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 Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding all claims: names of components should remain consistent throughout the claim disclosure. For example, in claim 1, Applicant recites “a first pair of oppositely provided sidewalls” but then later refers to this as “the first pair of sidewalls”, when instead it should be “the first pair of oppositely provided sidewalls” in order to maintain clarity throughout the claim disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2: Applicant refers to “the respective faces of the at least one second contact face and the at least one first contact face”. This is redundant as the components are already faces themselves. Claim is corrected below.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower part” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim is rewritten below with corrected forms of antecedent.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower surface” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim is rewritten below with corrected forms of antecedent.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the thickness” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the outer side” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the upper part” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first rim” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the installation hole” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the inner side” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3,7-8,11-14 are rejected based on their dependency on at least one claim above.
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) 1-2,5-8, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Promutico et al. EP 1936018 (hereinafter referred to as Promutico).
Claim 1, Promutico discloses door lock, comprising:
a housing (1,7,8);
a door hook hole body (3) provided on the housing, wherein the door hook hole body comprises a top (annotated figure), a first pair of oppositely provided sidewalls (annotated figure), and a second pair of oppositely provided sidewalls (annotated figure), and the first pair of oppositely provided sidewalls and the second pair of oppositely provided sidewalls are formed respectively by extending downward from a lower part (annotated figure) of the top;
a pair of clamping edges (annotated figure) comprising a first clamping edge (annotated figure) and a second clamping edge (annotated figure), the pair of clamping edges extending outward respectively from the first pair of oppositely provided sidewalls from the top of the door hook hole body;
a groove (annotated figure) formed by upward recessing from a lower surface of the first clamping edge;
a lock head (11a) provided below the groove, wherein the lock head is capable of moving into or out of the groove; and
wherein the housing comprises:
at least one first contact face (annotated figure) and at least one second contact face (annotated figure) are formed by extending from an outer side (which is the outer face of second sidewall; the contact faces extend from the outer side via the inner side of the second sidewall) of the second pair of oppositely provided sidewalls,
the at least one second contact face is formed by extending obliquely downward from a distal end of the at least one first contact face; and
at least one supporting part (annotated figure) formed at a junction of the at least one first contact face and the at least one second contact face. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 2. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 1, wherein: the at least one second contact face is a sloped face that extends downward from the at least one first contact face, and defines an acute angle (annotated figure) formed between
Claim 5. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 1, further comprising: a cantilever (11) that is laterally provided on the housing and is on an outer side (left side of first sidewall) of the first sidewall of the first pair of sidewalls of the door hook hole body, with the lock head provided on an upper part (from fig4a frame of reference, 11a is on the upper part of 11) of the cantilever. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 6. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 5, wherein: a proximal end (end of 11 attached directly to 8 of housing) of the cantilever is connected to the housing, the cantilever extends laterally from the housing (depending on frame of reference), a distal end (end right before 11a is formed)of the cantilever is a free end (considered free end of 11 and then 11a continues to protrude from said ‘free end’), and the lock head is connected to a side of the cantilever adjacent (all sides are adjacent to the distal end) to the distal end. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 7. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 6, wherein: the distal end of the cantilever has an operating part (11b), and by uplifting the operating part, the distal end of the cantilever moves upward, thereby driving the lock head to move upward. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 8. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 6, wherein: the cantilever is elastic, and elastic deformation of the cantilever enables the lock head to move into the groove. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 11. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 1, wherein: the groove has a width (H) capable of accommodating the lock head. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 12. Promutico further discloses the door lock of claim 1, wherein:
the door hook hole body is rectangular (annotated figure);
the door hook hole body is provided with a door hook hole (3a); and
the pair of clamping edges are provided respectively on two sides of the door hook hole body in a length direction (left and right of page). (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 13. Promutico further discloses an electrical device (washing machine, paragraph 1) comprising a panel (5) provided with an installation hole (6), wherein the electrical device comprises:
the door lock of claim 1; and
the door hook hole body of the door lock is installed in the installation hole. (fig1-5b, annotated figure)
Claim 14. Promutico further discloses the electrical device of claim 14, wherein: the electrical device is a washing machine. (fig1-5b, paragraphs 1-5, annotated figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
827
957
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
543
1124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
533
949
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
350
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (NOTE: There is a Double Patenting rejection as well on these claims).
Regarding claim 3, Promutico does not teach the first contact face comes into contact with the installation panel while also having a second contact face extending obliquely downward from said first contact face as described in preceding claim 1. The identified first contact face in Promutico does not come into contact with the installation panel.
Regarding claim 9, the lock head of Promutico is not hung on a first rim (left edge of 6) of the installation hole (6 in Promutico) and does not “catch” said first rim. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12351972. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the claims of the application and claims of the patent disclose a door lock comprising a housing, a door hook hole body with a top, a first pair of sidewalls, a second pair of sidewalls, a pair of clamping edges comprising a first clamping edge and second clamping edge, a groove, a lock head , the housing comprising a first and a second contact face, and a supporting part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to door locks.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 10815691, US 8459065, US 9469932.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Christine M. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights