Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/856,225

DOOR LOCK ASSEMBLY WITH KEYLESS HANDLE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jul 01, 2022
Examiner
IGNACZEWSKI, JAMES EDWARD
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Assa Abloy Access And Egress Hardware Group Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
161 granted / 199 resolved
+28.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
216
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
40.7%
+0.7% vs TC avg
§102
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 199 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 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) 1-7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barker (US 20190136581 A1). Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches a door lock system, comprising: a handle (51) attached to an outer spindle (53) extending along a lock axis (unlabeled handle axis visible in fig. 2); a locking block (522) disposed in the handle, wherein the locking block is moveable along the lock axis between a first position (fig. 11) and a second position (fig. 10); and a lock spindle (52) configured to engage a portion of the locking block to move the locking block from the first position to the second position (fig. 11 to fig. 10). Regarding claim 2, Shen teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the locking block (522) is biased to the first position (biased to fig. 11 by spring 50). Regarding claim 3, Shen teaches the door lock system of claim 2, wherein the locking block is biased to the first position via a spring (50). Regarding claim 4, Shen teaches the door lock system of claim 1, further comprising a handle catch (543) moveable between an engaged position (fig. 11) and a disengaged position (fig. 10), wherein when the handle catch is in the engaged position, the handle catch is configured to secure the handle to the outer spindle (fig. 3), and when the handle catch is in the disengaged position, the handle can be removed from the outer spindle (fig. 10). Regarding claim 5, Shen teaches the door lock system of claim 4, wherein the handle catch can only move from the engaged position to the disengaged position when the locking block is in the second position (fig. 3 to fig. 10; the handle catch 543 can only be moved to the disengaged position by the locking block when the handle is installed because there is no other access to it). Regarding claim 6, Shen teaches the door lock system of claim 1, further comprising a spindle coupler (32a, 32b) disposed between the outer spindle and a backplate (3) configured to be attached to a door, wherein the lock spindle (52) is slidingly disposed in an opening (32a) in the spindle coupler along the lock axis (fig. 3). Regarding claim 7, Shen teaches the door lock system of claim 6, wherein the lock spindle (52) and the opening (32a) have complementary non-circular shapes. Regarding claim 11, Shen teaches a method of removing a handle from a door lock system, the method comprising: biasing a locking block (522) disposed in a handle (51) in a first direction (to the right in figure 11) along a lock axis to a first position (fig. 3) with a portion of the door lock system (50), wherein when the locking block is in the first position, a first portion (523) of the locking block is positioned adjacent a catch (532) that secures the handle to an outer spindle (53); moving the locking block along a lock axis in a second direction (to the left in fig. 11), opposite the first direction, from the first position to a second position (fig. 10), wherein when the locking block is in the second position, a second portion (bottom of 523) of the locking block is positioned adjacent the catch; and moving the catch from an engaged position to a disengaged position (fig. 10). Regarding claim 12, Shen teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising removing the handle (fig. 10). Regarding claim 13, Shen teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising disposing a spring (50) in the handle on an outer side of the locking block to bias the locking block to the first position. Regarding claim 14, Shen teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising: biasing (spring 50) a lock spindle (52) disposed in an opening (32a) of a spindle coupler along the lock axis in the first direction; and exerting a force on the lock spindle in the second direction (fig 10) to slide the lock spindle in the second direction (fig. 10) to exert a force on the locking block in the second direction and move the locking block to the second position (fig. 10). Regarding claim 15, Shen teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising removing an escutcheon (58) of the door lock system from a door to access the lock spindle (fig. 2). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-10, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing notches along the length of the lock spindle and ridges within the spindle coupler configured to engage with the notches. This limitation is not taught by Shen and would be improper hindsight to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 9-10 contain allowable subject matter for disclosing that the spindle is biased toward a third position in which the lock spindle does not engage the locking block. Based on the examiner’s interpretation of Shen’s door lock system, the spindle is always engaged with the locking block. Claim 16 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the lock spindle is moved in the second direction until notches in the locking block align with ridges in the opening of the spindle coupler. Shen’s locking block does not align ridges with the spindle coupler and it would be improper hindsight to modify Shen’s lock to include this feature. Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the locking block has a larger diameter on the first portion than the second portion. Shen’s locking block has a larger diameter on the second portion to withdraw the handle catch. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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 JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (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. /J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 07, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 10, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 16, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 08, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601206
MOTOR VEHICLE LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595684
ELECTRONIC DOOR LOCK WITH UP-PUSHED LOCKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595689
MOTOR VEHICLE LOCK, IN PARTICULAR MOTOR VEHICLE SIDE DOOR LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590477
MOTOR VEHICLE LOCK, IN PARTICULAR MOTOR VEHICLE DOOR LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584348
LIFT-AND-SLIDE HANDLE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-3.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 199 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month