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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 20-24, 28, 31-36, 38, and 39, the cancellation of claims 1-19, 25, 27, 29, and 30, and the addition of new claim 40 filed November 19, 2025. Claims 26 and 37 are withdrawn. In response to applicant’s remarks that the features of claims 26 and 37 refer to the elected embodiment of Figure 9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Paragraph 29 of the specification, which refers to the non-elected embodiment in Figure 8, states that “the capacitive sensor element 242 is located to be substantially aligned with the extension axis 130 of the bolt 118,” whereas, Paragraph 30 of the specification, which refers to the elected embodiment in Figure 9, states that “the capacitive sensor elements 242 are aligned along a measurement plane/axis 248 that is generally perpendicular to the extension axis 130 of the bolt 118.” Claims 26 and 37 recite that the plurality or a capacitive sensor element is aligned with the extension axis, which is consistent with the language of the description of the non-elected embodiment in Figure 8 and discussed in Paragraph 29 of the specification, and therefore, claims 26 and 37 are still withdrawn. The examiner would also like to note that based on applicant’s amendments to the independent claims, the independent claims are not generic to all species.
Claim Objections
Claims 24, 35, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 24, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the strike assembly includes a base plate coupled to the striker box and defining the opening, and wherein at least one of the measurement planes is positioned at the predetermined distance from the base plate.”
In regards to claim 35, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “further comprising emitting by each of the plurality of capacitive sensor elements of the capacitive sensor, an electrical field within the space of the strike box.”
In regards to claim 36, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein each electrical field extends along a measurement plane within the strike box, such that at least one of the electrical fields corresponds to the predetermined distance that the bolt must reach to define the closed position.”
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 24, 35, and 36 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.
In regards to claim 24, the relationship between the “at least one measurement plane” of claim 24 and the measurement planes of claim 22 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that at least one of the measurement planes of claim 22 is positioned at the predetermined distance from the base, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 35, the claim language suggests that the plurality of capacitive sensor elements emits a single electrical field as a unit, when it is understood from the specification that each of the plurality of capacitive sensor elements emits a corresponding electrical field and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 36, the relationship between the “at least one electrical field” of claim 36 and the electrical fields of the plurality of capacitive sensor elements of claim 35 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that each electrical field extends along a measurement plane within the strike box, such that at least one of the electrical fields corresponds to the predetermined distance that the bolt must reach to define the closed position and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23, 28, 31-34, and 38-40 are allowed.
Claims 24, 35, and 36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 20 and 34, Völler (DE 102013106220 A1) fails to disclose that the capacitive sensor includes a plurality of capacitive sensor elements coupled to one or more of the first side panel, the second side panel, the top panel, or the bottom panel, and wherein the plurality of capacitive sensor elements are spaced along the entire length of the strike box. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Völler without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
In regards to claims 20 and 34, Eichenstein et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0313612) fails to disclose that the capacitive sensor includes a plurality of capacitive sensor elements coupled to one or more of the first side panel, the second side panel, the top panel, or the bottom panel, and wherein the plurality of capacitive sensor elements are spaced along the entire length of the strike box. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Völler without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims, the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments.
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning withdrawn claims 26 and 37, applicant is referred to the examiner’s remarks concerning these claims in Paragraph 2 of the current Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 March 19, 2026