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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 21, 2025 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-21.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner would like to note that the listing of EP 2476825 on the IDS filed November 17, 2025 has been stricken-through since this reference was previously listed by the examiner on the PTO-892 dated December 17, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 18 and 19, the phrase “wherein parts of the second locking device are disposed in a third external installation space” should be changed to “wherein parts of the second locking device, including the electric motor, are disposed in a third external installation space.”
In regards to claim 7, lines 1-3, the limitation “wherein the second locking device comprises an electric motor and is disposed in the third installation space” should be removed since it appears that the electric motor of claim 7 is equivalent to the electric motor of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below), and therefore, this limitation does not further limit claim 1, and in line 3, the phrase “the motor” should be changed to “the electric motor.”
In regards to claim 8, line 2, the word “thereof” should be removed since it is clear from claim 2 that the resting position is that of the pivot lever handle.
In regards to claim 12, line 2, the word “covering” should be changed to “covers.”
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 1-21 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, there is no antecedent basis for the electric motor to be disposed in the third external installation space in the lines preceding the phrase “the electric motor of the second locking device that is disposed on the third installation space.” For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above, which provides antecedent basis for the electric motor being in the third external installation space.
In regards to claim 7, the relationship between the “electric motor” of claim 7 and the “electric motor” of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the electric motor of claim 7 is equivalent to the electric motor of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2-6 and 8-21, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1).
In regards to claim 1, DIRAK discloses an electromechanical latch module for a door 18 (Paragraph 33 of the Computer Generated Translation), the electromechanical latch module comprising a latch housing 20 which, by way of a lower side (see Figure 1A below) thereof, is able to be placed on one side of the door (Figure 1A); a first locking device 34, 24, 46, 48, 50 for locking the door, wherein the first locking device has a pivot lever handle 34; and a second locking device 12, 36, 38 for locking the pivot lever handle, wherein the second locking device has a locking element 32 activatable by an electric motor 42; wherein parts of the first locking device protrude beyond the lower side of the latch housing, so that parts of the first locking device are disposed in a first external installation space within the latch housing as well as in a first internal installation space, which is connected to the first external installation space, and is on a side of the door that lies opposite the latch housing (see Figure 1A, Version 1 below, with the spaces lying on opposite sides of the door); wherein parts of the second locking device protrude beyond the lower side of the latch housing, so that parts of the second locking device are disposed in a second external installation space within the latch housing as well as in a second internal installation space, which is connected to the second external installation space, and is on the side of the door that lies opposite the latch housing (see Figure 1A, Version 1 below, with the spaces lying on opposite sides of the door); wherein parts of the second locking device, including the electric motor, are disposed in a third external installation space within the latch housing (see Figure 1A, Version 1 below), wherein the third external installation space is disposed between the first external installation space and the second external installation space (see Figure 1A, Version 1 below), wherein the electric motor of the second locking device that is disposed in the third external installation space does not protrude beyond the lower side of the latch housing (Figure 1A), so that the electric motor does not require any installation space on the side of the door that lies opposite the latch housing (Figure 1A), as a result of which, a free space between the first internal installation space and the second internal installation space remains on the side of the door that lies opposite the latch housing (see Figure 1A, Version 1 below), said free space permitting the latch module to be mounted in the case of a door having two mounting openings (Figure 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1035
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, DIRAK discloses that the pivot lever handle of the first locking device for unlocking the door is able to be folded out of a resting position (Figure 1A) away from the latch housing to a pivoting position (position in which the pivot lever handle pivots about pin 28 upwardly from the resting position in Figure 1A) and, in the pivoting position, the pivot lever handle is pivotable from a locking position (position corresponding to the pivoting position) to an unlocking position (Figure 1D) and back; and wherein the second locking device has a lock cylinder 38 which is fixedly established on the pivot handle lever and has a movable locking cam 36 that is configured to a latched position (Figure 1A) and an opened position (position in which the lock cylinder is actuated to move the locking device 30/32 to an open or unlocked position, Paragraph 33 of the Computer Generated Translation), different from the latched position; and wherein the locking element is a latch slide (Figures 1A and 1B) which is movable from a blocking position (Figure 1A) to a releasing position (Figure 1B) and back, and, in the blocking position, the latch slide mechanically blocks the pivot lever handle from being folded out of the resting position thereof when the locking cam of the lock cylinder is disposed in the latched position (Figure 1A).
In regards to claim 8, DIRAK discloses that the latch slide, when folding in the pivot lever handle to the resting position, is movable out of the blocking position to a transitional position by impingement of the locking cam (the latch slide is capable of some pivoting about the pin shown in Figure 1A, Version 2 below to a transitional position by the locking cam 36 sticking out of the pivot lever handle and pushing against the ramped surface of the latch slide if the lock cylinder is actuated to the latched position before the pivot lever handle is pivoted back to the resting position), in the transitional position, the latch slide does not block movement of the pivot lever handle to the resting position and the latch slide automatically assumes the blocking position when the pivot lever handle is in the resting position (the latch slide moves back into the position in Figure 1A to cooperate with component 32).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, DIRAK discloses that the latch housing covers external peripheries of the two mounting openings provided in the door when placed on the one side of the door (Figure 1A).
In regards to claim 13, DIRAK discloses that the pivot lever handle, in the resting position whereof, is received in a receptacle of the latch housing (space in which the pivot lever handle is received, Figure 1A and which is exposed when the pivot lever handle is moved relative to the latch housing, Figure 1D).
In regards to claim 14, since claim 1 was examined with the single continuous mounting opening and the two rectangular mounting openings recited in the alternative, then this claims is covered by DIRAK.
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) 3-6 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1) in view of Onorato et al. (US-10697214).
In regards to claim 3, DIRAK discloses the latch module as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose that the second external installation space is sealed in relation to the third external installation space. Onorato et al. teaches one space (see Figure 4 below) sealed with a seal 150 in relation to another space (see Figure 4 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a seal between the second and third external installation spaces, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to prevent dirt and water from entering the second or third external installation space.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, DIRAK discloses the latch module as applied to claim 1 above, with the device having a remaining special volume (space surrounding the portion of the latch housing having the second internal installation space in Figure 1A, Version 1 on Page 6 of the current Office Action) on the one side of the door that lies opposite the latch housing, but fails to disclose that the second internal installation space is sealed in relation to the remaining spatial volume. Onorato et al. teaches the use of a seal between various components (Col. 4, lines 26-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a seal between the second internal installation space and the remaining spatial volume, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to prevent water and/or dirt entry from the remaining spatial volume into the second internal installation space.
In regards to claim 5, DIRAK discloses that the second internal installation space is covered by a cover 56 (Figure 1A), which encapsulates the second internal installation space in relation to the remaining spatial volume on the side of the door that lies opposite the latch housing (Figure 1A).
In regards to claim 6, DIRAK in view of Onorato et al. teaches that the sealing of the second external installation space in relation to the third external installation space is formed by a sealing element 150 (Onorato et al.), which provides a sealed passage for at least part of the second locking device (Onorato et al. teaches providing a sealed passage for a locking element 114, and therefore, the sealing element would provide a sealed passage for at least element 32 of the second locking device), is disposed between the second external installation space and the third external installation space (Figure 4 of Onorato et al. on Page 9 of the current Office Action and Figure 1A of DIRAK on Page 6 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 16, since the seal of Onorato et al. performs the function of preventing ingress of water or dust into the spaces (Col. 4, lines 4-35), then it meets the IP54 rating that indicates that a product can withstand limited dush and water splashes.
In regards to claim 17, since the seal or sealing of the second internal installation space, as taught by Onorato et al., performs the function of preventing ingress of water or dust into the spaces (Col. 4, lines 4-35), then it meets the IP54 rating that indicates that a product can withstand limited dush and water splashes.
In regards to claim 18, Onorato et al. teaches that the sealing element provides a sealed passage for a locking element 114 of the locking device.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1) in view of Affan et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0145130).
In regards to claim 9, DIRAK discloses the latch module as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, but fails to disclose a sensor for determining the locking state of the lock cylinder, with the sensor being disposed in the second external installation space. Affan et al. teaches a sensor or switch 24A or 24B that determines the state of a lock cylinder (Paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of applicant’s invention to include a sensor or switch to determine the state of the lock cylinder and to locate the sensor or switch relative to the lock cylinder such that its state can be determined, such as in the second external installation space of DIRAK, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the state of the lock cylinder can be monitored.
In regards to claim 20, Affan et al. teaches that the sensor or switch is adapted for determining whether a locking cam 20 associated with the lock cylinder is in a latched position or for determining whether the locking cam is in an opened position (Paragraph 68).
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1) in view of Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0024413).
In regards to claim 10, DIRAK discloses the latch module as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, but fails to disclose a sensor for determining the state of the latch slide, with the sensor being disposed in the second external installation space. Xu et al. teaches a sensor or switch 402 for determining the state of a locking element or latch slide 302, 306 (Paragraph 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of applicant’s invention to include a sensor or switch to determine the state of the locking element or latch slide and to locate the sensor or switch relative to the latch slide such that its state can be determined, such as in the second external installation space of DIRAK, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the state of the latch slide can be monitored.
In regards to claim 21, Xu et al. teaches that the sensor or switch is adapted for determining whether the locking element is in a blocking position (Paragraph 49).
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1) in view of Mertoez (EP 2476825 A2).
In regards to claim 7, DIRAK discloses the latch module as applied to claim 1 above, with the electric motor having a motor shaft 40, but fails to disclose that the motor shaft is provided with an external thread, as a result of which a movable driver is movable so as to move the locking element, with said movable driver being provided with an internal thread and said movable driver interacting with the motor shaft. Mertoez teaches an electric motor 17 having a motor shaft (Paragraph 19) that is provided with an external thread (thread that cooperates with threaded bushing, Paragraph 19), as a result of which a movable driver (threaded bushing, Paragraph 19) that is provided with an internal thread, interacts with the motor shaft, so as to move a locking element 16 (Paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to utilize an electric motor with an externally threaded motor shaft cooperating with an internally threaded movable driver instead of the solenoid or electromagnetic motor of DIRAK, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is known in the art to utilize different types of motors and drive mechanisms to move a component and since the use of the motor taught by Mertoez would yield the predictable result of moving the locking element of DIRAK.
In regards to claim 19, Mertoez discloses that the electric motor is actuatable by a controller outside the latch module (controller or remote control unit, Paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1). DIRAK discloses that the free space permits the latch module to be mounted in a door having two mounting openings (Figure 1A), with the two mounting opening being two rectangular mounting openings (Figures 1A and 1D). Although DIRAK does not specify that the mounting openings have a width of 25 mm and a length of 150 mm, 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 mounting openings have these dimensions, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, such as the size of an element, involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant is referred to the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with newly cited DIRAK (DE 202014003440 U1) set forth in the current Office Action.
The examiner appreciates applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 8, and therefore, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments to claim 1 beyond those in accordance with the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action and after further review of the claims, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action.
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 December 9, 2025