Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/406,707

ANTI-DETECTION COMBINATION LOCK

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 08, 2024
Examiner
BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Real Locks & Security Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
940 granted / 1220 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1238
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1220 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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 1-14 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. Upon further consideration of the drawings and specification, it is determined that the shape of element 30, in claim 1 (original claim 3), is not clear. The drawing figures have odd shapes on the ends that aren't consistent and don't reflect the actual element, (for ex, the odd curved portion at the very top and then the right side having the triangle but the left side not). In addition, the shape in the claims doesn't reflect the hole in the actual element. Accordingly, the claim limitation is not clearly understood and the claim 1-14 are therefore examined “as best understood”. In response to this rejection, please describe the shape in words. In view of the reconsideration, this action is non-final. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB625 in view of Zhang US 10,851,563 (hereinafter Zhang). Re Claim 1. Zhang discloses an anti-detection combination lock, comprising: a lock seat (Figs.5,6,7,14), comprising a base (54/56) and a lock core (118) installed on the base; a plurality of numeral wheels (48), arranged spacedly on the base (on posts 54), each numeral wheel (48) comprising a lower gear (48) and an upper gear (62) stacked coaxially, and part of a periphery of the lower gear (48) protruding from one side of the base (Figs. 5-6); an anti-detection piece (80), arranged on the base (54/56), comprising a main rod (central portion of 80) and a plurality of branch rods (at 88) connected to the main rod, and each branch rod located on one side of each upper gear (62); wherein the anti-detection piece is structured in a shape of “土”; a panel (54), covering the base (56), a plurality of numeral holes (for wheels 48) and an opening (Figs. 5,6) defined on the panel, and the numeral holes disposed corresponding to the numeral wheels; and a knob (40), arranged on one side of the anti-detection piece (80), connected to the lock core and protruding from the opening (Fig.6); wherein the knob (40) is being rotated to push the anti-detection piece (80) move toward the numeral wheels (62) to make the branch rods (88) abut against each upper gear (62) to make a plurality of lower gears (48) be nonrotatable (Fig.14). Re Claim 2. Zhang discloses the combination lock according to claim 1, wherein the base () comprises a positioning plate (82), a plurality of through holes (to receive posts 58) are defined on the positioning plate, and each numeral wheel (48) is disposed on each through hole (posts 58). Re Claim 4. Zhang discloses the combination lock according to claim 2, wherein each branch rod comprises a latch portion (88) located on a side thereof facing each upper gear (62), and each upper gear is pressed by the latch portion (88) to be nonrotatable. Re Claim 5. Zhang discloses the combination lock according to claim 4, wherein the latch portion (88) is a curved arc surface. Re Claim 13. Zhang discloses the combination lock according to claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the panel comprises a plurality of positioning posts disposed on an inner wall thereof facing the numeral wheels, and the positioning posts are inserted in the numeral wheels. However, Zhang discloses a panel (54) including a plurality of positioning posts (58) disposed on an inner wall thereof (and in openings on the base 60) facing the numeral wheels (48), and the positioning posts are inserted in the numeral wheels (48). Re Claim 14. As discussed above with respect to claim 13, Zhang discloses the combination lock according to claim 13, wherein the panel (54) comprises a center column (within opening for knob (40) disposed on an inner wall thereof facing the numeral wheels, and the center column passes through the positioning plate (82) and the anti-detection piece (80). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15-20 (New) are allowed. Claims 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 filed 10/9/25, the claims including the “shape” of element 30 are now rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth above. It is requested that the shape be described in words. Claims 1-14 stand rejected. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595688
SECURE, REMOTELY CONTROLLED, INTERNALLY POWERED PADLOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584512
UNIVERSAL FASTENING LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559973
PLUG FOR LOCK SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED METHOD OF ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553258
LATCH ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546565
Restroom Stall Firearm Receptacle
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1220 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month