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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8-22 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.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been overcome by the present amendments.
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.
Claim 9, 13-14 and 19-20 is 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 claims 9 and 19 the elements “a locking position, a latching position” are introduced. However as best understood from the specification these positions are the same as the locked and latched positions previously introduced. It’s unclear if these terms were introducing new positions or referring back to the ones previously introduced. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
In regards to claim 13, the elements “a locking position, a latching position” are introduced. However as best understood from the specification these positions are the same as the locked and latched positions previously introduced. Additionally, these positions appear to apply to the positions of the slider. For the purposes of examination these limitation are assumed to be different from the locked and latched positions previously introduced.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardy et al. GB 2285479 A (hereinafter Bardy), Tscheu et al. US 5280975 A (hereinafter Tscheu), Mander GB 2143888 A (hereinafter Mander), and Schoch et al. US 20150076840 A1 (hereinafter Schoch).
In regards to claim 1, Bardy teaches an apparatus for locking an appliance door in a closed position (this is intended use, Bardy is capable of being used on an appliance door), the apparatus comprising: a locking member (strike seen in fig 12) the locking member having an engagement section (hole 64 engages); a locking bolt (64) for engaging the engagement section in the locking member (see fig 12), the locking bolt comprising a locking portion (untampered portion) and a latching portion (tapered portion); and a linear actuator (linear actuator of 58 see the first para in page 9) for moving the locking bolt along an axis, wherein a resilient member (spring in page 9, first para) biases the locking bolt relative to the linear actuator, the locking bolt is configured to be moved in an insertion direction (up and down wrt 12) opposite to a withdrawal direction,[[a]]the latching portion of the locking bolt has a sloping surface (see fig 12), the sloping surface is arranged for contacting the locking member as it moves in the insertion direction to thereby provide a reaction force
However, Bardy does not teach the locking member attached to the door. Bardy teaches the opposite with the locking bolt on the door.
Tscheu teaches a similar device where a locking member (10) is attached to a door (4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have placed Bardy’s locking member on the door (and consequently the locking bolt on the opposite body) in order to reduce the weight of the door.
Additionally Bardy does not teach wherein the latching portion has a smaller dimension in the insertion direction than the locking portion such that in a latched position the locking bolt is located with the latching portion aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is loosely held with a first amount of play, and in a locked position the locking bolt is positioned such that the locking portion is aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is held in position with a second amount of play, wherein the second amount of play is less than the first amount of play such that the locking portion of the locking bolt closely fits the engagement section so as to prevent or limit movement of the locking member.
Mander teaches wherein a latching portion (smaller portion before 35) has a smaller dimension (due to 35) in a insertion direction (up and down wrt fig 2) than a locking portion (larger portion after 35) such that in a latched position the locking bolt is located with the latching portion aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is loosely held with a first amount of play (since before 35 is inserted the bolt is less tight, see abstract), and in a locked position the locking bolt is positioned such that the locking portion is aligned with an engagement section (hole of 36) such that the locking member is held in position with a second amount of play (when the closure is tightly shut), wherein the second amount of play is less than the first amount of play (since 35 allows less movement) such that the locking portion of the locking bolt closely fits the engagement section so as to prevent or limit movement of the locking member (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have in a latched position the locking bolt is located with the latching portion aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is loosely held with a first amount of play, and in a locked position the locking bolt is positioned such that the locking portion is aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is held in position with a second amount of play, wherein the second amount of play is less than the first amount of play in Bardy in order to force the door tightly shut (see Mander abstract).
Additionally, Gartner does not teach the linear actuator is self-locking.
Schoch teaches a similar device where the linear actuator is self-locking (para 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Bardy’s actuator be self-locking, such as in Schoch, so that the power doesn’t need to be consumed to maintain a locked state (Schoch para 106).
In regards to claim 3, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the latching portion is arranged such that contact with the locking member creates a force from the locking member along the axis for displacing the locking bolt (Bardy page 9 para and fig 12); and the locking portion is arranged such that contact with the locking member does not create a force from the locking member along the axis for displacing the locking bolt (Bardy page 9 as it is deadlocked).
In regards to claim 5, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Bardy is silent on any angle and therefore does not teach wherein the sloping surface has a slope angle relative to the axis of from 15 to 80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sloping surface having a slope angle relative to the axis of from 15 to 80 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 6, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the latching portion has a latch surface opposite the sloping surface (Bardy: flat surface opposite the sloped surface); and the latch surface is arranged for contacting the locking member as it moves in the withdrawal direction to thereby provide a reaction force that does not tend to retract the locking bolt along the axis (Bardy page 9 para 1 “In this position, the door 60 can be slammed shut and it will remain shut”).
In regards to claim 8, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the locking bolt comprises a tapered portion (Mander: 35, see fig 2) between the latching portion and the locking portion (see fig 2).
In regards to claim 10, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, in the relied upon embodiment, Bardy is silent on the details of the linear actuator and therefore does not teach wherein: the linear actuator comprises an actuator with a shaft and a slider; and the locking bolt is resiliently biased a predetermined distance from the slider along the shaft.
A similar embodiment of Bardy teaches a linear actuator (see fig 14) comprises an actuator with a shaft (shaft of 70, see fig 14) and a slider (80); and a locking bolt (bolt connected to 82) is resiliently biased a predetermined distance from the slider along the shaft (see fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy’s embodiment shown in figure 12 with a linear actuator similar to his embodiment shown in fig 14 in order to provide for a known and conventional actuator while also allowing detection of the lock actuator (Bardy via 78 and 76).
In regards to claim 11, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the shaft is a threaded rod and the slider is a nut threadingly mounted on the shaft (Bardy see fig 14).
In regards to claim 12, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein a pitch of each of the threads of the threaded rod and nut is selected for self-locking (Bardy see fig 14, otherwise 82 would prevent 80 from locking; also note Schoch).
In regards to claim 15, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a housing (Bardy housing seen in fig 12), wherein: the housing houses the linear actuator and the locking bolt (Bardy see fig 12.
However, Bardy does not teach the housing includes an opening for receiving the locking member; and the housing includes a seat for engaging the locking bolt, the seat being located opposite to the linear actuator when the locking member is received in the opening.
Tscheu teaches a housing includes an opening for receiving the locking member (see fig 3a); and the housing includes a seat (portion of 22, to the left of 10 wrt fig 3a) for engaging the locking bolt (when fully inserted, note fig 3a), the seat being located opposite to the linear actuator when the locking member is received in the opening (see fig 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the housing of Bardy with an opening for receiving the locking member; and the housing includes a seat for engaging the locking bolt, the seat being located opposite to the linear actuator when the locking member is received in the opening, in order to guide and protect both the locking bolt and the locking member.
In regards to claim 16, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
However, Bardy does not teach further comprising an engagement member, wherein: the engagement member is accessible from outside the housing; and the engagement member enables manual actuation of the linear actuator for disengaging the locking bolt from the locking member.
Tscheu teaches an engagement member (18), wherein: the engagement member is accessible from outside the housing (via 50, see fig 2a); and the engagement member enables manual actuation of the linear actuator for disengaging the locking bolt from the locking member (See Col 4 lines 23-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy with an engagement member, wherein: the engagement member is accessible from outside the housing; and the engagement member enables manual actuation of the linear actuator for disengaging the locking bolt from the locking member in order to allow manual operation in the case of power failure (Tscheu see Col 4 lines 23-35).
In regards to claim 18, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the latching portion has a latch surface opposite the sloping surface (Bardy: flat surface opposite the sloped surface); and the latch surface is arranged for contacting the locking member as it moves in the withdrawal direction to thereby provide a reaction force that does not tend to retract the locking bolt along the axis (Bardy page 9 para 1 “In this position, the door 60 can be slammed shut and it will remain shut”).
In regards to claim 21, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Bardy is silent on angles and therefore does not teach wherein the sloping surface has a slope angle relative to the axis of 45 degrees to 70 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sloping surface having a slope angle relative to the axis of 45 degrees to 70 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9, 14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Czellary EP 3029226 A1 (hereinafter Czellary) and Arlinghaus et al. US 20150184426 A1 (hereinafter Arlinghaus).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller for controlling the linear actuator (see fig 15).
However, Bardy does not teach a door sensor for sensing a position of the door.
Czellary teaches a similar device with a door sensor (32) for sensing a position of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy with a door sensor for sensing a position of the door such as in Czellary in order to alarm unauthorized opening of the door (Czellary para 31).
Additionally, Bardy does not teach and an actuation sensor for sensing the position of the locking bolt or the linear actuator or both, the controller arranged to locate the locking bolt along the axis in each of a locking position, a latching position, and a retracted position based on the door sensor and actuation sensor.
Arlinghaus teaches a controller arranged to locate a moving component in a plurality of positions (see para 46 as the hall sensor is detecting the magnet in a continuity of positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy with an actuation sensor, such as in Arlinghaus, for sensing the position of the locking bolt in order provide for additional procedures for the controller such as anti-tampering, (see Arlinghaus para 46).
With the modifications above Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, Schoch, Czellary and Arlinghaus teaches the controller arranged to locate the locking bolt along the axis in each of a locking position, a latching position, and a retracted position (As Arlinghaus continuously monitors its position) based on the door sensor (with the locking position being dependent on the door being closed, note Czellary para 31) and actuation sensor.
In regards to claim 14 Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, Schoch, Czellary and Arlinghaus teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein: in the latching position, contact between the locking member and locking bolt creates a force from the locking member along the axis for displacing the locking bolt (Bardy: as the sloped surface would retract 64); in the locking position, the locking bolt locks the locking member in a fixed position within the apparatus (Bardy: see dashed lines in fig 12); and in the retracted position (Bardy: “retracted non-locking position” 2nd para page 3), the locking member cannot contact the locking bolt (at least during a portion of the doors movement).
In regards to claim 17 Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, Schoch, Czellary and Arlinghaus teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein: the latching portion is arranged such that contact with the locking member creates a force from the locking member along the axis for displacing the locking bolt (due to the sloped surface); and the locking portion is arranged such that contact with the locking member does not create a force from the locking member along the axis for displacing the locking bolt (Bardy see fig 12).
In regards to claim 19, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising a controller for controlling the linear actuator (see fig 15).
However, Bardy does not teach a door sensor for sensing a position of the door.
Czellary teaches a similar device with a door sensor (32) for sensing a position of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy with a door sensor for sensing a position of the door such as in Czellary in order to alarm unauthorized opening of the door (Czellary para 31).
Additionally, Bardy does not teach and an actuation sensor for sensing the position of the locking bolt or the linear actuator or both, the controller arranged to locate the locking bolt along the axis in each of a locking position, a latching position, and a retracted position based on the door sensor and actuation sensor.
Arlinghaus teaches a controller arranged to locate a moving component in a plurality of positions (see para 46 as the hall sensor is detecting the magnet in a continuity of positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy with an actuation sensor, such as in Arlinghaus, for sensing the position of the locking bolt in order provide for additional procedures for the controller such as anti-tampering, see Arlinghaus para 46).
With the modifications above Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, Schoch, Czellary and Arlinghaus teaches the controller arranged to locate the locking bolt along the axis in each of a locking position, a latching position, and a retracted position (As Arlinghaus continuously monitors its position) based on the door sensor (with the locking position being dependent on the door being closed, note Czellary para 31) and actuation sensor.
In regards to claim 20 Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, Schoch, Czellary and Arlinghaus teaches the apparatus of claim 19.
However, in the relied upon embodiment, Bardy is silent on the details of the linear actuator and therefore does not teach wherein: the linear actuator comprises an actuator with a shaft and a slider; and the locking bolt is resiliently biased a predetermined distance from the slider along the shaft.
A similar embodiment of Bardy teaches a linear actuator (see fig 14) comprises an actuator with a shaft (shaft of 70, see fig 14) and a slider (80); and a locking bolt (bolt connected to 82) is resiliently biased a predetermined distance from the slider along the shaft (see fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy’s embodiment shown in figure 12 with a linear actuator similar to his embodiment shown in fig 14 in order to provide for a known and conventional actuator while also allowing detection of the lock actuator (Bardy via 78 and 76).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Arlinghaus.
In regards to claim 13, Bardy in view of Tscheu, Mander, and Schoch teaches the apparatus of claim 10, further comprising a controller for controlling the actuator (Bardy see fig 15).
Additionally, Bardy does not teach the controller arranged to locate the slider along the axis in each of a locking position, a latching position, and a retracted position.
Arlinghaus teaches a controller arranged to locate a moving component in a plurality of positions (see para 46 as the hall sensor is detecting the magnet in a continuity of positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Bardy with a controller arranged to locate the slider along the axis in each of a locking position, a latching position, and a retracted position, such as in Arlinghaus, for sensing the position of the locking bolt in order provide for additional procedures for the controller such as anti-tampering, (see Arlinghaus para 46).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tscheu in view of Schoch.
In regards to claim 22, Tscheu teaches a centrifuge comprising an apparatus for locking a centrifuge door in a closed position (see figs 1 and 3a), the apparatus comprising: a locking member (10) for attachment to a door (4), the locking member having an engagement section (15); a locking bolt (34 and 36) for engaging the engagement section in the locking member (see fig 3a), the locking bolt comprising a locking portion (36) and a latching portion (34); and a linear actuator (27, at least at it actuates the locking bolt linearly) for moving the locking bolt along an axis (axis of 17), and wherein the latching portion has a smaller dimension in an insertion direction (down wrt fig 3a) than the locking portion (down wrt fig 3a) such that in a latched position (with 34 inserted) the locking bolt is located with the latching portion aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is held with a first amount of play (since 15 would still allow some movement), and in a locked position (when aligned with 36) the locking bolt is positioned such that the locking portion is aligned with the engagement section such that the locking member is held in position with a second amount of play (amount of play between 36 and 15), wherein the second amount of play is less than the first amount of play (as 36 is wider).
Additionally, Tscheu does not teach the linear actuator is self-locking.
Schoch teaches a similar device where the linear actuator is self-locking (para 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Bardy’s actuator be self-locking, such as in Schoch, so that the power doesn’t need to be consumed to maintain a locked state (Schoch para 106).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights