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 Amendment
The Amendments filed November 13, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim Objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 13, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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 arguments.
Uyeda et al., US 20240046725 A1, replaced with Carlsson, US 20160251876 A1.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, line 1, the limitation “the batteries” is used to further recite the “one or more batteries” as claimed in claim 1. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for previously cited limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the one or more batteries”.
Regarding claim 17, line 1, the limitation “the button” is used to further recite the “one or more buttons” as claimed in claim 16. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for previously cited limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the one or more buttons are”.
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.
Claim 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear, therefore indefinite, what handle is being referred to, the handle claimed in claim 1 or internal handle claimed in claim 16. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “internal handle” to match the immediate pendency from claim 16..
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, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlsson, US 20160251876 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Carlsson teaches a door lock system (Fig 1 depicts a handle system for operating a door lock [0001-0003]) for use on a pivotally mounted door ([Abstract] discusses the handle operating a door; In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; “for use on a pivotally mounted door” is intended use for the door lock system), the door lock system including:
an external digital access control assembly (handle 1), including a digital access control component (electronic control unit 5), one or more batteries (battery 7a), for powering the external digital access control assembly [0070], and a handle (maneuverable member 2);
a mechanical mortice, mechanically coupled to the external digital access control assembly ([0003; 0078] discusses the handle system operating a door lock, which would be mounted in a mechanical mortice, via spindle 45);
wherein the external digital access control assembly includes a clutch (electrical motor 6; second coupling member 8; first coupling member 15; engagement member 19; drive member 21; stop element 23), configured to selectively couple the handle to the mechanical mortice of a mechanism apparatus coupling unit ([0072-0077] discusses how the handle and clutch engage to allow 15 to rotate which is coupled to the lock; 6;8;15;19;21;23 function to couple to connect and disconnect 2 to 45 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster noun definition 2a of clutch and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term);
wherein the digital access control component is configured to selectively provide access control by mechanically coupling and decoupling the handle to the mechanical mortice using the clutch ([0070] discusses how 5 controls 6 of the clutch); and
wherein the external digital access control assembly is configured to be located entirely on an outside of the door (Fig 4 depicts the handle assembly structured to be located entirely on an outside of the door in the same manner as the instant invention excluding fasteners).
Regarding claim 2, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the door lock system (Fig 1 depicts a handle system for operating a door lock [0001-0003]) is configured to be installed on a residential door (Carlsson’s apparatus is structurally capable without modification of being installed on a residential door).
Regarding claim 3, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 2, wherein the door lock system (Fig 1 depicts a handle system for operating a door lock [0001-0003]) is configured to be installed on a screen door (Carlsson’s apparatus is structurally capable without modification of being installed on a screen door).
Regarding claim 5, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the one or more batteries (see claim interpretation under claim 5 Claim Objection; 7a) are housed in a housing of the external digital access control assembly (Fig 2 depicts 7a housed in a housing of 1).
Regarding claim 7, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the clutch (6;8;15;19;21;23) is configured to temporarily couple the handle (2) to the mechanical mortice ([0003; 0078] discusses the handle system operating a door lock, which would be mounted in a mechanical mortice, via spindle 45) upon instruction from the digital access control component (5; [0070] discusses how 5 controls 6 of the clutch).
Regarding claim 8, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the clutch (6;8;15;19;21;23) is configured to selectively couple the handle (2) to the mechanical mortice ([0003; 0078] discusses the handle system operating a door lock, which would be mounted in a mechanical mortice, via spindle 45) using a spindle (45; [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the door lock system (Fig 1 depicts a handle system for operating a door lock [0001-0003]) includes a keypad (Fig 1 depicts the keypad to be push buttons 4), wherein the keypad is configured to receive a code, and provide access control dependent on whether the code is a valid code [0070].
Regarding claim 11, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 10, wherein the keypad (Fig 1 depicts the keypad to be push buttons 4) is provided on an outer surface of the external digital access control assembly (Fig 1 depicts 4 to be provided on an outer surface of 1).
Regarding claim 19, Carlsson teaches an external digital access control assembly (handle 1) for use on a pivotally mounted door ([Abstract] discusses the handle operating a door; In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; “for use on a pivotally mounted door” is intended use for the external digital access control assembly), the external digital access control assembly including:
a digital access control component (electronic control unit 5);
one or more batteries (battery 7a) for powering the external digital access control assembly [0070]and
a handle (maneuverable member 2);
wherein the digital access control component includes a clutch (electrical motor 6; second coupling member 8; first coupling member 15; engagement member 19; drive member 21; stop element 23) configured to selectively provide access control by mechanically coupling and decoupling the handle to a mortice ([0072-0077] discusses how the handle and clutch engage to allow 15 to rotate which is coupled to the lock; 6;8;15;19;21;23 function to couple to connect and disconnect 2 to 45 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster noun definition 2a of clutch and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term);
wherein the external digital access control assembly is configured to be located on an outside of the door (Fig 4 depicts the handle assembly structured to be located entirely on an outside of the door in the same manner as the instant invention excluding fasteners).
Claims 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlsson, US 20160251876 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Constantinou et al., US 20050092042 A1 (hereinafter Constantinou).
Regarding claim 12, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the mechanical mortice ([0003; 0078] discusses the handle system operating a door lock, which would be mounted in a mechanical mortice, via spindle 45) comprises a lock ()
Carlsson does not teach wherein the mechanical mortice comprises a centre mortice lock, wherein the system includes an upper and lower lock coupled to the centre mortice lock.
Constantinou teaches a mechanical mortice (main lock 10; remote locks 11; 12; Fig 1) comprises a centre mortice lock (10), wherein the system ([0072] discusses the system to be a multipoint lock assembly) includes an upper (11) and lower lock (12) coupled to the centre mortice lock (10; 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 C, to modify Carlsson’s lock with Constantinou’s multipoint lock structure. The prior art contains a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” (Carlsson’s apparatus) and a “comparable” device that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (Constantinou’s apparatus). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add Constantinou’s multiple lock structure and operating structure in order to increase the market opportunities for Carlsson’s apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely multipoint lock assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Carlsson in view of Constantinou teaches the door lock system of claim 12, wherein the centre mortice lock (Constantinou, 10) is coupled to the upper and lower locks (Constantinou, 11; 12) by one or more actuating bars and/or actuating rods (Constantinou, rods 50; Fig 1), which are configured to lock/unlock the upper and lower locks through linear movement (Constantinou, linear movement of 50 between Fig 1 and Fig 2 depicts the locking and unlocking of 11; 12).
Regarding claim 14, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 12, wherein the mechanical mortice (Constantinou, 10; 11; 12) comprises an actuating assembly (internal lever 30), coupled to the handle ([0076] discloses the handle to be an external snib), and a linear actuating member (24), configured to actuate the upper and lower locks [0084] wherein rotation of the actuating assembly causes linear movement of the linear actuating member (Constantinou, movement between Fig 1 and Fig 2 depicts the rotation of 30 causing linear movement of 24).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlsson, US 20160251876 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uyeda et al., US 20240046725 A1 (hereinafter Uyeda).
Regarding claim 15, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1.
Carlsson does not teach wherein the door lock system includes a lock cylinder, configured to provide keyed access control as an alternative to the external digital access control assembly, wherein the lock cylinder includes a cam, coupled to a barrel thereof, configured to cause translation of a linear actuating member to thereby unlock the door.
Uyeda teaches it is known in the art for a door lock system, wherein the door lock system (100) includes a lock cylinder (lock cylinder 134), configured to provide keyed access control as an alternative to the external digital access control assembly [0041], wherein the lock cylinder includes a cam (driver 701), coupled to a barrel thereof (cylinder plug 134-2; Fig 7B), configured to cause translation of a linear actuating member (coupling 156) to thereby unlock the door [0045].
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 C, to modify Carlsson’s apparatus with mechanical unlocking capability of Uyeda. The prior art contains a “base” device (Carlsson’s apparatus) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device (Uyeda’s apparatus) that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a mechanical unlocking capability to an electronic lock in order to provide an unlocking means in the event of a dead battery. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely a door lock system with both electronic and mechanical unlocking means.
Claims 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlsson, US 20160251876 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byerly et al., US 8353188 B1 (hereinafter Byerly).
Regarding claim 16, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1.
Carlsson does not teach wherein the door lock system includes an internal handle that is selectively coupled to a spindle of the lock by one or more buttons.
Byerly teaches a door lock system (invention 10), wherein the door lock system includes an internal handle (thumb turn 13) that is selectively coupled to a spindle of the lock (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Byerly) by one or more buttons (push button 14A; movement between Fig4 and Fig 5 depicts the selective coupling between 13 and 12 of the spindle using 14A).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Byerly
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 A, to modify Carlsson’s apparatus to have Byerly’s internal door handle. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an internal handle in order to provide both external and internal access control capabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a lock system with both internal and external handle access control.
Regarding claim 17, Carlsson in view of Byerly teaches the door lock system of claim 16, wherein the one or more buttons (see claim interpretation under claim 17 Claim Objection; Byerly, 14A) are located on the internal handle (see claim interpretation under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 17; Byerly, 13; see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Byerly).
Regarding claim 18, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 16, wherein the button (Byerly, 14A) is configured to selectively couple the handle (Byerly, 13) to a of the lock spindle (See Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Byerly) by engaging with a keyed portion of the spindle (Byerly, movement between Fig 4 and Fig 5 depicts 14A being depressed to selectively couple 13 with the geared edge of 12 to prevent relative movement between 12 and 13 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 11c of key and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, Carlsson teaches the door lock system of claim 1, wherein the clutch is configured to couple the handle to the mechanical mortice; and Fish, US 3353383 A, teaches it is known in the art for a door lock system to comprise a clutch configured to couple a handle to a mechanical mortice when the handle is turned in one direction, and not when the handle is turned in the other direction (col 3, lines 6-22); one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Carlsson in view of Fish as claimed in the instant application without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
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 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