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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the triboelectric species in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant is advised the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on March 18, 2026 is vacated.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, line 5, “a nanogenerator located configured to” is recited. It appears the limitation “located” is not completely recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a nanogenerator configured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 ,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogg, US 7952477 B2, in view of Roth et al., US 20060244272 A1 (hereinafter Roth).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art, therefore Fogg teaches a method of powering a door lock (door lock assembly 10) comprising a deadbolt (bolt 32; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that 32, described as a displaceable bolt without action by a spring, was a deadbolt as defined by Merriam-Webster and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) and a handle (handle 36) mechanically connected to the deadbolt through one or more mechanical linkages (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg), the method comprising:
converting mechanical energy of the deadbolt being moved to electricity using a nanogenerator (inertia charger 70; 70 satisfies the instant specification [0014] discussion of a nanogenerator as an apparatus configured to convert mechanical energy of the bolt being moved to electricity; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the use of the term nano generally means something which operates on an small scale which 70 does located inside 10 in the same manner as the instant invention; col 5, lines 58-62); and
providing the electricity to at least one of an energy storage device (secondary electrochemical cell 50) of the door lock (col 6, lines 11-18) or a controller of the door lock (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required),
wherein the nanogenerator is located on at least one of the thumb-turn lever, the deadbolt, or the one or more mechanical linkages (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts .70 located on 32; Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required.
While Fogg teaches a handle door knob which is manually operated and turned using a hand which comprises a thumb, Fogg does explicitly teach a thumb-turn lever.
Roth teaches it is known in the art for a deadbolt apparatus (deadbolt assembly 1) to comprise a handle (handle 3) which is also a thumbturn or other generally circular knob or other appropriate type of handle ([0025]; Fig 1).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the hand and thumb operated handle knob disclosed by Fogg with the handle thumbturn of Roth. The prior art contains a latch assembly which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the handle knob disclosed by Fogg) with another component (the handle thumbturn of Roth). Roth teaches it is known in the art for handles, thumbturns, and knobs to be equivalent operating components of a deadbolt apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute a thumbturn for a handle to more clearly define the lock apparatus and its varied opening components. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a deadbolt apparatus operable with a thumbturn.
Regarding claim 4, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the thumb- turn lever (Fogg, 36; Roth, 3; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 on 36).
Regarding claim 5, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on a spindle receiver blind orifice (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg; Roth 3b) of the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 36; Roth, 3; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 located on 36 and, as Fogg col 5,lines 12-31 discusses 36 as a rotating handle/thumbturn, 70 would therefore also be located on known in the art orifices/cavities such as Roth 3b engaged with known in the art spindles rotated by 36 such as Roth 2).
Regarding claim 6, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the deadbolt (Fogg, 32; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 on 32).
Regarding claim 7, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more mechanical linkages include a spindle receiver (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg; Roth 3b) configured to translate the deadbolt as the spindle receiver rotates, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the spindle receiver (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Fogg col 5,lines 12-31 discusses 36 as a rotating handle/thumbturn and, as such, would be mounted on a known in the art spindle such as Roth 2 and would engage a known in the art spindle receiver such as Roth 3b which would be comprises by the Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicted mechanical linkages which are structurally capable without modification of translating 32).
Regarding claim 8, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more mechanical linkages (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg) include a thumb-turn rosette (Roth, circular rose 6) connecting the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 32; Roth, 3) to a spindle receiver (Roth, 3b) configured to translate the deadbolt (Fogg, 32) as the spindle receiver rotates, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the thumb-turn rosette (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 to be located on the apparatus where the rosette would be positioned).
Regarding claim 9, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the thumb-turn rosette (Roth, 6) includes a first spindle (Roth, 2d) located on a first side (Roth, Fig 1 depicts 2d to be located on a first side of 6), the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 36; Roth, 3) being configured to receive the first spindle (Roth, Fig 1 depicts 3 receiving 2d), wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the first spindle (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 to be located on the apparatus where Roth 2d would be positioned).
Regarding claim 10, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the thumb-turn rosette (Roth, 6) includes a second spindle (Roth, 2d) located on a second side (Roth, Fig 1 depicts 2a to be located on a second side of 6), the spindle receiver (Roth, 3b) being configured to receive the second spindle (Roth, Figs 1;3 depict 3b receiving 2d), wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the second spindle (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 to be located on the apparatus where the second spindle would be positioned).
Regarding claim 11, Fogg teaches a door lock (door lock assembly 10), comprising:
a deadbolt (bolt 32; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that 32, described as a displaceable bolt without action by a spring, was a deadbolt as defined by Merriam-Webster and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term);
a handle (handle 36) mechanically connected to the deadbolt through one or more mechanical linkages (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg); and
a nanogenerator (inertia charger 70; 70 satisfies the instant specification [0014] discussion of a nanogenerator as an apparatus configured to convert mechanical energy of the bolt being moved to electricity; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the use of the term nano generally means something which operates on an small scale which 70 does located inside 10 in the same manner as the instant invention) configured to (see claim interpretation under claim 11 Claim Objection) convert mechanical energy of the deadbolt being moved to electricity (col 5, lines 58-62),
PNG
media_image1.png
369
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg
wherein the nanogenerator is located on at least one of the thumb-turn lever, the deadbolt, or the one or more mechanical linkages (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts .70 located on 32; Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
While Fogg teaches a handle door knob which is manually operated and turned using a hand which comprises a thumb, Fogg does explicitly teach a thumb-turn lever.
Roth teaches it is known in the art for a deadbolt apparatus (deadbolt assembly 1) to comprise a handle (handle 3) which is also a thumbturn or other generally circular knob or other appropriate type of handle ([0025]; Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the hand and thumb operated handle knob disclosed by Fogg with the handle thumbturn of Roth. The prior art contains a latch assembly which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the handle knob disclosed by Fogg) with another component (the handle thumbturn of Roth). Roth teaches it is known in the art for handles, thumbturns, and knobs to be equivalent operating components of a deadbolt apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute a thumbturn for a handle to more clearly define the lock apparatus and its varied opening components. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a deadbolt apparatus operable with a thumbturn.
Regarding claim 14, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 36; Roth, 3; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 on 36).
Regarding claim 15, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 14, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on a spindle receiver blind orifice (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg; Roth 3b) of the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 36; Roth, 3; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 located on 36 and, as Fogg col 5,lines 12-31 discusses 36 as a rotating handle/thumbturn, 70 would therefore also be located on known in the art orifices/cavities such as Roth 3b and engaged with known in the art spindles rotated by 36 such as Roth 2).
Regarding claim 16, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the deadbolt (Fogg, 32; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 on 32).
Regarding claim 17, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the one or more mechanical linkages include a spindle receiver (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg; Roth 3b) configured to translate the deadbolt as the spindle receiver rotates, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the spindle receiver (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Fogg col 5,lines 12-31 discusses 36 as a rotating handle/thumbturn and, as such, would be mounted on a known in the art spindle such as Roth 2 and would engage a known in the art spindle receiver such as Roth 3b which would be comprises by the Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicted mechanical linkages which are structurally capable without modification of translating 32).
Regarding claim 18, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the one or more mechanical linkages (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg) include a thumb-turn rosette (Roth, circular rose 6) connecting the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 32; Roth, 3) to a spindle receiver (Roth, 3b) configured to translate the deadbolt (Fogg, 32) as the spindle receiver rotates, wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the thumb-turn rosette (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 to be located on the apparatus where the rosette would be positioned).
Regarding claim 19, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 18, wherein the thumb-turn rosette (Roth, 6) includes a first spindle (Roth, 2d) located on a first side (Roth, Fig 1 depicts 2a to be located on a first side of 6), the thumb-turn lever (Fogg, 36; Roth, 3) being configured to receive the first spindle (Roth, Fig 1 depicts 3 receiving 2d), wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg, 70) is located on the first spindle (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 to be located on the apparatus where Roth 2d would be positioned).
Regarding 20, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 18, wherein the thumb-turn rosette (Roth, 6) includes a second spindle (Roth, 2d) located on a second side (Roth, Fig 1 depicts 2a to be located on a second side of 6), the spindle receiver (Roth, 3b) being configured to receive the second spindle (Roth, Figs 1;3 depict 3b receiving 2d), wherein the nanogenerator (Fogg., 70) is located on the second spindle (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Fogg depicts 70 to be located on the apparatus where the second spindle would be positioned).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogg, US 7952477 B2, in view of Roth et al., US 20060244272 A1 (hereinafter Roth); and further in view of Janicek et al., US 20240088750 A1 (hereinafter Janicek).
Regarding claim 2, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 1, wherein the nanogenerator comprises an inertia charger and/or a solar cell (col 1, line 63-col 2, line 18).
Fogg in view of Roth does not teach wherein the nanogenerator is a piezoelectric nanogenerator.
Janicek teaches it is known in the art for door lock handle apparatus (door fitting 9) to comprise electricity generation systems (electric generator 5) and those system generators to be equivalently based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof [0025], therefore Janicek teaches wherein the nanogenerator is a piezoelectric nanogenerator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Fogg’s nanogenerator to be Janicek’s piezoelectric nanogenerator. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art for door lock apparatus electricity generators. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to generate electricity (e.g. electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign Fogg with one or more of the electricity generator variants taught by Janicek in order to tailor apparatus to specific customer requirements or desires. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Janicek, and redesigned Fogg with Janicek’s piezoelectric nanogenerator with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of nanogenerator type.
Regarding claim 3, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 1, wherein the nanogenerator comprises an inertia charger and/or a solar cell (col 1, line 63-col 2, line 18).
Fogg in view of Roth does not teach wherein the nanogenerator is a triboelectric nanogenerator.
Janicek teaches it is known in the art for door lock handle apparatus (door fitting 9) to comprise electricity generation systems (electric generator 5) and those system generators to equivalently be based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof [0025], therefore Janicek teaches wherein the nanogenerator is a triboelectric nanogenerator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Fogg’s nanogenerator to be Janicek’s triboelectric nanogenerator. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art for door lock apparatus electricity generators. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to generate electricity (e.g. electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign Fogg with one or more of the electricity generator variants taught by Janicek in order to tailor apparatus to specific customer requirements or desires. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Janicek, and redesigned Fogg with Janicek’s triboelectric nanogenerator with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of nanogenerator type.
Regarding claim 12, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the nanogenerator comprises an inertia charger and/or a solar cell (col 1, line 63-col 2, line 18).
Fogg in view of Roth does not teach wherein the nanogenerator is a piezoelectric nanogenerator.
Janicek teaches it is known in the art for door lock handle apparatus (door fitting 9) to comprise electricity generation systems (electric generator 5) and those system generators to equivalently be based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof [0025], therefore Janicek teaches wherein the nanogenerator is a piezoelectric nanogenerator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Fogg’s nanogenerator to be Janicek’s piezoelectric nanogenerator. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art for door lock apparatus electricity generators. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to generate electricity (e.g. electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign Fogg with one or more of the electricity generator variants taught by Janicek in order to tailor apparatus to specific customer requirements or desires. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Janicek, and redesigned Fogg with Janicek’s piezoelectric nanogenerator with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of nanogenerator type.
Regarding claim 13, Fogg in view of Roth teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the nanogenerator comprises an inertia charger and/or a solar cell (col 1, line 63-col 2, line 18).
Fogg in view of Roth does not teach wherein the nanogenerator is a triboelectric nanogenerator.
Janicek teaches it is known in the art for door lock handle apparatus (door fitting 9) to comprise electricity generation systems (electric generator 5) and those system generators to equivalently be based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof [0025], therefore Janicek teaches wherein the nanogenerator is a triboelectric nanogenerator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Fogg’s nanogenerator to be Janicek’s triboelectric nanogenerator. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art for door lock apparatus electricity generators. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to generate electricity (e.g. electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic, solar, triboelectric principles or combinations thereof). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign Fogg with one or more of the electricity generator variants taught by Janicek in order to tailor apparatus to specific customer requirements or desires. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Janicek, and redesigned Fogg with Janicek’s triboelectric nanogenerator with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of nanogenerator type.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for door and lock apparatus.
Coster et al., US 10745935 B2, teaches an assembly for an electronic locking system and electronic locking system comprising the assembly with a nanogenerator.
JP H0347381 A teaches a door lock with a nanogenerator.
Basilious, US 12068611 B2, teaches energy generating window and door latch assemblies and alarm system powered thereby.
Liu et al., CN 210422191 U, teaches a self-generating electrical door lock device and system.
Higgins, US 5896026 A, teaches a power conservation and management system for a self-powered electronic lock.
Lokteva et al., RU 2021455 C1, teaches a code device for a door lock with nanogenerator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights