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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/04/2026 has been entered.
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) 29-34, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AU 2004201336 to Long.
Regarding claim 29, Long discloses:
A lock assembly (fig 1), comprising: a lock (22) having a locked mode (position where 22 is in fig 2) and an unlocked mode (position where 22 is in fig 3); a latch (12) having a disengaged position (fig 5) and an engaged position (fig 1); a deadbolt (13) having a disengaged position (fig 4) and an engaged position (fig 1), wherein when the lock is in the locked mode, the deadbolt is able to be moved from the disengaged position to the engaged position (movement from fig 2 to fig 1), wherein the deadbolt is configured to be moved between the engaged position and the disengaged position by rotation of a drive hub (16), and wherein the latch is configured to be moved from the engaged position to the disengaged position by rotation of the drive hub (see col 3 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 30, Long discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 29, wherein when the lock is in the unlocked mode, the deadbolt is able to be moved from the disengaged position to the engaged position (movement from fig 3 to fig 1).
Regarding claim 31, Long discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 29, wherein when the lock is in the locked mode, the deadbolt is not able to be moved from the engaged position to the disengaged position (fig 1, 14 cannot move to the disengaged position).
Regarding claim 32, Long discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 29, further comprising a deadbolt lock (46) having an engaged position (fig 1) in which the deadbolt is retained in an engaged position (fig 1).
Regarding claim 34, Long discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 32, wherein the deadbolt lock is configured to move into a disengaged position when the lock is moved into an unlocked mode (movement from figure 1 to figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 15-16, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6651466 to Shih in view of US 8234892 to Laverty et al (Laverty).
Regarding claim 1, Shih discloses:
A lock assembly (fig 1), comprising: a drive hub (2) configured to be rotated in a first angular direction (figs 2 and 3); a latch (3) having a latch engaged position (fig 2); a lock (5) having a locked mode (fig 2); a first locking member (55) configured such that, when the lock is in the locked mode, the first locking member retains the latch in the latch engaged position (see fig 2); and a second locking member (51) configured such that, when the lock is in the locked mode, the second locking member prevents the drive hub from rotating in the first angular direction (see fig 2), and a housing of the lock assembly (1); wherein the first locking member and the second locking member are part of a locking arm (55 and 5 create a locking arm that locks 3) having a lock engaged position (fig 2).
Shih does not explicitly disclose: wherein the latch comprises a latch chassis and the first locking member is configured to abut an end of the latch chassis when the locking arm is in the lock engaged position, and wherein the latch chassis sits within the housing of the lock assembly.
However, Laverty teaches that it is well known in the art for a latch (260) to comprise a latch chassis (263) and the first locking member (241) is configured to abut an end (261) of the latch chassis when the locking arm is in the lock engaged position (fig 10), and wherein the latch chassis sits within the housing (130). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Laverty into Shih at least because doing so would provide direct control over the latch, thereby increasing safety.
Regarding claim 4, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the drive hub comprises a drive cam (21) which translates rotation of the drive hub to movement of the latch (see movement between figs 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 4, wherein the second locking member abuts the drive cam when the lock is in the locked mode (fig 2, 51 abuts 21).
Regarding claim 6, Shih discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the drive hub causes the latch to move from the latch engaged position (fig 2) to a latch disengaged position (fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the lock engages a lock actuator (113, Laverty), the lock actuator being linked to a locking arm (421, fig 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Laverty into Shih at least because doing so would provide added control over the lock by providing an actuator.
Regarding claim 10, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 9, wherein moving the lock into the locked mode causes the lock actuator to move the locking arm into a locked position (rotating 113 to a locked mode causes 421 to move into locked position seen in fig 6, Laverty).
Regarding claim 11, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 9, wherein moving the lock into an unlocked mode causes the lock actuator to move the locking arm into an unlocked position (fig 7, Laverty).
Regarding claim 13, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 1, further comprising a deadbolt (4) having an engaged position (fig 2) further comprising a deadbolt lock (25) having a locked position (fig 2 in which the deadbolt lock is configured to retain the deadbolt in the engaged position (251 of 25 engages notch 41 of 4 to retain it in the engaged position).
Regarding claim 15, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 13, wherein the deadbolt lock is biased towards the locked position (via 26).
Regarding claim 16, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
The lock assembly of claim 13 wherein the deadbolt lock is configured to be moved into an unlocked position when the lock is in an unlocked position (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 38, Shih in view of Laverty discloses:
A door (not shown, see col 1 lines 10-12) comprising a lock assembly (fig 1) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6651466 to Shih in view of in view of US 8234892 to Laverty et al (Laverty), and in further view of US 5765410 to Kwan et al (Kwan).
Regarding claim 12, Shih in view of Laverty does not explicitly disclose:
The lock assembly of claim 1, further comprising a shootbolt actuator, wherein the shootbolt actuator comprises a third locking member configured to prevent the latch moving into a latch disengaged position when the shootbolt actuator is in a shootbolt engaged position.
However, Kwon teaches that it is well known in the art for: the shootbolt actuator (61) to comprise a third locking member (16) configured to prevent the latch moving into a latch disengaged position (retracted position) when the shootbolt actuator is in a shootbolt engaged position (extended position. While 61/62 are in the extended position, 3 cannot retract. See col 6 lines 63-67 and col 7 lines 1-11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kwan into Shih in view of Laverty at least because doing so would provide added security to the latch and door.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2004201336 to Long in view of US 6651466 to Shih.
Regarding claim 33, Long does not explicitly disclose:
The lock assembly of claim 32, wherein the deadbolt lock is biased into the engaged position
However, Shih teaches that it is well known in the art for a deadbolt lock (4) to be biased into the engaged position (via 26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shih into Long at least because doing so would provide added security by securing the deadbolt in the engaged position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 29 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights