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 .
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 lock engaging a structure of the storage as claimed in claim 1 and the other lock as claimed in claim 7, must be shown 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4, change “a portion of a storage box” to -a portion of the storage box- since the limitation is already presented in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
394
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite.
First, there is no antecedent of basis for the “second side” claimed or a first side. Second, it is unclear what is this “user side” claimed. It appears that the intention is to claim that the “user side” is an outer side, so that the user can access the lock claimed.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as an outer side. Correction is required.
Claim 6 requires the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
57
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the instant, it is unclear if this plurality of passages is the same or different as the one already in claim 1.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claim will be interpreted as the at least one passage (claim 1) comprises a plurality of passages. Correction is required.
Claim 7 requires the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
57
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the instant, it is unclear how the invention works as claimed.
Claim 1 requires that a rotational locking bar. As shown in the drawings, the only species that has a rotational locking bar is shown in figs 1-8, showing arm 112 configured to rotate. As to figs 9-16, it is unclear how bar 212 is configured to rotate, since it defines top and bottom flanges 216 (fig 9). That species appears to require a sliding motion of the bar 212. And, as shown in fig 10, that species has two locks. Therefore, the limitations of claim 7 can be related to the invention of claim 1.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a very broad interpretation will be given. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 11,964,632 to Rutman in view of US Pat No 2,748,973 to Rockola.
PNG
media_image4.png
744
1473
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rutman discloses a mounting plate for a storage box (34). The mounting plate comprises a rigid plate (30) having a front face having a surface, a back face opposite the front face, and at least one passage (42) through the front face to the back face, the passage shaped and configured to receive a portion (46) of a storage box; and a lock (110) for temporarily locking the storage box to the rigid plate.
Rutman fails to disclose that the lock comprises (a) a key mechanism accessible from an outer side; and (b) a rotatable locking bar positioned on the second side, the rotatable locking bar having a flange, the rotatable locking bar further responsive to an activation of the key mechanism, whereby the flange is configured to engage the storage box when the lock is in a locked configuration.
Rutman discloses a different type of lock that in combination with the passage, are shaped and configured to affix the storage box substantially adjacent the front face of the rigid plate when the lock is in the locked configuration (fig 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
658
577
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Rockola teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock (44) for securing a member to a mounting plate, wherein the lock is a key lock that comprises a locking bar (45) and an arm that will engage a surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lock described by Rutman as a key lock, as taught by Rockola, in order to prevent any undesired removal unless the user has the key.
As to claim 2, Rockola illustrates that the locking bar and flange are capable of being substantially made of a metallic material.
As to claim 3, Rutman illustrates that the rigid plate is capable of being substantially made of a metallic material.
As to claim 4, Rutman discloses that the recess is shaped and configured to receive a protrusion on a storage box.
As to claim 5, Rutman discloses that the recess comprises a ledge (98R) shaped and configured to engage a lower portion of the protrusion on the storage box.
As to claim 6, Rutman discloses that the at least one passage comprises a plurality of passages for receiving a plurality of protrusions on the storage box.
As to claim 8, Rockola teaches that the arm of the lock is configured to engage a flange surface in the member to be locked.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 11,964,632 to Rutman in view of US Pat No 2,748,973 to Rockola and further in view of US Pat No 5,588,631 to Yee.
Rutman, as modified by Rockola, fails to disclose an additional lock operable independently of one another.
Yee teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a mounting device (20) with two locks (56a, 56b) operable independently of one another to lock/unlock a locking bar (31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plate described by Rutman, as modified by Rockola, with an additional lock in order to increase the security of the device.
Applicant is reminded that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
October 6, 2026
