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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 3, 2025 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-20, the cancellation of claims 3, 4, and 10, and the addition of new claim 21.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 11, line 21, the phrase “a rotor cap” should be changed to “a rotor shaft assembly,” in line 22, the phrase “the rotor cap” should be changed to “the rotor shaft assembly,” and in line 28, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a motor,” and in line 29, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “and the rotor assembly.”
In regards to claim 17, the claim should be canceled since it does not further limit claim 11.
In regards to claim 18, the claim should be canceled since it does not further limit claim 11.
In regards to claim 19, line 8, the word “rotate” should be changed to “rotates,” in line 9, the phrase “a position sensor” should be changed to “at least one position sensor,” in line 11, the phrase “the position sensor” should be changed to “the at least one position sensor,” in lines 14 and 15, the phrase “a deadbolt lock” should be changed to “the deadbolt lock,” and in line 20, the phrase “moves as the hinged door is rotated about a hinge axis” should be changed to “moves with the hinged door as the hinged door is rotated about a hinge axis.”
In regards to claim 20, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the at least one position sensor comprises at least three Hall Effect sensors; wherein the at least three Hall Effect sensors are coupled to the stator, and the controller is configured to detect the rotational position of the rotor relative to the stator and control the windings according thereto using six step motor control; wherein the controller is configure to limit rotation of the rotor relative to the stator to a range of motion of less than 225 degrees; and wherein the range of motion is determined by the controller according to physical limits of the deadbolt lock.”
In regards to claim 21, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “the position sensor” should be changed to “the at least one position sensor.”
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 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-21 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 1, it is unclear what operation applicant considers as the electrical cycle since the term is not used in the specification. Furthermore, if the electrical cycle refers to the operation of the rotor, then it is unclear how more than on electrical cycle or more than one operation of the rotor occurs to extend the bolt “a single time,” which suggests a single operation or electrical cycle. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as best understood.
In regards to claim 11, the term “rotor cap” is not used in the specification. It appears that the “rotor cap” refers to the rotor shaft assembly, and will be examined as such. The claims should use terminology consistent with that of the specification. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 17 and 18, it is unclear how these claims further limit claim 11 since claim 11 as currently amended includes the limitations of claims 17 and 18. It is suggested that these claims be canceled. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 19, line 20, the phrase “the electronic door lock moves as the hinged door is rotated about a hinge axis” suggests that some other operation occurs in the door lock other than the door lock moving with the hinged door because it is connected to the hinged door. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the electronic door lock moves with the hinged door as the hinged door rotates. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 20, the relationship between the at least three Hall Effect sensors of claim 20 and the position sensor of claim 19 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from Paragraph 79 of the specification that the Hall Effect sensors are the position sensors that cooperate with the target as recited in claim 19, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 20, the relationship between the motor controller of claim 20 and the controller of claim 19 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the motor controller of claim 20 is equivalent to the controller of claim 19, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 21, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1, 11, and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US-5760703) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0338715), and further in view of Chang (US Pub. No. 2004/0089037).
In regards to claim 1, Becker discloses an electronic door lock in combination with a deadbolt lock 41, 58, 51 cooperating with a door 13 of a structure 12 and having a spindle 51 and a bolt 41 that is extended and retracted (Figures 3 and 4), with the bolt cooperating with a striker component 17, 18, 19, 22 located on the door to lock and unlock the door and the electronic door lock and deadbolt lock being located on a frame structure 16 associated with the door, the electronic lock comprising: a motor 50, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spindle of the deadbolt lock at a 1:1 drive ratio therewith (considered as a 1:1 drive ratio since the motor is directly coupled to the deadbolt lock, Figure 2) to, thereby, extend and retract the bolt; wherein the electronic door lock does not include a gear reduction for rotating the spindle (Figure 2), wherein the motor is configured to operate through at least one operation cycle within a range of motion to extend the bolt a single time (Col. 3, lines 29-33).
Becker fails to specify that the motor has a stator and a rotor that rotates relative to the stator, with the rotor configured to rotate the spindle. Li et al. teaches a motor 100 having a stator 20 and a rotor 11 coupled to a spindle 13, such that the rotor rotates the spindle (Paragraph 49), with the rotor and stator cooperatively forming a direct current brushless motor (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the motor include a stator and a rotor, with reasonable expectation of success, since motors having stators and rotors are known in the art. Although Becker in view of Li et al. does not specify that the rotor and the spindle are configured to rotate through range of motion of no more than 225 degrees relative to the stator to extend and retract the bolt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the rotor and the spindle are configured to rotate no more than 225 degrees relative to the stator, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Becker fails to disclose that the electronic door lock and deadbolt lock are located on a hinged door of a building structure, such that the electronic door lock moves with the hinged door as the hinged door is rotated about a hinge axis. Chang teaches an electronic door lock 44, 45, 41, 42, 43 that operates a deadbolt lock 34, 36, with the electronic door lock and deadbolt lock being located on a hinged door 70 of a building structure such that the bolt 34 of the deadbolt lock cooperates with a striker component 80 on a frame structure 71 associated with the door so as to lock and unlock the door. The electronic door lock and the deadbolt lock of Chang are coupled to the hinged door such that the electronic lock moves with the hinged door as the hinged door is rotated about a hinge axis (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to locate the electronic door lock and deadbolt lock of Becker on the door to cooperate with the striker component located on the frame structure, with reasonable expectation of success, since the electronic door lock and deadbolt lock would still cooperate with the striker component to lock and unlock the door, as taught by Chang.
In regards to claim 2, Becker in view of Li et al. teaches a thumb turn 65, 66, 67 (Becker - the key 65 is considered as a thumb turn since it includes a handle 66 that is engageable by a user to turn the key); wherein the thumb turn is configured to be physically engaged by a user to be rotated thereby (Col. 3, lines 47-56 of Becker); wherein the rotor, the spindle, and the thumb turn are rotationally coupled to rotate at the 1:1 drive ratio (Figure 2 of Becker); and wherein the rotor, the spindle, and the thumb turn are rotatable about a common axis (Figure 2 of Becker).
In regards to claim 5, Becker in view of Li et al. teaches that the rotor and the spindle are rotatable about a common axis (Figure 4 of Li et al.).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, Becker in view of Li et al. teaches that the rotor, the spindle, and the thumb turn are rotatable about a common axis (Figure 2 of Becker) within the range of motion.
In regards to claim 9, Becker in view of Chang teaches that the electronic door lock is configured to couple to the hinged door that includes the deadbolt lock.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US-5760703) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0338715), and further in view of Chang (US Pub. No. 2004/0089037) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 7-9 above, and further in view of Shittenhelm et al. (EP 0408953 A2). Becker in view of Li et al. teaches a thumb turn 65, 66, 67 (Becker - the key 65 is considered as a thumb turn since it includes a handle 66 that is engageable by a user to turn the key) configured to be physically engaged by a user to be rotated thereby (Col. 3, lines 47-56 of Becker), wherein the thumb turn is configured to rotate the rotor and the spindle at the 1:1 drive ratio when physically engaged by the user (Col. 3, lines 47-56 of Becker), and the rotor is configured to rotate the thumb turn and the spindle at the 1:1 drive ratio (configured to rotate the thumb turn since the thumb turn is connected to the spindle via component 54, Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 47-56 of Becker). Becker fails to disclose that the motor is positioned between the thumb turn and the spindle. Shittenhelm teaches an electronic door lock and deadbolt lock having a bolt 6, with a motor 11 of the electronic door lock being positioned between a thumb turn 15 and a spindle 2 (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to locate the motor between the thumb turn and the spindle, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US-5760703) in view of Matsuoka (JP 60106354 A). Becker discloses an electronic door lock in combination with a deadbolt lock 41, 58, 51 cooperating with a door 13 of a structure 12 and having a spindle 51 and a bolt 41 that is extended and retracted (Figures 3 and 4), the electronic lock comprising: an electric motor 50 having a shaft (see Figure 2 below), and a controller 106 cooperating with the electric motor, wherein a distal end of the shaft (see Figure 2 below) is configured to rotationally coupled to the spindle of the deadbolt lock to rotate the spindle in a 1:1 drive ratio to, thereby, extending and retracting the bolt (considered as a 1:1 drive ratio since the motor is directly coupled to the deadbolt lock, Figure 2); wherein the electronic door lock does not include a gear reduction for rotating the spindle (Figure 2).
Becker et al. fails to specify that the motor includes a stator having windings, a rotor having permanent magnets, the shaft fixed to the permanent magnets, and a target that rotates relative to the stator, with at least one position sensor that senses the target, and the target extending circumferentially around the rotor. Matsuoka teaches an electric motor (Figure 1) including a stator 4 having windings 5, a rotor 3 having permanent magnets (the rotor includes multiple poles, and thereby, includes multiple magnets, Paragraph 1, lines 12-14 of the Computer Generated Translation), a shaft 9 fixed to the permanent magnets (fixed via body of rotor, Figure 1), and a target 14 that rotates relative to the stator and extends circumferentially around the rotor (Figures 1 and 2), with at least one position sensor 15 that senses the target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the motor include a stator and a rotor, with reasonable expectation of success, since motors having stators and rotors are known in the art and to include at least one position sensor to cooperate with the controller and monitor the state of the motor.
PNG
media_image1.png
726
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US-5760703) in view of Matsuoka (JP 60106354 A) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kurita (US-5610457).
In regards to claim 20, Becker discloses that the controller controls a range of motion of the motor according to physical limits of the deadbolt lock (i.e. the limit of how much rotation of the shaft by the motor is required to extend and retract the bolt 41, Figures 3 and 4 of Becker). Becker in view of Matsuoka teaches the motor having windings, as set forth in claim 19 above, and thereby, the windings of the motor according thereto are controlled using six step motor control (as is known in the art and discussed in NPL “How to Power and Control Brushless DC Motors” that BLDC motors are known to be controlled using six step motor control, see Paragraph 16 of the NPL document). Although Becker in view of Li et al. does not specify that the range of motion is less than 225 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the range of motion is less than 225 degrees, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Becker in view of Matsuoka teaches the at least one position sensor being coupled to the stator (Figure 1) to sense the rotational position of the rotor relative to the stator, but does not specify that the at least one position sensor comprises at least three Hall Effect sensors. Kurita teaches at least three Hall Effect sensors 18U, 18V, and 18W that cooperate with an element 6 on a rotor to sense the position of the rotor relative to a stator 2, with the at least three Hall Effect sensors communicating with a controller 38. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include more sensors and to specify that the at least one position sensor is a Hall Effect sensor, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to enhance the ability of the position of the rotor to be determined, since Hall Effect sensors are known in the magnetic detection art, and since it has been held that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
In regards to claim 21, Becker in view of Matsuoka teaches that an amount of inductive material of the target is measured by the at least one position sensor for communication to the controller to determine the rotational position of the rotor (the presence or amount of inductive or magnetic material of the target is measured or sensed, Paragraph 1 of the Computer Generated Translation of Matsuoka). Becker in view of Matsuoka fails to specify that the amount of inductive material of the target increases moving circumferentially therealong. Kurita teaches that the inductive or magnetic material of target 6 increases at area 6b at a location moving along the circumference of the target (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to change the shape of the target such that its material increases moving circumferentially therealong, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 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 invention of claim 11.
In regards to claim 11, Becker (US-5760703) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0338715) fails to teach at least a protrusion extending axially from the proximal face of the rotor flange, with the protrusion being axially aligned with the shaft and extending from the proximal face in a direction opposite the shaft through an aperture of the cover to be coupled to the thumb turn. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the devices of Becker and Li et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the devices.
Response to Arguments
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning the amendments to claim 1, applicant is referred to the interpretations of the Becker and Li references applied to claim 1 in the current Office Action and made in light of applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning the amendments to claim 19, applicant is referred to the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 19-21 set forth in the current Office Action and made in light of applicant’s amendments to claim 19.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, most of the objections to the claims and the 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 the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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 November 21, 2025