DETAILED ACTION
In view of the appeal brief filed on 12 November 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018160703 (WO ‘703). As in claim 1, a storage device for storing a key, the storage device comprising a housing 12; a blocking structure 42, the blocking structure being stationary relative to the housing; a carrier 20 for carrying a key, the carrier being movable relative to the housing between a closed position, in which the carrier is accommodated within the housing, and an open position, in which the carrier at least partly protrudes from the housing for retrieval of a key from the carrier, the carrier comprising a blocking member 44 and a biasing device 49 arranged to bias the blocking member into engagement with the blocking structure in the closed position; and an actuator M comprising a locking structure 50, the actuator being arranged to move the locking structure between a locking position to block the blocking member from disengaging the blocking structure, and an unlocking position in which the blocking member is not blocked by the locking structure from disengaging the blocking structure against the bias of the biasing device. As in claim 2, the blocking member is arranged to be disengaged from the blocking structure by moving the carrier from the closed position towards the open position when the locking structure adopts the unlocking position (at least via the biasing device). As in claim 3, the carrier comprises a seat, wherein the biasing device is arranged to bias the blocking member away from the seat, and wherein an opening for receiving the locking structure is established between the seat and the blocking member at least when the blocking member engages the blocking structure (see figures 4 and 5). As in claim 4, the biasing device comprises a spring. As in claim 10, the carrier comprises a side wall, and wherein the blocking member protrudes with respect to the side wall when engaging the blocking structure. As in claim 11, the biasing device is arranged to bias the blocking member at a center point thereof so that the blocking member uniformly engages the blocking structure. As in claim 12, the housing comprises a holding structure, and wherein the biasing device is arranged to bias the blocking member into engagement with the holding structure in the open position. As in claim 16, when the carrier is in the closed position, the key is unretrievable from the carrier. As in claim 17, when the carrier is in the open position, the carrier partly protrudes from the housing.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018160703 (WO ‘703).
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘703 suggest explicitly that the blocking member (44) maybe be of a variety of suitable shapes, although may not explicitly teach an elongated engaging surface. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such a modification is not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. One reason one skilled in the art may elected an elongated shape may be to provide more securing contact surfaces, thereby providing a more secure connection against tampering.
Claims 6-9 are rejected using similar reasoning as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15, as best understood, are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims of record 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
This action is non-final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675