DETAILED ACTION
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 curved lock guard of claim 7 must be shown (or clearly pointed out in the drawings) 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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez, US Patent 5,404,734. As in claim 1, a lock system, comprising: a first mounting bracket for mounting to a first door or gate; a second mounting bracket for mounting to a second door or gate; and a locking bar with a hasp and a hasp opening configured to be slideably received by a locking bar retainer of the first mounting bracket and a second locking bar retainer of the second mounting bracket, wherein the locking bar is configured to be slid through the locking bar retainer and into the second locking bar retainer until a hasp of the locking bar passes through a lock mount opening of a lock mounting portion of the first mounting bracket, and wherein the hasp opening is configured to have a lock bolt passed therethrough to lock the position of the locking bar with respect to the first mounting bracket. As in claim 2, the hasp is configured to be guided into the lock mount opening via an angled hasp guide portion. As in claim 3, a lock is configured to be mounted to the lock mounting portion of the first mounting bracket. As in claim 4, the lock mounting portion is configured to have the lock mounted thereto via one or more threaded fasteners passed through openings in the lock mounting portion. As in claim 5, a slide stop mechanism, wherein the slide stop mechanism prevents the locking bar from being slid out of the second locking bar retainer of the second mounting bracket. As in claim 7, wherein the lock mounting portion further comprises a curved lock guard for covering at least a portion of a lock mounted to the lock mounting portion.
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected with the same or similar reasoning as above.
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 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez.
Regarding these claims, Martinez appears not to show a plurality of clamp brackets for mounting at least one of the first mounting bracket or the second mounting bracket to a tube, as claimed. However, the examiner serves Official Notice that such structure, particular in the art of gate and/or fence post locking arrangements, is very old and well known in the art, for providing effective means of attaching components of the locking arrangement to a posted fence and/or gate. It would have been obvious at the time the effective filing date of the present invention was made for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Martinez in this way, for the purpose of providing effective means of attaching components of the locking arrangement to a posted fence and/or gate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights