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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 March 2026, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 13 and 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the locking device taught by Underwood (US-11795737-B2) operates in a fundamentally different way than the double rotary lock taught by Juga (US-8931813-B2), and therefore a combination would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the prior art rejection below relies upon Juga as anticipating the claimed locking mechanism. Underwood is solely relied upon as teaching a linear actuator coupled to the link member for operating Juga’s lock member. This teaching of a linear actuator operating a lock member through a link member is well-known in the art and not specific to the non-relied upon further elements of Underwood’s device.
Applicant further argues that In re Venner (262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194) does not apply, for at least the reason that Applicant relies on the specific in-housing linear actuator to rotate the link member and the lock member in addition to manual rotation with a key, and that the structural and functional limitations of the present claims are not mere automation of Juga's disclosure. 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 structure specifically designed to allow both electronic and manual modes of operation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The Examiner maintains that the combination of Juga in view of Underwood teaches each and every element recited in the claims below. 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).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is not merely an automation of Juga's manual system, but rather a fundamentally different structural arrangement operating through a unique post- and-slot mechanism where the actuator portion moves linearly while the post travels along an arcuate path, with the slot allowing relative sliding movement. However, this configuration is well-known in the art of electronic latch actuation, as taught by Underwood. In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to structurally incorporate Underwood’s actuator into Juga’s housing, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner maintains that adding electronic actuation is sufficient motivation to seek the teachings of Underwood’s device, and that said combination with Juga teaches each and every one of the recited limitations.
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) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juga (US-8931813-B2) in view of Underwood (US-11795737-B2).
With regards to claim 1, Juga discloses a double rotary lock (10 Figure 16) comprising:
a housing (36, 38 Figure 11) defining an interior space (64 Figure 12) and comprising longitudinally spaced first and second strike channels (68, 70 Figure 4A) positioned on opposite sides of the housing (top and bottom sides, Figure 4A), wherein the first and second strike channels are shaped and configured to receive first and second strike components (40, 50 Figure 16)(Col 5 Lines 28-33);
a latch member (30 Figure 4A) rotatably mounted within the interior space of the housing, wherein the latch member comprises spaced apart first and second strike engaging members (94, 94 Figure 4A) adapted to releasably engage one of the first or second strike components respectively (Col 5 Lines 47-67), and wherein the latch member is rotatable about a latch member rotation axis (92 Figure 4A) between an unlatched position (Figure 6A), wherein a first strike engaging member is positioned such that the first strike component can be received in the first strike channel and the second strike engaging member is positioned such that the second strike component can be received in the second strike channel, and a latch position (Figure 4A), wherein the first strike engaging member blocks the first strike channel and the second strike engaging member blocks the second strike channel (Col 5 Lines 47-67);
a lock member (130 Figure 4A) rotatably mounted in the interior space of the housing (about axis 85, Figure 4A) , wherein the lock member is rotatable -around a lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A)- between a first lock position (Figure 4A) and a first unlock position (Figure 5A), wherein the lock member is engaged with and prevents rotation of the latch member when the latch member is in the latch position and the lock member is in the first lock position, and wherein the lock member is disengaged from the latch member when the lock member is in the first unlock position (Col 7 Line 60 – Col 8 Line 4),
wherein a single central axis orthogonally intersects the latch member rotation axis, a first handle rotation axis (6 Figure 15), and a second handle rotation axis (144 Figure 4A).
Juga does not disclose a link member coupled to the lock member or linear actuator coupled to the link member.
However, In re Venner (262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194) held that merely providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Furthermore, Underwood discloses a related locking device (6 Figure 6) comprising a latch member (12 Figure 7) selectively engaged by a lock member (70 Figure 6), wherein a link member (71 Figure 5) is coupled to the lock member in the interior space of a housing (40 Figure 5), wherein the link member is rotatable with the lock member between a first lock position (Figure 6) and a first unlock position (Figure 7) about a common axis of rotation (54 Figure 6); and
an electronic linear actuator (64 Figure 5) mounted in the interior space of the housing, wherein the linear actuator is coupled to the link member, wherein the linear actuator comprises an actuator portion (65 Figure 6) moveable along a linear path between a second lock position (Figure 6) and a second unlock position (Figure 7), wherein the linear actuator rotates the link member and the lock member between the first lock position and the first unlock position as the actuator portion is moved between the second lock position and second unlock position (Col 5 Lines 12-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Underwood’s link member and electronic linear actuator for operating Juga’s lock member, such that the linear path is parallel with the single central axis, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use Underwood’s actuating mechanism in order to provide the user with electronic locking control over Juga’s double rotary lock.
With regards to claim 2, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 1, wherein one of the actuator portion or the link member (specifically the link member 71, Figure 5 – Underwood) comprises an opening (72 Figure 5), and wherein the other of the actuator portion (specifically the actuator portion 65, Figure 6) or the link member comprises a post (73 Figure 5) inserted into the opening, wherein the actuator portion is moveable along the linear path between the second lock position (Figure 6) and the second unlock position (Figure 7), and wherein the post is moveable along an arcuate path (relative to the opening, Figures 6-7) within the opening as the actuator portion is moved between the second lock position and the second unlock position.
With regards to claim 3, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 2.
Underwood does not teach that the actuator portion (65 Figure 6 – Underwood) comprises the opening (72 Figure 5) and wherein the link member (71 Figure 5) comprises the post (73 Figure 5).
However, In re Gazda (219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400) held that that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator portion comprise the opening and the link member comprise the post, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to perform this reversal in order to reduce the manufacturing complexity of the actuator portion.
With regards to claim 4, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 3, wherein the link member (71 Figure 5 – Underwood) is non-rotatably mounted (Col 6 Lines 34-37 – Juga) on a shaft (84 Figure 11 – Juga) defining a lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 5, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 4, wherein the post (73 Figure 5 – Underwood) extends parallel to the lock member rotation (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 6, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 5, wherein the link member (71 Figure 5 – Underwood) comprises a plate non-rotatably mounted (Col 6 Lines 34-37 – Juga) on the shaft (84 Figure 11 – Juga), and wherein the post (73 Figure 5 – Underwood) extends from the plate (as described in the rejection of claim 3 above).
With regards to claim 7, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 6, wherein the post (73 Figure 5 – Underwood) is spaced apart from the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 8, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 5, further comprising a lock actuator (34 Figure 11 – Juga) mounted to the shaft (84 Figure 11) exterior to the housing (36, 38 Figure 11).
With regards to claim 9, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 5, wherein the opening (72 Figure 5 – Underwood) in the actuator portion (65 Figure 6 – Underwood)(as described in the rejection of claim 3 above) defines a plane orthogonal to the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 10, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a front housing component (38 Figure 11 – Juga) and a rear housing component (36 Figure 11) removably coupled to the front housing component (Col 5 Lines 16-27), wherein the front and rear housing components define the interior space (64 Figure 12) therebetween.
With regards to claim 11, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 10, wherein the linear actuator (64 Figure 5 – Underwood) is coupled (as demonstrated by Figure 5 – Underwood) to the rear housing component (38 Figure 11 – Juga) and wherein the latch member (30 Figure 4A – Juga) has a longitudinal axis (a left/right aligned axis aligned with latch member recesses 86 and 88 and orthogonally intersecting the latch member rotation axis 92, Figure 4A) that both orthogonally intersects the latch member rotation axis (92 Figure 4A – Juga) and is parallel with and spaced apart from the linear path (of actuator portion 65, Figure 6 – Juga).
With regards to claim 12, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the double rotary lock of claim 11, wherein the linear actuator (64 Figure 5 – Underwood) is disengageable from the link member (71 Figure 5 – Underwood) by moving the linear actuator and rear housing component (38 Figure 11 – Juga) away from the front housing component (36 Figure 11 – Juga) along the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga)(as shown in Juga’s Figure 11 and Underwood’s Figure 5).
With regards to claim 13, Juga discloses a sliding door assembly (20, 12 Figure 16) comprising:
a frame comprising spaced apart first and second frame members (16, 18 Figure 16) defining a doorway (14 Figure 16), wherein the first frame comprises a first strike component (40 Figure 16) located at a first height and the second frame comprises a second strike component (50 Figure 16) located at a second height, wherein the second height is different than the first height (see Figure 16, Col 4 Lines 44-53);
a door (20 Figure 16) slidably mounted to the frame, wherein the door is slidable between an open position (Col 4 Lines 44-53) and a closed position (Figure 16);
a double rotary lock (10 Figure 16) mounted to the door and comprising:
a housing (36, 38 Figure 11) defining an interior space (64 Figure 12) and comprising longitudinally spaced first and second strike channels (68, 70 Figure 4A) positioned on opposed sides of the housing (top and bottom sides, Figure 4A), wherein the first strike channel receives the first strike component when the door is slid to the closed position, and wherein the second strike channel receives the second strike component when the door is slid to the open position (Col 4 Lines 44-53);
a latch member (30 Figure 4A) rotatably mounted within the interior space of the housing, wherein the latch member comprises spaced apart first and second strike engaging members (94, 94 Figure 4A), wherein the latch member is rotatable about a latch member rotation axis (92 Figure 4A) between an unlatched position (Figure 6A), wherein the first strike engaging member is positioned such that the first strike component can be received in the first strike channel and the second strike engaging member is positioned such that the second strike component can be received in the second strike channel, and a latch position (Figure 4A), wherein the first strike engaging member blocks the first strike channel and the second strike engaging member blocks the second strike channel (Col 5 Lines 47-67);
a lock member (130 Figure 4A) rotatably mounted in the interior space of the housing (about axis 85, Figure 4A), wherein the lock member is rotatable between a first lock position (Figure 4A) and a first unlock position (Figure 5A), wherein the lock member is engaged with and prevents rotation of the latch member when the latch member is in the latch position and the lock member is in the first lock position, and wherein the lock member is disengaged from the latch member when the lock member is in the first unlock position (Col 7 Line 60 – Col 8 Line 4),
wherein a single central axis orthogonally intersects the latch member rotation axis, a first handle rotation axis (6 Figure 15), and a second handle rotation axis (144 Figure 4A).
Juga does not disclose a link member coupled to the lock member or linear actuator coupled to the link member.
However, In re Venner (262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194) held that merely providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Furthermore, Underwood discloses a related locking device (6 Figure 6) comprising a latch member (12 Figure 7) selectively engaged by a lock member (70 Figure 6), wherein a link member (71 Figure 5) is coupled to the lock member in the interior space of a housing (40 Figure 5), wherein the link member is rotatable with the lock member between a first lock position (Figure 6) and a first unlock position (Figure 7) about a common axis of rotation (54 Figure 6); and
an electronic linear actuator (64 Figure 5) mounted in the interior space of the housing, wherein the linear actuator is coupled to the link member, wherein the linear actuator comprises an actuator portion (65 Figure 6) moveable along a linear path between a second lock position (Figure 6) and a second unlock position (Figure 7), wherein the linear actuator rotates the link member and the lock member between the first lock position and the first unlock position as the actuator portion is moved between the second lock position and second unlock position (Col 5 Lines 12-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Underwood’s link member and electronic linear actuator for operating Juga’s lock member, such that the linear path is parallel with the single central axis, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use Underwood’s actuating mechanism in order to provide the user with electronic locking control over Juga’s double rotary lock.
With regards to claim 14, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 13, wherein one of the actuator portion or the link member (specifically the link member 71, Figure 5 – Underwood) comprises an opening (72 Figure 5), and wherein the other of the actuator portion (specifically the actuator portion 65, Figure 6) or the link member comprises a post (73 Figure 5) inserted into the opening, wherein the actuator portion is moveable along the linear path between the second lock position (Figure 6) and the second unlock position (Figure 7), and wherein the post is moveable along an arcuate path (relative to the opening, Figures 6-7) within the opening as the actuator portion is moved between the second lock position and the second unlock position.
With regards to claim 15, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 14.
Underwood does not teach that the actuator portion (65 Figure 6 – Underwood) comprises the opening (72 Figure 5) and wherein the link member (71 Figure 5) comprises the post (73 Figure 5).
However, In re Gazda (219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400) held that that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator portion comprise the opening and the link member comprise the post, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to perform this reversal in order to reduce the manufacturing complexity of the actuator portion.
With regards to claim 16, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 15, wherein the link member (71 Figure 5 – Underwood) is non-rotatably mounted (Col 6 Lines 34-37 – Juga) on a shaft (84 Figure 11 – Juga) defining a lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 17, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 16, wherein the post (73 Figure 5 – Underwood) extends parallel to the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 18, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 17, wherein the link member (71 Figure 5 – Underwood) comprises a plate non-rotatably mounted (Col 6 Lines 34-37 – Juga) on the shaft (84 Figure 11 – Juga), and wherein the post (73 Figure 5 – Underwood) extends from the plate (as described in the rejection of claim 15 above).
With regards to claim 19, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 18, wherein the post (73 Figure 5 – Underwood) is spaced apart from the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 20, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 16, further comprising a lock actuator (34 Figure 11 – Juga) mounted to the shaft, (84 Figure 11) exterior of the housing (36, 38 Figure 11).
With regards to claim 21, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 16, wherein the opening (72 Figure 5 – Underwood) in the actuator portion (65 Figure 6 – Underwood)(as described in the rejection of claim 3 above) defines a plane orthogonal to the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga).
With regards to claim 22, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 13, wherein the housing comprises a front housing component (38 Figure 11 – Juga) and a rear housing component (36 Figure 11) removably coupled to the front housing component (Col 5 Lines 16-27), wherein the front and rear housing components define the interior space (64 Figure 12) therebetween.
With regards to claim 23, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 22, wherein the linear actuator (64 Figure 5 – Underwood) is coupled (as demonstrated by Figure 5 – Underwood) to the rear housing component (38 Figure 11 – Juga).
With regards to claim 24, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 23, wherein the linear actuator (64 Figure 5 – Underwood) is disengageable from the link member (71 Figure 5 – Underwood) by moving the linear actuator and rear housing component (38 Figure 11 – Juga) away from the front housing component (36 Figure 11 – Juga) along the lock member rotation axis (85 Figure 4A – Juga)(as shown in Juga’s Figure 11 and Underwood’s Figure 5).
With regards to claim 25, Juga discloses a method (Col 4 Line 44 – Col 5 Line 11) of locking a sliding door (20 Figure 16) in an open (Col 4 Lines 44-53) or closed position (Figure 16) comprising:
sliding a door (20 Figure 16) comprising a rotary latch (10 Figure 16) relative to a door frame (14 Figure 16) having spaced apart first and second strike members (40, 50 Figure 16);
disposing one of the first and second strike members through one of a first and second strike channel (68, 70 Figure 4A) formed in the rotary latch and thereby rotating a latch member (30 Figure 4A) with the one of the first and second strike members from an unlatched (Figure 6A) position to a latch position (Figure 4A);
rotating a lock member (130 Figure 4A) to a lock position (Figure 4A) with the link and thereby engaging the latch member with the lock member,
wherein a single central axis orthogonally intersects the latch member rotation axis, a first handle rotation axis (6 Figure 15), and a second handle rotation axis (144 Figure 4A).
Juga does not disclose moving an actuator portion of an electronic linear actuator along a linear path and rotating a link with the actuator portion.
However, In re Venner (262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194) held that merely providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Furthermore, Underwood discloses a related locking device (6 Figure 6) comprising a latch member (12 Figure 7) selectively engaged by a lock member (70 Figure 6), wherein a link member (71 Figure 5) coupled to the lock member is rotatable with the lock member between a first lock position (Figure 6) and a first unlock position (Figure 7) about a common axis of rotation (54 Figure 6); and
an electronic linear actuator (64 Figure 5) mounted in the interior space of the housing, wherein the linear actuator is coupled to the link member, wherein the linear actuator comprises an actuator portion (65 Figure 6) moveable along a linear path between a second lock position (Figure 6) and a second unlock position (Figure 7), wherein the linear actuator rotates the link member and the lock member between the first lock position and the first unlock position as the actuator portion is moved between the second lock position and second unlock position (Col 5 Lines 12-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Underwood’s link member and electronic linear actuator for operating Juga’s lock member, such that the linear path is parallel with the single central axis, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use Underwood’s actuating mechanism in order to provide the user with electronic locking control over Juga’s double rotary lock.
With regards to claim 26, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the method of claim 25, wherein moving the actuator portion (65 Figure 6 – Underwood) comprises actuating an input device (“electronic control circuit”, Col 5 Line 13) and sending an electrical signal (Col 5 Lines 12-22) to the linear actuator (64 Figure 5).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juga in view of Underwood in further view of Finley (US-11053718-B2).
With regards to claim 27, Juga in view of Underwood teaches the method of claim 26.
Underwood does not disclose that the input device (“electronic control circuit”, Col 5 Line 13 – Underwood) comprises a remote fob and further comprising sending a wireless signal from the remote fob to the linear actuator (64 Figure 5).
However, Finley discloses a related latch device, wherein an input device for controlling an electronic actuator comprises a remote fob for sending a wireless signal to the actuator (Col 4 Lines 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Finley’s input device in place of Underwood’s, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use an input device comprising a remote fob in order to grant the user remote control of the rotary latch device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 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, 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675