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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 and 07/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the terms LOTO, LED, and PIPE in claim 1, APP in claims 5 and 7, and QR in claim 7 need to spelled out at least once. Claims 2-6 are objected to for being dependent on objected based claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter is drawn to a “hardware” and “software” [“computer program"], wherein it is not clearly evident which of the claimed components fall within the claimed software portion/category of the invention.
A claim directed to a computer program is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for inheriting “software” of claim 1.
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 2-7 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and/or idiomatic errors since it is written in an essay format. Furthermore, the claims lack active steps and includes words like “can” which are non-limiting.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkerink et al. (Volkerink; US 2022/0335805) in view of Ho (Ho; US 2018/0209174, and further in view of Derman (Derma; US 2021/0010298).
As per claim 1, Volkerink teaches a digital system with smart padlock for lockout and tagout of hazardous energies, wherein the digital system is a digital LOTO system, which consist of a set of hardware and software, comprising:
an electromechanical padlock (see e.g. para. [0034-35]);
a user application (a user application 722; see e.g. para. [0214]), and
an operation as a digital system (the padlock and other lockout system operations which can run as a digital systems),
wherein the padlock comprises:
a locking shackle (padlock comprising a locking shackle; see e.g. FIG. 24A);
an upper base (any of the surface of the disclosed padlocks can be interpreted as an upper base);
a shackle magnet support (the disclosed padlock may comprise a magnetic sensor, where the shackle is supported; see e.g. para. [0200] and FIGS. 24A-24B);
a motor (see e.g. para. [0076]) with mechanical gearbox (since gears are known in the art of padlocks [see e.g. HO, para. 0004], it would have been obvious to couple the motor to one or more gears in a padlock);
a power supply batteries (one or more batteries; see e.g. para. [0278] [or para. [0032-33] of Ho]);
a central support for the motor and board (one or more internal components are at least supported by one or more support structures, wherein it would have been obvious to support all of the components on a single structure);
a circuit board (it would be obvious to have one or more circuit boards to house one or more of the disclosed circuits; see e.g. para. [0182]);
a central locking support (one or more outer surfaces of disclosed padlock systems of Volkerink [or Ho] can be interpreted as a central locking supports);
a translucent LED button housing (an LED, see e.g. para. [0211] of Volkerink [or LED 7 of Ho and corresponding cover 16, see e.g. FIG. 1]); and
an acrylic PIPE light button and the locking body of the padlock assembly (transparent portion to let light pass, see e.g. para. [0085] of Vokerin [or para. [0020] of Ho], wherein it would have been obvious to make the portion in any shape and/or material based on design requirement or overall size of the system).
Volkerink does not explicitly teach the claimed shackle locking button; a cylindrical neodymium magnet; and an elliptical slider of the shackle locking button located behind the locking button.
Ho, however, teaches a shackle locking button structure (see e.g. para. [0022] and FIG. 1); and an elliptical slider of a shackle locking button located behind the locking button (one or more elliptical slider [which can move using the button or press portion 25] of the shackle locking button structure located behind the button 25; see e.g. FIG. 1). Volkerink and Ho are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of easier opening or closing of the padlock (see e.g. para. [0035]).
Volkerink and Ho do not teach a cylindrical neodymium magnet.
Derman, however, teaches a neodymium magnet (see e.g. col. 10, lines 3-17), wherein it would have been obvious that the magnet is cylindrical or any other shape to fit into housing of the padlock. Volkerinl, Ho and Derman are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing tampering as suggested by Derman.
As per claims 3 and 4, the slider and button of the disclosed system of Ho prevents forced opening since the shackle is doubly locked.
Claims 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkerink in view of Ho, Derman, and further in view of Kalous et al. (Kalous; US 2013/0214903).
As per claim 2, the disclosed system of Volkerink to open or close the lock for as many times as he/she intends, wherein the application is used to configure one or more aspects of the locking mechanism (see e.g. para. [0214]), locking/unlocking for example.
Furthermore, Kalous teaches where locking only occurs after carrying out the procedure of a locking guide, divided by energy types, with each energy having its own procedure, composed of a checklist of performed activities (see e.g. FIG. 8) and a double check by a second employee who will verify the procedure performed (it would have been obvious to require/ask a second employee to check the performed procedure for the benefit of improved safety and/or reliability); where the sum of these procedures forms a Lockout Guide that can only be executed with acceptance of a commitment term with the correct execution of the procedures/guide, which is customizable (the procedures forming lockout guide and reading/accepting one or more associated terms from a plurality of LOTO procedures as disclosed by Kalous).
Volkerink, Ho, Derman and Kalous are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving safety/security or reliability.
As per claim 5, only authorized users can perfume LOTO at a certain location, see e.g. para. [0052] of Kalous, wherein it would be obvious to store the authorized users’ information [using a web platform] in a reader and associated tagged item where LOTO procedure is being carried out.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights