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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. GB 2176526 A (hereinafter Cahill) in view of Abrahams US 20240344367 A1 (hereinafter Abrahams), Seals US 10828865 B1 (hereinafter Seals).
In regards to claim 1, Cahill teaches a security device in which a metallic elongate body (1) has at least one end attachable to a lock unit, wherein the metallic elongate body has an outer surface (see fig 1) defining an outermost surface profile of the metallic elongate body (circular profile) and wherein the metallic elongate body has a plurality of tracks (3) at least one track extending longitudinally along the outer surface (see fig 1 and abstract), the plurality of tracks comprising raised projections extending outwardly relative to the outermost surface profile of the metallic elongate body on a surface thereof (see fig 1), a material of the plurality of tracks including particles of a hard cut-resistant material (tungsten carbide, page 2 lines 76-91) dispersed in a self-fluxing matrix of lower melting point than that of the metallic elongate body (nickel chromium boride has a lower temperature than steel) and comprising one of nickel, iron, or cobalt in composition with chromium, and boron (in the case of nickel with chromium boride), each track of the plurality of tracks being metallurgically bonded to the metallic elongate body by welding (3 is described as weld deposits; although Cahill teaches welding, Note: the italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, only the end result see MPEP 2113).
However, Cahill is silent on the at least one end of the metallic elongate body being attachable to a lock unit.
Abrahams teaches a metallic elongate body (7) being attachable to a lock unit (8) at one end (see fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have at least one end of the metallic elongate body being attachable to a lock unit in Cahill, such as in Abrahams in order to prevent bicycle theft.
Additionally, Cahill does not teach silicon in the matrix.
Seals teaches the use of silicon in a similar matrix to enhance the wear properties of the reinforced materials (see Col 14 lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Cahill’s matrix include silicon in order to enhance the wear properties of the reinforced materials (Seals: see Col 14 lines 8-16).
In regards to claim 2, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the material of each track is bonded to the surface of the metallic elongate body by one of laser welding and laser cladding (Note the italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation; see above; Since Cahill teaches the track metallurgically bonded, the end result is the same regardless of the method used to metallurgically bond the elongated body and the track).
In regards to claim 3, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 2.
However, Cahill does not teach wherein the self-fluxing matrix includes a ceramic material.
Seals teaches a ceramic used in a reinforced material in order to improve abrasive wear resistance (Col 12 lines 25-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Cahill’s matrix with a ceramic material in order to improve abrasive wear resistance.
In regards to claim 4, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein a material of the particles comprises at least one of tungsten carbide, silicon carbide, or an industrial or synthetic diamond (Cahill page 2 lines 76-91).
In regards to claim 12, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Cahill is silent on wherein each track includes a maximum thickness of 2mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one track include a maximum thickness of 2mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 13, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Cahill does not teach wherein each track includes a width in a range of 3-10mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one track include a width in the range 3-10mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 14, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the metallic elongate body includes a circular (Cahill: see fig 1), square, or polygonal cross section.
In regards to claim 15, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein said at least one end of the metallic elongate body is attachable to the lock unit by entering an opening therein (Abrahams 42 or 52, see fig 4).
However, Cahill does not teach and wherein a track of material having particles of a hard cut-resistant material dispersed in a self-fluxing matrix comprising one of nickel, iron, or cobalt in composition with chromium, silicon, and boron is metallurgically bonded with the lock unit around the boundary of the opening.
Abrahams teaches a track 7 bonded with the lock unit around the boundary of the opening (in the vicinity of, see fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided at least a track of Cahill metallurgically bonded to the lock unit around the boundary of the opening in order to further protect a bike lock from attack (Abrahams: para 35).
With the modification above in mind it logically follows that the track of material (on the lock unit) has particles of a hard cut-resistant material dispersed in a self-fluxing matrix comprising one of nickel, iron, or cobalt in composition with chromium, silicon, and boron, as this is what is already used in the tracks of the elongated body.
In regards to claim 16, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 15 wherein the material of the particles in the track around the opening comprises at least one of tungsten carbide (Cahill: tungsten carbide, page 2 lines 76-91), silicon carbide, or an industrial or synthetic diamond.
In regards to claim 18, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches a padlock comprising the security device according to claim 1, wherein the metallic elongate body is a padlock shackle (as per modification with Abrahams).
In regards to claim 19, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches a D-lock comprising the security device according to claim 1, wherein each end of the metallic elongate body is adapted to engage a locking bar (Abrahams: 10).
In regards to claim 21, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches security device according to claim 1, wherein each track of the plurality of tracks is separate and spaced apart from every other track of the plurality of tracks (Cahill, see fig 1).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals as applied to claims 1-4, 12-16, 18-19, and 21 above, and further in view of Peterseim et al. WO 2013017525 A1 (hereinafter Peterseim).
In regards to claim 5, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Cahill does not teach wherein the particles are in a spherical form.
Peterseim teaches hard to cut particles are in a spherical form (para 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the particles in a spherical form in order to cause an attacking tool to slip (Peterseim para 20).
In regards to claim 7, Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Cahill does not teach wherein the particles are in cast and crushed form.
Peterseim teaches hard to cut particles are in cast and crushed form (“edged particles” para 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the particles in cast and crushed form in order to damage an attacking tool (Peterseim para 20).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals as applied to claims 5 and 7 above, and further in view of Findeisen et al. US 6682580 B2 (hereinafter Findeisen).
In regards to claim 6, Cahill in view of Abrahams, Seals, and Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 5.
However, Cahill is silent on the particle size and therefore does not teach wherein the particle size varies in a range of 50 - 160μm.
Findeisen teaches similar spherical particles between 20 and 250 μm (Col 2 lines 59-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particle size varies in the range 50 - 160μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals as applied to claims 5 and 7 above, and further in view of Findeisen et al. US 6682580 B2 (hereinafter Findeisen).
In regards to claim 8, Cahill in view of Abrahams, Seals, and Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 7.
However, Cahill is silent on the particle size and therefore does not teach wherein dimensions of the particles vary between 50 and 200μm.
Shrestha teaches similar particles varying in size between 74 μm to 177 μm (para 82).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimensions of the particles vary between 50 and 200μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals as applied to claims 1-4, 12-16, 18-19, and 21 above, and further in view of Berglund EP 2740553 A1 (hereinafter Berglund).
In regards to claim 9, Cahill in view of Abrahams, and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Cahill does not teach wherein the particles comprise 40-65% by volume of the material of each track.
Berglund teaches a similar material with similar particles making 30-70 vol %.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particles comprise 40- 65% of the track material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill in view of Abrahams and Seals as applied to claims 1-4, 12-16, 18-19, and 21 above, and further in view of Gnamuthu US RE29815 E (hereinafter Gnamuthu).
In regards to claim 10, Cahill in view of Abrahams, and Seals teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Cahill does not teach wherein the plurality of tracks extend contiguously side by side to fully clad the metallic elongate body.
Gnamuthu teaches a plurality of tracks (12, 14, 16, see fig 2) extend contiguously side by side to clad the metallic elongate body (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the plurality of tracks extend contiguously side by side to fully clad the metallic elongate body in Cahill in order to further increase the wear, deformation and corrosion resistance of Cahill’s elongated body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights