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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the first portion and the second portion of the locking actuator as separate elements of the locking actuator”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the mapping of the linear coupling mechanism, and the first and second portions and the linear coupling mechanism is improper. In response to the argument “swivel-pin 19 cannot be both the locking actuator and linear coupling mechanism while the driving arm 18 is also both the locking actuator and linear coupling mechanism” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require the linear coupling mechanism to be separate from the first and second portions. The examiner would also like to note that from the original disclosure it appears 210B may be integral with one of the portions of a locking actuator. Also, in the claims the locking actuator is divided into portions which allows both the swivel pin 19 and driving arm 18 to be considered portions of a locking actuator.
Further the examiner respectfully disagrees Cardozo does not teach “wherein a linear coupling mechanism is disposed between the first portion and the second portion for releasably coupling the first portion to the second portion”. From the figure the swivel pin 19 is a screw and when the screw head is releasably detached the first and second portions are detached. The head of 19 would not need to be releasable from the rest of 19 nor would the coupling member of 18 need to be releasable from the rest of 18 to meet this limitation. Also, the examiner would like to note the term "releasably" doesn't exclude destroying a component to disconnect the two.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and 2) as being anticipated by Cardozo US 4237710 A (hereinafter Cardozo).
In regards to claim 1, Cardozo teaches a locking mechanism for a door (abstract), the locking mechanism comprising: a central locking component (16) configured to engage one or more locking actuators (5-7, 15 and 18-19); a mortise lock (24) linearly coupled to a locking actuator (portion of 19 contacting 16 and a portion of 18, see reference image 1) of the one or more locking actuators of the central locking component (see figure), wherein the locking actuator of the one or more locking actuators comprises a first portion (portion of 19 contacting 16) coupled to the central locking component and a second portion (the portion of 18 see reference image 1) coupled to the mortise lock, wherein a linear coupling mechanism (a portion of 19 including the head of 19 and a portion of 18 with the hole for 19; see reference image 1) is disposed between the first portion and the second portion (see the fig) for releasably coupling the first portion to the second portion (see the fig), wherein the linear coupling mechanism is linearly aligned with the first portion (at least as the head of 19 falls on the same line as the first portion) and the second portion (at least the second coupling member falls on the same line; see reference image 1) and comprises a first coupling member (a portion of 19 including the head of 19) and a second coupling member (portion of 18 with the hole for 19) that is releasably secured to the first coupling member and wherein the mortise lock comprises a mortise locking projection (3) configured to be moved between a locked position and an unlocked position (see figure); and at least one locking projection (portions of 5-7 engaging 8-8’’), wherein the at least one locking projection is configured to be moved between a locked position and an unlocked position via movement of a respective one of the one or more locking actuators (see the figure), wherein the mortise lock and the at least one locking projection are configured to synchronously move between the respective locked and unlocked positions in response to movement of the central locking component (see the figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 2, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 1, wherein the mortise lock is configured to be removeable from the central locking component (see the figure, can be removed by removing the nut of 17 and the screws 19 and 15).
In regards to claim 3, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 1, wherein the locking actuator is coupled to at least one of the at least one locking projection (at least indirectly through 16).
In regards to claim 6, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 1 further comprising a lock activation component (9) configured to move the mortise lock and the at least one locking projection between the locked position and the unlocked position (Col 3 lines 3-18).
In regards to claim 7, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 1 further comprising a lock engagement mechanism (11), wherein the lock engagement mechanism is configured to activate the central locking component in response to actuation of the lock engagement mechanism (see the figure and Col 3 lines 3-18).
In regards to claim 8, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 7, wherein the lock engagement mechanism comprises at least one of a sliding lock (considering one of 5-7 a sliding lock and not an actuator) or handle (10, considering the key a handle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardozo in view of Wolfe US 1152776 A (hereinafter Wolfe).
In regards to claim 4, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 1.
However, Cardozo does not teach wherein at least two locking projections are in communication with a first locking actuator of the one or more locking actuators.
Wolfe teaches at least two locking projections (8 and 9) are in communication with the same locking actuator (10’) of the one or more locking actuators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have made an actuator of Cardozo also actuate at least two locking projections (such as in Wolfe) in order to provide for more locking projections, thereby increasing security.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardozo in view of Gower US 0512022 A (hereinafter Gower).
In regards to claim 5, Cardozo teaches the locking mechanism of Claim 1.
However, Cardozo does not teach wherein at least one of the one or more locking actuators are configured to attach to a bell crank, such that the bell crank is operably coupled to at least one of the at least one locking projection.
Gower teaches one or more locking actuators are configured to attach to a bell crank, such that the bell crank is operably coupled to at least one of the at least one locking projection (see reference image 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference image 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have made an actuator of Cardozo attach to a bell crank attached to a locking projection (such as in Gower) in order to provide for more locking projections, thereby increasing security.
Claim(s) 9-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardozo in view of Deiler US 20140360416 A1 (hereinafter Deiler).
In regards to claim 9, Cardozo teaches a locking mechanism for a door (abstract), the locking mechanism comprising: a central locking component (16) configured to engage one or more locking actuators (5-7 and 18); a mortise lock (24) linearly coupled to a locking actuator (portion of 19 contacting 16 and a portion of 18, see reference image 1) of the one or more locking actuators of the central locking component (see figure), wherein the locking actuator of the one or more locking actuators comprises a first portion (portion of 19 contacting 16) coupled to the central locking component and a second portion (the portion of 18 see reference image 1) coupled to the mortise lock, wherein a linear coupling mechanism (a portion of 19 including the head of 19 and s portion of 18 with the hole for 19) is disposed between the first portion and the second portion (see the fig) for releasably coupling the first portion to the second portion (see the fig 1), wherein the linear coupling mechanism is linearly aligned with the first portion (at least as the head of 19 falls on the same line as the first portion) and the second portion (at least the second coupling member falls on the same line; see reference image 1) and comprises a first coupling member (a portion of 19 including the head of 19) and a second coupling member (portion of 18 with the hole for 19) that is releasably secured to the first coupling member, and wherein the mortise lock comprises a mortise locking projection (3) configured to be moved between a locked position and an unlocked position (see figure); at least one locking projection (portions of 5-7 engaging 8-8’’), wherein the at least one locking projection is configured to be moved between a locked position and an unlocked position via movement of a respective one of the one or more locking actuators (see figure), wherein the mortise lock and the at least one locking projection are configured to synchronously move between the respective locked and unlocked positions in response to movement of the central locking component (see the figure) at least one jamb assembly (8, 2 and 4) configured for being positioned within a frame of the doorway (see the fig), the at least one jamb assembly defining a plurality of openings (8”, 2 and 4) configured for receiving the at least one locking projection (see the fig).
However, Cardozo does not teach a security door comprising: a door frame configured for use within a doorway; at least one door panel attached to the door frame.
Deiler teaches a security door comprising: a door frame (32) configured for use within a doorway (see fig 4); at least one door panel (at least one of 12, 14, 16,18, 20 and 22) attached to the door frame (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Cardozo on a security door with a frame, such as in Deiler in order to provide shelter in the event of an armed attack (Deiler: para 11)
Thus, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches and wherein the central locking component is attached to one of the at least one door panel and the mortise locking projection and the at least one locking projection are configured to protrude from the door frame in the locked position (as Cardozo’s mortise locking projection and at least locking projection protrude from the door to engage 4 and 8-8’’).
In regards to claim 10, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9, wherein the door frame comprises a top door frame component (Deiler 34), a bottom door frame component (Deiler 36), a hinge side door frame component (Deiler one of 38), and an opening side door frame component (Deiler the other of 38, see figs 2 and 4), wherein, in the locked position, at least one of the mortise locking projection or the at least one locking projection is configured to protrude from at least two of the top door frame component, the bottom door frame component, the hinge side door frame component, or the opening side door frame component (Cardozo teaches locking projections on hinged side, top and bottom).
In regards to claim 11, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9, wherein the mortise locking projection and the at least one locking projection are configured to be perpendicular to the door frame (see Cardozo’s figure).
In regards to claim 12, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9, wherein the door frame comprises a first door panel (Deiler 12) configured to be attached to the door frame on a first side (Deiler see fig 2) and a second door panel (Deiler 22) configured to be attached to the door frame on a second side, wherein the second side is disposed opposite the first side (Deiler see fig 2).
In regards to claim 13, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9 wherein the at least one locking projection is disposed within the security door in the locked position (see Cardozo’s figure).
In regards to claim 14, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9, wherein the door frame is configured to be received by the doorway (Deiler: 100) wherein the doorway comprises one or more receiving components (Cardozo: 4 and 8-8’’), wherein at least one of the mortise locking projection or the at least one locking projection is configured to be received by a respective one of the one or more receiving components (Cardozo: see figure).
In regards to claim 15, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9, wherein the mortise lock is configured to be removeable from the central locking component (see the figure, can be removed by removing the nut of 17 and the screws 19 and 15).
In regards to claim 16, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9, wherein the locking actuator is coupled to at least one of the at least one locking projection (at least indirectly through 16.
In regards to claim 18, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9 further comprising a lock activation component (Cardozo: 9) configured to move the mortise lock and the at least one locking projection between the locked position and the unlocked position (Cardozo: Col 3 lines 3-18).
In regards to claim 19, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9 further comprising a lock engagement mechanism (11), wherein the lock engagement mechanism is configured to activate the central locking component in response to actuation of the lock engagement mechanism (see the figure and Col 3 lines 3-18).
In regards to claim 20, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 19, wherein the lock engagement mechanism comprises at least one of a sliding lock (considering one of 5-7 a sliding lock and not an actuator) or handle (10, considering the key a handle).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardozo in view of Deiler as applied to claims 9-16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Wolfe.
In regards to claim 17, Cardozo in view of Deiler teaches the security door of Claim 9.
However, Cardozo does not teach wherein at least two locking projections are in communication with same locking actuators of the one or more locking actuators.
Wolfe teaches at least two locking projections (8 and 9) are in communication with a first locking actuator (10’) of the one or more locking actuators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have made an actuator of Cardozo also actuate at least two locking projections (such as in Wolfe) in order to provide for more locking projections, thereby increasing security.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights