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 .
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 claim 1 “a blocking device” 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Instant specification [00060] discusses a blocking means but does not assign a reference character.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 6, “hinged end” is recited. On lines 5 and 16, “hinge end” is recited. It is US custom to maintain standardized naming for claim limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “hinge end”.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, “the locking stop” is recited. The “the” should likely be an “a” because “a locking stop” was previously recited in claim 8 and claim 11 does not pend from claim 8. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a locking stop”.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 9-10, “the locking segment is rectilinear and comprises in a central area a locking device of a return device” is recited. In the 9/18/25 unamended claim set, claim 1 recites “the locking segment is rectilinear and comprises in a central area a locking means of a return means”. It is unclear what is meant by these limitations in either claim set in view of the contradicting discussions in instant specification paragraphs [00012; 00017; 00018; 00060] where [00060] discusses creating a “blocking means” but earlier recites “ locking means of the return means”. [00017] discusses the return means to be a compression spring but [00018] discusses a locking means rather than a blocking means. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the locking segment is rectilinear and comprises in a central area a blocking device of a return device”.
Regarding claims 2-12, they are rejected because they pend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, line 1-2, “the locking device” is recited. This claim recites structure claimed in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the blocking device”.
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, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weichholdt, US 7051503 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Weichholdt teaches a system (harvesting assembly 10) with a folding connecting rod (pivot link 22; first tube 36; second tube 38; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt) with two segments connecting a frame (brace 40) and a leaf (deflector 30), the system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
450
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt
a locking segment (38) and a free segment (36), each of the locking segment and free segment include a fastening end and a hinge end (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt), the two segments being connected to each other at their hinge end (see claim interpretation under claim 1 Claim Objection) by a rotating axis (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt and Fig 2 depict the hinge ends connected to each other by mounting bolt 50 along pivot axis 24 ), the fastening ends connecting the folding connecting rod and the frame and between the folding connecting rod and the leaf (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt and Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt depict how the fastening ends connect 22;36;38 and 40 and between 22;36;38 and 30);
the locking segment is rectilinear (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt depicts 38 to be rectilinear) and comprises in a central area a blocking device (first ring 58) of a return device (helical biasing spring 60; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt depicts 58 engaging 60 and located away from the ends of 38 towards the center of 38 thereby in a central area of 38; see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection for claim 1);
a free segment comprises a rectilinear portion extending from the hinge end (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt and Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt depicts 36 to comprise a rectilinear portion extending from the hinge end);
a locking slider (hollow cylinder arresting element 56) capable of sliding along the locking segment and the rectilinear portion of the free segment between a release position (Fig 2) wherein the locking slider is carried in its entirety by the locking segment (Fig 3 depicts the release position) and a locking position wherein the locking slider covers the hinge ends (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt depicts the locking position), the return device positioning the locking slider in the locking position (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt depicts 60 positioning 56 in the locking position);
wherein the free segment comprises a curved portion in continuity with the rectilinear portion, the curved portion bringing the locking slider to a stop in the locking position and allowing minimum bulk for the free segment (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt and Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt depict the curved portion of 36 to be in continuity with the rectilinear portion and bringing 56 to a stop in the locking position and allowing minimum bulk for the free segment in the same manner as the instant invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt
Regarding claim 2, Weichholdt teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the return device (60) the locking slider (56) is a compression spring (col 4, lines 7-31; see movement between Fig 2 and Fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, Weichholdt teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the blocking device (58; see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection for claim 3) for the compression spring (60) is a circular stop arranged on the locking segment (38; Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt depicts 58 to be a circular stop).
Regarding claim 4, Weichholdt teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the rectilinear portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Weichholdt) of the free segment (36) is smaller than the locking slider (56; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt depicts the rectilinear portion of 36 to fit inside 56 thereby being smaller than 56) which covers the axis of rotation (24) in the locking position (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Weichholdt depicts the locking position).
Regarding claim 5, Weichholdt teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the free segment (36) comprises a stop (second ring 62) of the locking slider (56).
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.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weichholdt, US 7051503 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoberg et al., US 1552988 A (hereinafter Hoberg).
Regarding claim 6, Weichholdt teaches the system according claim 1, wherein the locking segment (38) comprises a mortise (Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Weichholdt depicts the mortise to be a groove into which the depicted tenon fits thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of mortise and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) and the free segment (36) comprises a tenon (Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Weichholdt depicts the tenon to be a projecting member for insertion into the depicted mortise to make a joint thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of tenon and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) joined by the axis of rotation (24) or vice versa.
PNG
media_image3.png
338
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Weichholdt
Weichholdt teaches a known in the art hinge joint structure but doesn’t teach the mortise and tenon joint structure as is commonly known in the wood working arts.
Hoberg teaches it is known in the art for a locking folding connecting rod (Fig 1) to comprise a locking segment (member 4) and a free segment (member 3), wherein the locking segment comprises a mortise and the free segment comprises a tenon joined by the axis of rotation or vice versa (Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg depict the locking segment 4 comprises a tenon and free segment 3 comprises a mortise joined by the axis of rotation).
PNG
media_image4.png
377
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Weichholdt’s hinge joint structure to be the mortise and tenon type hinge joint structure of Hoberg. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to join two members together at a hinge. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to join two members together at a hinge (e.g. each member providing one knuckle to the joint to be joined by one pin [this is the structure of Weichholdt and Durand, US 0385255 A]; and one member providing two knuckles and the other member providing one knuckle to the joint to be joined by one pin [this is the structure of Hoberg and Blosseville, FR 2892908 A1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign a hinge joint into a mortise and tenon type structure in order to increase the lateral stability of the joint. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Hoberg and Blosseville, and redesigned Weichholdt with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of hinge joint structure.
Regarding claim 7, Weichholdt in view of Hoberg teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the tenon (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) comprises at least one shoulder (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg).
Regarding claim 8, Weichholdt in view of Hoberg teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein at least one shoulder (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) comprises a locking stop (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) in rotating of the free segment (Hoberg, 3).
Regarding claim 9, Weichholdt in view of Hoberg teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein at least one shoulder (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) comprises a step (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) at the end of rotation of the free segment (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg depicts the step to be at the end of rotation of the free segment 3).
Regarding claim 10, Weichholdt in view of Hoberg teaches the system according to claim 7,wherein at least one shoulder (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) comprises a chamfer (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg).
Regarding claim 11, Weichholdt in view of Hoberg teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the mortise (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) comprises at least a right angle (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) against a (see claim interpretation under claim 11 Claim Objection) rotating locking stop (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) when the segments are aligned and at least one round edge (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) which avoids the rotating locking stop (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg).
Regarding claim 12, Weichholdt in view of Hoberg teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the tenon (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) comprises a right corner (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) abutting against a flat (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) between the branches of the mortise (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg) in the locking position and a rounder corner avoiding the flat (see Annotated excerpts Figs 3;4;7-Hoberg).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for XYZ…...
Blosseville, FR 2892908 A1,teaches a screen suspension rod with articulated joint with covering sleeve to lock it in extended position with a locked segment, a free segment, and a locking slider.
Joo, KR 0129575 Y1, teaches a connector for dome type tents with a locked segment, a free segment, and a locking slider.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights