103431
Copending Application 18731227
Claim 1: An ankle foot orthosis device comprising:
a strut member having an extension portion and footplate portion, wherein the strut member includes a track portion extending along a first side of the extension portion, wherein the extension portion extends up generally perpendicular from the footplate portion;
a housing member configured to house a portion of the extension portion of the strut member, wherein the housing member can move from a first position along the track portion to a second position along the track portion;
an adjustable cuff member removably couplable to the housing member, wherein the adjustable cuff member includes a padded portion and a fastening band; and
a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism is coupled to the housing member and configured to interface with the track portion to lock the housing member at one or more positions along the track portion.
Claim 1: An ankle foot orthosis device comprising:
a strut member having an extension portion and footplate portion, wherein the strut member includes a track portion extending along a first side of the extension portion, wherein the extension portion extends up generally perpendicular from the footplate portion;
a housing member having a cavity formed therethrough configured to house a portion of the extension portion of the strut member, wherein the housing member can move from a first position along the track portion to a second position along the track portion, wherein the track portion includes a lower stop member configured to prevent the housing member from traveling past a pre-determined distance along the extension portion, and wherein the housing member includes one or more locating apertures;
an adjustable cuff member, wherein the adjustable cuff member includes a padded portion and a fastening band; and
a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism is coupled to the housing member and configured to interface with the track portion to lock the housing member at one or more positions along the track portion, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a first surface, a second surface, a first side, second side, a third side, and a fourth side, wherein a first coupling member is formed along the first side and a second coupling member is formed along the third side, wherein the first coupling member and second coupling member are configured to interface with the housing member by approximating an edge of the housing member and wrapping around the edge of the housing member to interface with a second side of the housing member, wherein the track portion includes a plurality of engagement members configured to interface with the locking mechanism and lock the housing member at the one or more positions along the track portion, wherein the first surface of the locking mechanism further includes a first interfacing member and one or more locating members, wherein the first interfacing member is configured to interface with one or more engagement members of the plurality of engagement members and the one or more locating members is configured to interface with the one or more locating apertures.
Claim 2: The device of claim 1, further comprising a curved portion, wherein the curved portion is configured to approximate the radius of a user's ankle and connects the foot plate portion to the extension portion.
Claim 2: The device of claim 1, further comprising a curved portion, wherein the curved portion is configured to approximate the radius of a user's ankle and connects the foot plate portion to the extension portion.
Claim 3: The device of claim 1, wherein the fastening band is configured to wrap around the first side of the housing member, the exterior walls of the adjustable cuff member and a user's leg and is configured to secure the ankle foot orthosis device to a user's leg.
Claim 3: The device of claim 1, wherein the fastening band is configured to wrap around a first side of the housing member, exterior walls of the adjustable cuff member of the user's leg and is configured to secure the ankle foot orthosis device to the user's leg.
Copending application ‘227 lacks an adjustable cuff member removably couplable to the housing member.
However, Hanfit teaches an analogous ankle orthosis 21 (Fig. 1-9) having an analogous housing member 59 (Fig. 1-3) and an analogous adjustable cuff member 55 (Fig. 1-9 and [0036]), wherein the adjustable cuff member is removably couplable to the housing member 59 (Fig. 1 and [0035], straps 55 are threaded through the slits 65 thus are removably coupled to the housing member 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the adjustable cuff member of copending application ‘227 to be removably couplable to the housing member as taught by Hanfit in order to provide easily changeable/removable cuff straps for washing/cleaning (Hanfit [0035] Fig. 1-9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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:
“locking mechanism” in claim 1 (based on the Figures and specification paragraph [0040-0040] the locking mechanism is a sliding lock button that can go between two specific states of locked and unlocked through up and down movement).
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.
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 “wherein the interfacing member is configured to engage one of the plurality of engagement members of the track portion” (claim 9), “wherein the one or more guide members can be positioned within the corresponding one or more channels” (claim 13), “wherein the first portion of the locking mechanism further includes a raised area, wherein the raised area is configured to contact the central member of the second portion when slid from a first position to a second position” (claim 15), “wherein the interfacing member is moved from a first plane to a second plane when contacted by the raised area” (claim 16), “wherein the first portion of the locking mechanism further includes a first groove and a second groove, wherein the first groove is configured to engage the first locking member and the second groove is configured to engage the second locking member when the locking mechanism is in an unlocked position” (claim 19), “wherein one or more of the locking arms can engage the one or more recessed portions when the locking mechanism is in a locked position” (claim 20) 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 Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “wherein the wherein the second portion” should be -wherein the second portion- (remove the first wherein)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, 10, 13, 14 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 1 recites “wherein the locking mechanism is coupled to the housing member and configured to interface with the track portion to lock the housing member at one or more positions along the track portion” wherein of note is the “one or more positions” wherein it is unclear if this may be the same of different from the previous recited “a first position along the track portion to a second position along the track portion”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first side of the housing member" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the exterior walls of the adjustable cuff member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first side of the central member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second side of the central member" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “the corresponding one or more channels” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites “a first channel” and a “second channel” wherein for examining purposes will be “the corresponding one or more channels”.
Claim 14 recites “a locking mechanism” in line 2, wherein claim 1 from which claim 14 depends contains “a locking mechanism” already, wherein further the claims recites “the housing member includes… a locking mechanism”, and the locking mechanism in claim 1 is recited to be coupled to the housing member. As written the claim 14 has lack of clarity since it’s not certain if a new locking mechanism is being introduced with the housing member. For interpretation purposes, the locking mechanism will be interpreted as “the locking mechanism”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanfit (US 20200093625 A1) in view of Santaniello (US 20140207038 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hanfit discloses an ankle foot orthosis device 21 (Fig. 1-9, ankle orthosis boot being walker 21 [0032]) comprising:
a strut member 23 (Fig. 1) having an extension portion 41 (Fig. 1) and footplate portion 39 (Fig. 1), wherein the extension portion 41 extends up generally perpendicular from the footplate portion 39 (Fig. 1);
a housing member 59 (see [0037], Fig 1 and Fig. 3-6) configured to house a portion of the extension portion 41 of the strut member 23 (Fig. 1-9 and [0037], housing member 59 contains a slot that holds/houses the strut member 23 and the extension portion 41 therein);
an adjustable cuff member 55 (Fig. 1) removably couplable to the housing member 59 (Fig. 1 and [0035], straps 55 are threaded through the slits 65 thus are removably coupled to the housing member 59), wherein the adjustable cuff member 55 includes a padded portion ([0041] and Fig. 8, strap 55 forms an engagement area thus being a “padded portion”, wherein this portion overlies with the padded material of the collar assembly [0012]) and a fastening band 55 ([0036] a portion of the straps 55 may be tightened/shortened thus being fastening bands).
Hanfit does not disclose wherein the strut member includes a track portion extending along a first side of the extension portion, wherein the housing member can move from a first position along the track portion to a second position along the track portion, a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism is coupled to the housing member and configured to interface with the track portion to lock the housing member at one or more positions along the track portion.
However, Santaniello teaches an analogous orthotic 100 (Fig. 1A) wherein there is an analogous strut 70 (Fig. 1A and Fig. 2, [0023]) having an analogous extension portion 50 ([0024] the portion with indicia 50 being an extension portion wherein a track 40 will be placed), wherein there is a track portion 40 extending along a first side of the extension portion 50 (Fig. 1A-1B and 2, [0023, 0024]);
there is further an analogous housing member 80 configured to house a portion of the extension portion 50 of the strut member 23 (Fig. 1A-1B and 2),
and an analogous adjustable cuffs 10 attached to the housing member 80 (Fig. 1A and [0023], being padded straps that can have their height adjusted),
wherein the analogous housing member 80 can move from a first position along the track portion 40 to a second position along the track portion 40 (Fig. 2 and [0024] the housing member 80 can be placed at any portion of the track 40 having implicit first and second positions therein), and
a locking mechanism 30 (Fig. 2-4, and [0022-0023, 0028] the locking button 30 and its other components being a slide button locking mechanism), wherein the locking mechanism 30 is coupled to the housing member 80 (Fig. 2) and configured to interface with the track portion 40 to lock the housing member 80 at one or more positions along the track portion 40 (Fig. 3 and [0026] the locking mechanism 30 has a tooth that engages with the track portion to lock the housing member 80 into position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the track 40 and the lock mechanism 30 as taught by Santaniello to the strut member 23 and housing 59 respectively of the orthotic of Hanfit in order to provide micro-adjustable height adjustment to the cuff member therein (Santaniello [0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 1.
Hanfit further discloses a curved portion 29 (Fig. 1, portion 29 of orthotic is shown to have curves), wherein the curved portion 29 is configured to approximate the radius of a user's ankle (Fig. 1, curved portion 29 would cover the user’s ankle radius, thus approximating it therein) and connects the foot plate portion 39 to the extension portion 41 (Fig. 1, portion 29 an intermediary component of the foot plate 39 and extension 41).
Regarding claim 3, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 1.
Hanfit further discloses the fastening band 55 is configured to wrap around the first side of the housing member (112b) (Fig. 8, wraps around the inner side of the housing member 59 being a first side therein), the exterior walls of the adjustable cuff member 55 (Fig. 1, fastening band 55 wraps around itself being “exterior walls”) and a user's leg (Fig. 1, may surround a user’s leg) and is configured to secure the ankle foot orthosis device 21 to a user's leg (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 1.
Santaniello as combined teaches wherein the track portion 40 includes a lower stop member (Annotated Fig. 3, track portion 40 has an indicated stop member that may be viewed as a “lower” stop member) configured to prevent the housing member 80 from traveling past a pre-determined distance along the extension portion 50 (Annotated Fig. 3, as shown the housing member 80 is stopped by the stop member, Fig. 4-5 is at the end of the extension member 50 being where the indicia is).
PNG
media_image1.png
827
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 4.
Santaniello as combined teaches wherein the track portion 40 includes a plurality of engagement members configured to interface with the locking mechanism 30 and lock the housing member 80 at the one or more positions along the track portion 40 (Annotated Fig. 3, locking mechanism has a tooth that mates with the engagement members of the track 40 therein).
Regarding claim 6, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 5.
Santaniello as combined teaches wherein the locking mechanism 30 comprises a first portion 30 (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, being the button 30 [0022]) and a second portion (See Annotated Fig. 4-2, being the bezel [0022])
PNG
media_image2.png
928
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 6.
Santaniello as combined teaches wherein the first portion 30 is configured to be removably coupled to the second portion (bezel) (Fig. 4 and [0028] button 30 is snap-fit into the bezel, being a removable connection therein), and the second portion (bezel) is configured to be removably couplable to the housing member 80 (Fig. 4 and [0028], bezel is snap-fit further into the housing member 80, being a removable connection).
Regarding claim 17, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 1.
Santaniello as combined teaches wherein the locking mechanism 30 is removably couplable to the housing member 80 (Fig. 4 and [0028] the button and bezel making up the locking mechanism each snap fit into the housing member 80).
Regarding claim 18, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 17.
Santaniello as combined teaches wherein the first portion 30 of the locking mechanism 30 is removably couplable to the second portion (bezel) of the locking mechanism 30 (Fig. 4 and [0028], the button, being the first portion, snap fits into the bezel, being the second portion).
Claim(s) 8-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanfit (US 20200093625 A1) in view of Santaniello (US 20140207038 A1), with evidence from Scimone (US 11938644 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Hanfit in view of Santaniello discloses the invention of claim 7.
Santaniello is silent on the first portion of the locking mechanism includes one or more guide members, and one or more locking guides that can have one or more recessed portions (the Figures do not provide a view of the inner side of the first portion 30 of Santaniello).
However, Examiner asserts that Santaniello implicitly provides for the first portion of the locking mechanism includes one or more guide members, and one or more locking guides that can have one or more recessed portions.
Firstly, Examiner notes that the bezel/second portion as depicted in Figure 4-2 is substantially identical to the instant application second portion in Figures 9A-9B, and that the teachings of Santaniello are substantially identical in form and function of how the track functions and even looks structurally (Fig. 1-4), interaction with the strut/track and the housing member (Fig. 1-4), and how the locking mechanism uses a sliding button 30 to lock and unlock the housing member to the track ([0022] and Annotated Fig. 3 and Fig. 4-1) such that if all other structures are identical to Applicant’s disclosure in regards to the locking mechanism and the track, then when one of ordinary skill in the art is constructing the button 30 of Santaniello, that according to Santaniello, the button is recessed into the bezel (see [0026]) there would implicitly be guide members in the first portion/button 30 that mate into the channels of the bezel/second portion (Annotated Fig. 4-2), and even further for there to be locking guides with recessed portions and grooves therein to mate with the indicated respective locking members and locking arms of the bezel/second portion (Annotated Fig. 4-2) in order to lock the button 30 into the either unlocked or locked positions (See Annotated Fig. 4-1 and [0022, 0028]). This is because in order for the button 30 to be recessed into the bezel as shown in Fig. 3 and 4 and still function as a slidable locking button then at least these structures would need to be provided implicitly in order to interact and function with all the structures of the second portion indicated in Annotated Fig. 4-2.
However, secondly, Examiner further provides Scimone for evidence which teaches an analogous sliding button/first portion 350/285 (Fig. 8) and analogous mating bezel/second portion 120/125 (Fig. 8), wherein the sliding button 350/285 has guide members 320/325 that slide into channels 185/190 (Fig. 8) for keeping the structure in sliding configuration and ability (Col. 7 lines 18-37). Further the bezel/second portion 120/125 has first and second grooves 230 and recesses 235 for locking the button/first portion 350/285 locking members/arms 375/380 (Fig. 8) into two different analogous locked/unlocked states as seen in Fig. 1-4, wherein MPEP 2144.VI.A “Reversal of Parts” provides “In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).” such that one of ordinary skill in the art can understand thus the teachings can be reversed herein for having the button/first portion having first and second grooves 230 and recesses 235 and the bezel/second portion having the locking member/arm 375/380 for mating into those grooves and recesses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known that the first portion 30 of Santaniello would implicitly have guide members for mating with the channels of the second portion (See Annotated Fig. 4-2), and recesses/grooves for mating with the locking arms and members (See Annotated Fig. 4-2) for locking the sliding button into two different states as needed according to Annotated Fig. 4-1.
PNG
media_image3.png
835
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 8.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the second portion of the locking mechanism 30 includes a central member extending down from a first top edge of the second portion 30 pre-determined distance (See Annotated Fig. 4-2, wherein the central member extends down from a top edge therein a pre-determined implicit distance),
wherein an interfacing member is formed at a first end of the central member (See Annotated Fig. 3, the interfacing member being the tooth described in [0026]),
wherein the interfacing member is configured to engage one of the plurality of engagement members of the track portion 40 (See Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 9.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the second portion further includes a first channel formed on the first side of the central member and a second channel formed on the second side of the central member (See Annotated Fig. 4-2).
Regarding claim 11, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 10.
Santaniello as combined further teaches the wherein the second portion further includes a first locking arm having a first locking member, and a second locking arm having a second locking member (See Annotated Fig. 4-2).
Regarding claim 12, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 11.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the first portion 30 of the locking mechanism 30 is slidable within a recessed area of the second portion of the locking mechanism (See Annotated Fig. 3) between a first position and a second position (See Annotated Fig. 4-1 and [0026, 0022], wherein the button/first portion is recessed into the bezel/second portion, and slides within the shown recessed area between a first and a second position being lock and unlocked positions).
Regarding claim 13, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 12.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the one or more guide members can be positioned within the corresponding one or more channels (see discussion in claim 8 above, such that Santaniello teaches with evidence from Scimone implicitly having guide members of the first portion mated with the channels of the second portion as seen in Annotated Fig. 4-2).
Regarding claim 14, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 13.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the housing member 80 includes a cavity configured for receipt of the strut member 70 and the locking mechanism 30 (Fig. 3, the housing member 80 has a cavity that receives the locking mechanism 30 as well as the strut 70/track 40 therein).
Regarding claim 15, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 13.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the first portion 30 of the locking mechanism 30 further includes a raised area (See Annotated Fig. 3),
wherein the raised area (See Annotated Fig. 3) is configured to contact the central member of the second portion when slid from a first position to a second position (See Annotated Fig. 3 and [0035] where in the locked position the tooth is forced down into the track, but allowed to “float” when in the unlocked position).
Regarding claim 16, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 15.
Santaniello as combined further teaches wherein the interfacing member (See Annotated Fig. 3) is moved from a first plane to a second plane when contacted by the raised area (See Annotated Fig. 3 and [0035] where in the locked position the tooth is forced down into the track by the indicated raised area, going from floating in a first plane to being depressed into a second plane).
Regarding claim 19, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 15.
Santaniello as combined with evidence from Scimone further teaches wherein the first portion 30 of the locking mechanism further includes a first groove and a second groove, wherein the first groove is configured to engage the first locking member and the second groove is configured to engage the second locking member when the locking mechanism is in an unlocked position (see discussion in claim 8 above wherein Santaniello is viewed as implicitly teaching having grooves being first and second grooves, similar to grooves 230 of Scimone, that would mate with the first and second locking members, similar to locking members/arms of Scimone, as indicated in Annotated Figure 4-2 when in an unlocked position, evidenced by Scimone is that a sliding button that has two states to be locked into as indicated in Annotated Figure 4-1 of Santaniello, when the bezel already includes shown locking members substantially identical to the shown second portion of the instant application, the button would have first and second grooves on each side that would be able to mate with the shown locking members to be locked into the unlocked state therein as discussed by Santaniello in [0023] and recessed into the bezel as discussed in [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, Hanfit in view of Santaniello and Scimone discloses the invention of claim 15.
Santaniello as combined with evidence from Scimone further teaches wherein one or more of the locking arms (See Annotated Fig. 4-2) can engage the one or more recessed portions when the locking mechanism is in a locked position (see discussion in claim 8 above wherein Santaniello is viewed as implicitly teaching having recessed portions, being similar to that of the recessed portions 235 discussed in Scimone, that would mate with the first and second locking arms as indicated in Annotated Figure 4-2 when in an locked position, similar to that of the locking arms 375 of Scimone, further evidenced by Scimone is that a sliding button that has two states to be locked into as indicated in Annotated Figure 4-1 of Santaniello, when the bezel already includes shown locking members substantially identical to the shown second portion of the instant application, the button would have first and second grooves on each side that would be able to mate with the shown locking members to be locked into the unlocked state therein as discussed by Santaniello in [0023] and recessed into the bezel as discussed in [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786