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Applicant’s request for rejoinder of non-elected/withdrawn claims 8-10, 13-15 is stayed, since claim 1 is rejected herein. It will be revisited upon allowance of claim 1.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 30-32, 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang US 2015/0007621 (hereinafter Huang).
Re Claim 1. (Currently amended)
Huang discloses a lock assembly (Figs. 1-3, 6), comprising: an exterior portion (10) configured to be mounted on an outside of a door; an interior portion (20) configured to be mounted on an inside of the door, the exterior portion and the interior portion are configured to be fastened to each other (61); and, a deadbolt assembly (3) configured to be actuated by the exterior and interior portions; the exterior portion including: a chassis (Fig. 2; 13); and, an anti-rotation arm (131) disposed on the chassis, the anti-rotation arm configured to abut the deadbolt assembly (3) and configured to transfer torque from the chassis to the deadbolt assembly, thereby inhibiting compromising integrity of the lock assembly; wherein the exterior portion (10;1) includes a baseplate (11) and a cover (15), the chassis (13) being disposed between the baseplate and the cover (Figs.2,3).
Re Claim 2. (Original)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, further comprising a shaft (139) coupled to at least one of the exterior portion (10) and the interior portion (20) and configured to rotate to alternately extend and retract the deadbolt (3), the anti-rotation arm (131) inhibiting rotation of the chassis (13) that would otherwise cause rotation of shaft.
Re Claim 5. (Original)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the anti-rotation arm (131) is integrally formed with the chassis (13; Fig.3).
Re Claim 7. (Original)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the chassis (13) includes a plurality of strengthening ribs (rib portions adj 131 in Fig.3).
Re Claim 30. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 2, further comprising a key override arrangement including a key cylinder (132) disposed in the exterior portion (10) and connected to the shaft (139), wherein actuation of the key override arrangement causes rotation of the shaft (139) to actuate the deadbolt (3).
Re Claim 31. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 30, wherein the key cylinder (132; Fig.2) is mounted within a key cylinder boss formed in the chassis (13).
Re Claim 32. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the anti-rotation arm (131) is further configured to direct vertical loads applied to the chassis (13) to the door (4).
Re Claim 37. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the interior portion (20; Figs. 4-5) includes a mounting bracket () for securing the interior portion (21) on the inside of the door (4), wherein the mounting bracket is securable (61/138) to the chassis (13).
Re Claim 38. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 37, wherein the mounting bracket (21) is securable to the chassis (13) by mounting bolts (61) fastened into blind threaded holes (138) in the chassis (13).
Re Claim 39. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 38, wherein the mounting bolts (61) extend through holes (32) in the deadbolt assembly (3).
Re Claim 40. (New)
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Huang discloses a lock assembly (Figs. 1-6), comprising: an exterior portion (10) configured to be mounted on an outside of a door (4); an interior portion (20) configured to be mounted on an inside of the door, the exterior portion and the interior portion are configured to be fastened (61/138) to each other; and, a deadbolt assembly (3) configured to be actuated by the exterior and interior portions; the exterior portion including: a chassis (13); and, an anti-rotation arm (131) disposed on the chassis, the anti-rotation arm configured to abut the deadbolt assembly and configured to transfer torque from the chassis to the deadbolt assembly, thereby inhibiting compromising integrity of the lock assembly; wherein the chassis (13) further comprises a cylindrical boss (120) extending from a rear side of the exterior portion and sized to be received in a door bore hole (421) having a first size, with the anti- rotation arm (131) extending rearward from the cylindrical boss (120; see Fig. 6).
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) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and further in view of Sorenson US 2010/0257906 (hereinafter Sorenson).
Re Claim 33. (Previously presented)
Huang discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the chassis comprises “a plate material using a stamping process”, it fails to specifically teach a zinc alloy material.
However, Sorenson discloses that a zinc alloy material (para [0058]) in lock assembly parts is old and well known as a low-cost, anti-tamper material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a zinc alloy for the plate material of Huang, as taught by Sorenson, as an obvious matter of design choice in affording a reinforced lock structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35, 36, 41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re Claim 35. (Currently amended)
The prior art of record fails to teach the lock assembly of claim [[34]]1, further comprising a keypad disposed on the cover. There would have been no motivation or suggestion to provide a well known electronic keypad assembly on the manual key cylinder lock of Huang absent impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Re Claim 36. (Previously presented)
The prior art of record fails to teach the lock assembly of claim 1, further comprising an electronic assembly disposed within the chassis.
Re Claim 41. (New)
The prior art of record fails to teach the lock assembly of claim 40, further comprising a bore hole guide detachably connectable with the rear side of the exterior portion, surrounding the cylindrical boss, and sized to be received in a second door bore hole having a second size larger than the first size.
Claims 42-43 are allowed.
Re Claim 42. (New)
The prior art of record fails to teach in combination a lock assembly, comprising: an exterior portion configured to be mounted on an outside of a door; an interior portion configured to be mounted on an inside of the door, the exterior portion and the interior portion are configured to be fastened to each other; and, a deadbolt assembly configured to be actuated by the exterior and interior portions; the exterior portion including: a chassis; and, an anti-rotation arm disposed on the chassis, the anti-rotation arm configured to abut the deadbolt assembly and configured to transfer torque from the chassis to the deadbolt assembly, thereby inhibiting compromising integrity of the lock assembly; wherein the chassis further comprises an extension extending from a rear side of the exterior portion and sized to be received in a first door bore hole having a first size, with the anti- rotation arm extending rearward from the extension; wherein the lock assembly further comprises a bore hole guide detachably connectable with the rear side of the exterior portion, surrounding the extension, and sized to be received in a second door bore hole having a second size larger than the first size.
Claim 43 is dependent on claim 42 and therefore also allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 30-33, 37-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s amendment of 7/14/25, the previous rejection in view of Deng is withdrawn and a new rejection in view of thew teachings of Huang is set forth above. Huang is deemed to teach the structure of the instant lock assembly as claimed. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 30-33, 37-40 stand rejected.
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 SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM.
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.
SUZANNE DINO BARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675B
Sdb
/SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675