DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment filed on 06 July 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 26-49 are pending.
Claim 1 was amended.
Claims 26-49 were added.
Claims 2-25 were cancelled.
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 27, 28, 30, 37, 43, and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 27, the phrase “wherein portion” should read “wherein a portion”
In line 1 of claim 28, the phrase “cable connected” should read “cable is connected”
In claim 30, the phrase “wherein the first hinged door has an interior surface when closed” is redundant to claim 1 and should be deleted
In line 2 of claim 30, the term “ortogonal” should read “orthogonal”
In claim 37, the phrase “wherein the first hinged door has an interior surface when closed” is redundant to claim 31 and should be deleted
In claim 43, the phrase “wherein the first hinged door has an interior surface when closed” is redundant to claim 38 and should be deleted
In line 2 of claim 49, the term “orothogonal” should read “orthogonal”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 26-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osburn et al. (US 20170191293 A1), herein referred to as Osburn, in view of Van Gompel (US 4057274 A).
Regarding claim 1, Osburn discloses a locking system (see fig 6) for a cargo container [Note: The italicized limitation recites an intended use for the locking system and does not hold patentable weight. It is the position of the examiner that the locking system disclosed by Osburn could be applied to a variety of structures, including a cargo container.], said lock system comprising: an enclosed space (see fig 6) with an interior (shown in fig 6), an exterior (space on the other side of doors 156 and walls 10; see fig 6), and at least a first (left 156 as viewed in fig 6) and a second (right 156 as viewed in fig 6) hinged door arranged in a double door manner relative to each other at one end of the enclosed space (see fig 6), each door having an exterior surface (opposite the surfaces shown in fig 6) and an interior surface (surfaces shown in fig 6); at least one cable (136; see paragraph 0034) connected to the first hinged door (at 160b) and at least one interior surface of the container (at 102), said at least one interior surface not being disposed on the first hinged door (see fig 6); and a pulling device (104) operable to increase and decrease tension in the at least one cable between the connection of the at least one cable to the first hinged door and the at least one interior surface of the container (see at least paragraphs 0008 and 0009).
Osburn teaches that the locking device is adaptable to any door (see paragraph 0006), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the enclosed space is a cargo container.
Van Gompel, however, teaches that it is known in the art of door locking devices to use a locking device (see fig 1) to prevent unauthorized entry to mobile storage areas (i.e., cargo containers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosed space disclosed by Osburn to be a cargo container as taught by Van Gompel in order to achieve the known and expected result of preventing unauthorized entry to the cargo container.
Additionally, Osburn does not explicitly disclose wherein the first hinged door is adapted to pull the second hinged door inward as the at least one cable is tensioned.
Van Gompel, however, teaches that it is known in the art of door locking devices for double doors (11, 12) to include an overlap (see fig 2) such that the first hinged door is adapted to pull the second hinged door inward as the doors close. The purpose for including the overlap is to achieve greater security to the enclosed space by reducing accessible entry points into the enclosed space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the double doors disclosed by Osburn with an overlap as taught by Van Gompel in order to achieve greater security to the enclosed space by reducing accessible entry points into the enclosed space.
Regarding claim 26, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the cable is also connected to the first hinged door at a location different than the location of the first connection to the first hinged door, the second connection being farther from the pulling device in terms of cable length than both the first connection to the first hinged door and the connection to the interior surface of the container.
However, additional points of connection for the cable would be understood to provide further stability to the cable and increase the ability of the pulling device to apply force to the doors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the cable to the first hinged door at a second connection point in order to provide additional stability to the cable and to increase the ability of the pulling device to apply force to the doors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Please note given the modification to Osburn, one of the connections will necessarily be farther from the pulling device in terms of cable length as required.
Regarding claim 27, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 1, wherein portion of the at least one cable extends across at least part of the width of the interior surface of the second hinged door without touching the interior surface of the second hinged door (see Osburn fig 6).
Regarding claim 28, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 27, wherein the at least one cable connected to the second hinged door (at 160a; see Osburn fig 6).
Regarding claim 29, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 1, wherein the cargo container has an interior volume for storing cargo (see Van Gompel col 1, lines 21-24 and figs 1 & 2), and the pulling device is located in the interior volume (per rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 30, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 29, wherein the first hinged door has an interior surface when closed (per rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the pulling device is located within an ortogonal projection of the interior surface of the first hinged door when closed.
However, Osburn discloses that the pulling device can be mounted at any number of locations on the wall or floor as long as the device is not accessible to an intruder should a portion of the door be compromised (see at least paragraphs 0009, 0039, and 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have located the pulling device within an orthogonal projection of the interior surface of the first hinged door when closed in order to reduce the amount of cable needed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 31 is rejected as applied to claims 1 and 27 above, with Osburn further disclosing a first coupler (160b) adapted to connect the at least one cable to the first hinged door (see fig 6) and a second coupler (102) adapted to connect the at least one cable to at least one interior surface of the container (see fig 6).
Regarding claim 32, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 31, wherein increasing the tension in the at least one cable pulls the first hinged door toward the interior of the container (as a result of the tension; see at least paragraphs 0047 & 0049 in Osburn).
Regarding claim 33, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 32, wherein the first hinged door is adapted to pull the second hinged door inward as the at least one cable is tensioned (per rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 34 is rejected as applied to claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 35, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 31, further comprising a fourth coupler (Osburn 160a) adapted to connect the at least one cable to the second hinged door (see Osburn fig 6).
Regarding claim 36, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 31, wherein the cargo container has an interior volume for storing cargo (see Van Gompel col 1, lines 21-24 and figs 1 & 2), and the pulling device is located in the interior volume (per rejection of claim 1).
Claim 37 is rejected as applied to claim 30 above.
Claim 38 is rejected as applied to claims 1 and 31 above.
Claim 39 is rejected as applied to claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 40, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 38, wherein a portion of the at least one cable extends across at least part of the width of the interior surface of the second hinged door when it is closed without touching the interior surface of the second hinged door (see Osburn fig 6).
Regarding claim 41, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 38, further comprising a fourth coupler (Osburn 160a) adapted to connect the at least one cable to the second hinged door (see Osburn fig 6).
Regarding claim 42, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 38, wherein the cargo container has an interior volume for storing cargo (see Van Gompel col 1, lines 21-24 and figs 1 & 2), and the pulling device is located in the interior volume (per rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 43, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 42, wherein the first hinged door has an interior surface when closed (per rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the pulling device is located within a parallel projection of the interior surface of the first hinged door when closed.
However, Osburn discloses that the pulling device can be mounted at any number of locations on the wall or floor as long as the device is not accessible to an intruder should a portion of the door be compromised (see at least paragraphs 0009, 0039, and 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have located the pulling device within a parallel projection of the interior surface of the first hinged door when closed in order to reduce the amount of cable needed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 44 is rejected as applied to claims 1 and 29 above.
Regarding claim 45, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 44, further comprising a second hinged door arranged in double door manner relative to the first hinged door at one end of the cargo container, each hinged door having an exterior surface and an interior surface (per rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 46, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 45, wherein a portion of the at least one cable extends across at least part of the width of the interior surface of the second hinged door without touching the interior surface of the second hinged door (see Osburn fig 6).
Regarding claim 47, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 46, wherein the at least one cable is also connected to the second hinged door (at 160a).
Regarding claim 48, Osburn (in view of Van Gompel) discloses the locking system of claim 45, wherein the first hinged door is adapted to pull the second hinged door inward as the at least one cable is tensioned (per rejection of claim 1).
Claim 49 is rejected as applied to claim 30 above.
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 and 26-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 19/349,709 (allowed but not yet issued). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claims overlap in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses locking devices relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
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 Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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, Namrata Boveja, can be reached on (571) 272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights