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 filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After further consideration, Applicant's amendments do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from Peterseim and Erfinder for at least the reason that both teach a metallurgical bond as in Peterseim para 35 describes heat treatment is from 1000-1300C which would produce a metallurgical bond and Erfinder describes heating fuse the self-fluxing alloy and metal base together in paras 36 and 50. Furthermore, Erfinder teaches a track at least as Erfinder teaches “detectable evidence (such as the wake of a ship, a line of footprints, or a wheel rut) that something [in this case the sprayer] has passed” – Merriam-Webster. The claims do not require the track(s) to be in a line. Furthermore, the argument regarding three different material zones are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as they describes welding but fail to claim the conditions of such welding which would determine its structure (i.e. details of an intermixed zone).
Double Patenting
The previous double patenting rejections are overcome by the present terminal disclaimer.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been overcome however new issues have become apparent.
Claims 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 4, “the cut-resistant particles” should just read “the particles”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterseim WO 2013017525 A1 (hereinafter Peterseim).
In regards to claim 1, Peterseim teaches a security device (1) in which a metallic elongate body (3) has at least one end attachable (described as a padlock) to a lock unit (2), wherein the metallic elongated body has at least one track (5) extending longitudinally on a surface thereof (see fig 3), a material of the track including particles of a hard cut-resistant material (para 20) dispersed in a self-fluxing matrix (material used and para 11 describe a self-fluxing matrix) of lower melting point than that of the body (body described as tempered steel; the fusible alloy is described at lower temperatures in para 11 then it’s melting point) and comprising one of nickel (para 16), iron (para 34), or cobalt in composition with chromium, silicon, and boron (para 34), each track being metallurgically bonded (para 35 describes heat treatment is from 1000-1300C which would produce a metallurgical bond) by welding (Note: The italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and define 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. Since Peterseim teaches the track(s) coupled to the elongated body, the end result is the same regardless of the method used to bond the elongated body and the track).
In regards to claim 4, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein a material of the cut- resistant particles comprises at least one of tungsten carbide (para 20), silicon carbide, or an industrial or synthetic diamond.
In regards to claim 5, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the particles are in a spherical form (rounded particles).
In regards to claim 7, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the particles are in cast and crushed form (edged particles are described para 20, cast and crushed particles have an edged from therefore the edged particles of the prior art read on this limitation).
In regards to claim 14, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the metallic elongate body includes a circular (see fig 2), square (in some segments), or polygonal cross section.
In regards to claim 18, Peterseim teaches a padlock comprising the security device according to claim 1, wherein the metallic elongate body is the padlock shackle (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 20, Peterseim teaches security device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one track comprises a plurality of tracks (see fig 3).
In regards to claim 22, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 20, wherein the metallic elongate body defines an original outer cross-sectional shape (see fig 3c and fig 2), the plurality of tracks being applied to a surface (inner most surface of 3) of the metallic elongate body defining (at least a portion) the original outer cross-sectional shape (see fig 1) such that the plurality of track extending outwardly from the surface (extend outwardly from the inner most surface, note fig 2).
In regards to claim 23, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the metallic elongate body defines an original outer cross-sectional shape (see fig 2), the at least one track being applied to a surface inner most surface of 3) of the metallic elongate body defining (at least partially) the original outer cross-sectional shape (see figs 2a-2b).
In regards to claim 24, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 23, wherein the at least one track extends outwardly from the surface defining the original outer cross-sectional shape (extend outwardly from the inner most surface, see fig 2).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erfinder DE 102010047020 A1 (hereinafter Erfinder).
In regards to claim 1, Erfinder teaches a security device in which a metallic elongate body (lock cylinder body, see fig 4) has at least one end attachable to a lock unit (lock plug), wherein the metallic elongated body has at least one track extending longitudinally on a surface thereof (considering the covering as at least one track), a material of the track including particles of a hard cut-resistant material (tungsten carbide see para 28) dispersed in a self-fluxing matrix (para 26) of lower melting point than that of the metallic elongate body and comprising one of nickel (para 29), iron, or cobalt in composition with chromium, silicon, and boron (para 29), each track being metallurgically (see fig 1 and paras 36 and 50) bonded to the metallic elongate body by welding (Note: The italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and define 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. Since Erfinder teaches the track(s) coupled to the elongated body, the end result is the same regardless of the method used to bond the elongated body and the track).
In regards to claim 2, Erfinder teaches the security device according to claim 1, wherein the material of the track is bonded to the surface of the body by one of laser welding and laser cladding (Note: The italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation; see above).
In regards to claim 3, Erfinder teaches the security device according to claim 2, wherein the self-fluxing matrix includes a ceramic material (para 26 “ceramics”).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Findeisen et al. US 6682580 B2 (hereinafter Findeisen).
In regards to claim 6, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 5.
However, Peterseim is silent on the size of the particles 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 Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Shrestha RU 2609114 C2 (hereinafter Shrestha).
In regards to claim 8, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 7.
However, Peterseim is silent on the particle size and there fails to teach the 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 Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Berglund EP 2740553 A1 (hereinafter Berglund).
In regards to claim 9, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Peterseim is silent on what vol percent the particles makeup of the track. The particles comprise 40- 65% by volume of the material of the 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 Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Draca US 3552938 A (hereinafter Draca).
In regards to claim 10, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Peterseim does not teach on wherein a plurality of tracks of the at least one track extend contiguously side by side to fully clad the metallic elongate body. Although this appears it may be the case from fig 3 and para 38.
Draca teaches a body fully cladded with a similar protective material (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have a plurality of tracks of Peterseim extend contiguously side by side to fully clad the body in order to ensure maximum protection of the body.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Himself
In regards to claim 12, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Peterseim does not teach wherein said at least one 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, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Peterseim does not teach wherein said at least one 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.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Abrahams US 20240344367 A1 (hereinafter Abrahams).
In regards to claim 15, Peterseim 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 (paras 28-30 describe a padlock, padlocks have opening to receive the shackle), and wherein a track of material having particles of a hard cut-resistant material dispersed in a self-fluxing matrix comprising one of nickel (para 16), iron (para 34), or cobalt in composition with chromium, silicon, and boron (para 34) is metallurgically bonded with the lock unit (para 42).
However, Peterseim is silent on how the track would be applied to the lock unit and thus does not teach the track around the boundary of the opening.
Abrahams teaches a similar device with a track (7) attached to the lock unit around (as in in the vicinity of) the boundary of an opening (42, or 52; see figs 4 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided a track around the boundary of the opening such as in Abrahams in order to provide for a high level of protection to be achieved with a minimal use of the high performance material (Abrahams para 37).
In regards to claim 16, Peterseim in view of Abrahams teaches the security device according to claim 15 wherein the material of the cut- resistant particles in the track around the opening comprises at least one of tungsten carbide (para 20), silicon carbide, or an industrial or synthetic diamond.
In regards to claim 19, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 1.
However, Peterson does not teach the security device is a part of a D-lock wherein each end of the metallic elongate body is adapted to engage a locking bar.
Abrahams teaches a D lock (see fig 8 and para 2) each end of the element (41 and 51) is adapted to engage a locking bar (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Peterseim’s teachings applied to a D-lock in order to more conveniently allow the locking of a bike (para 13).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterseim as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Shwayder et al. US 3777517 A (hereinafter Shwayder).
In regards to claim 21, Peterseim teaches the security device according to claim 20.
However, due to unclear drawings, Peterseim is silent on wherein each track of the plurality of tracks is separate and spaced apart from every other track of the plurality of tracks. However, Peterseim does teach multiple parallel tracks (see fig 3c).
Shwayder teaches a similar device with tracks equally spaced apart (Col 3 lines w 26-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have each track of the plurality of tracks is separate and spaced apart from every other track of the plurality of tracks, such as in Shwayder, in order to protect the shackle from more angles while not using as much expensive material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blankenship et al. US 20100086702 A1 – teaches laser cladding.
Gnanamuthu US RE29815 E – teaches similar cladding.
Findeisen US 20030037639 A1 – teaches a similar material.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675