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 filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “there is nothing in the disclosure in Spahn that prevents the key from being pulled out from the core when the key is inserted and not rotated”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: :
In claims 1 and 16 “the unlocked state” should read “an unlocked state”.
In claim 9 “a key receiving portion” should read “a key-receiving portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-5, 11-14, and 15 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 4 and 11, “a fastened state” is unclear as “a fastened state” was already claim 1, from which these claims depend. Thus, it’s unclear if the applicant is intended to introduce a new state or refer to the previously introduced fastened state. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed and “a fastened state” is assumed to read “a fastened state” in claims 4 and 11.
In regards to claims 11 and 13 “a key-blade fastening element” is unclear as “fastening means” was previously introduced in claim 1 from which these claims depend. With the original disclosure in mind, it’s unclear if the key-blade fastening element and “the fastening means” are the same or distinct features. For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed.
In regards to claim 15, “an unlocked state” is unclear as “the unlocked state” was previously introduced in claim 1. Thus, it’s unclear if the applicant is intended to introduce a new state or refer to the previously introduced unlocked state. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed and “an unlocked state” is assumed to read “the unlocked state”.
In regards to claim 5 and 14, “an indentation” is unclear as “fastening means” was previously introduced in claim 1 from which these claims depend. With the original disclosure in mind, it’s unclear if the indentation and “the fastening means” are the same or distinct features. For the purposes of examination claims 5 and 14 are assumed to further define the fastening means as an indentation.
Claim 12 is rejected do to its dependency on the rejected claims above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn DE 102019213852 A1 (hereinafter Spahn), Bickert DE 102014202081 A1 (hereinafter Bickert) and Gapco US 6164102 A (hereinafter Gapco), and Fawcett et al. US 20110254661 A1 (hereinafter Fawcett).
In regards to claim 1, Spahn teaches a lock operating device configured to be retrofitted (8 and 9) on an electromechanical lock (1) having a key-receiving portion (7), said lock operating device the lock operating device comprising: a key blade (portion 8 inside lock, see figs 1 and 2) being insertable in said key-receiving portion of the electromechanical lock (see fig 1), and circuitry (9) incorporated into the key blade (see fig 1), the circuitry includes wireless communication means (the transponder) and which the circuitry is arranged to forward authentication information to the electromechanical lock via the inserted key blade (see fig 1), a second operating mode in which the electromechanical lock is arranged to receive said authentication information wirelessly from the lock operating device (via 9, see para 19) and be operated by the maneuver knob of the lock operating device (para 19) wherein the key blade comprises fastening means (12) arranged to mechanically fasten the key blade within the key-receiving portion in a fastened state (a state when fastened with 11), thereby preventing separation of the lock operating device from the electromechanical lock (para 8) when the electromechanical lock is in the unlocked state (see fig 4, at least as 6 is unlocked; see para 8) and/or when the electromechanical lock is in a locked state (considering the “locked state” as a state when the key blade within locked within the key-receiving portion; see para 8).
However, Spahn does not teach said lock operating device being an alternative to a programable physical key of the electromechanical lock and converting from a first operating mode, in which the electromechanical lock can be operated by the programmable physical key receivable in said key-receiving portion to the second operating mode
Bickert teaches a similar device with a lock operating device (user keys) being an alternative to a programable physical key (master key, see para 6) of the electromechanical lock and converting from a first operating mode (unlocked with the master key), in which the electromechanical lock can be operated by the programmable physical key receivable in said key-receiving portion (para 6) to a second operating mode (actuation via a user key),
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 Spahn with an alternative to a programable physical key (in this case a master key) in order to allow for universal operation on multiple electromechnical locks (Bickert see para 6).
However, Spahn does not teach a maneuver knob with the key blade being operably connected to the maneuver knob.
Gapco teaches a knob used on a key (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Spahn with a maneuver knob, such as in Gapco, in order to provide for easier grasping (Gapco Col 1 lines 55-60) and to make it harder to lose the key.
Additionally, Spahn does not teach the wireless communication means are arranged to wirelessly receive authentication information related to the electromechanical lock and without retaining the authentication information in the lock operating device.
Fawcett teaches a similar electronic key with wireless communication means are arranged to wirelessly receive authentication information (the SDC; para 67) related to a electromechanical lock (para 81) that operates a lock without retaining the authentication information (the SDC) in the lock operating device (as it is erased after a predetermined period of time see para 66). Para 81
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the wireless communication means are arranged to wirelessly receive authentication information related to the electromechanical lock and to have Spahn not retain the authentication information in the lock operating device in order to prevent its use by a thief (see para Fawcett para 66).
In regards to claim 4, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Spahn in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating device according to claim 1, wherein the lock operating device and the electromechanical lock are arranged to be fastened in a fastened state (key inserted) in response to locking the electromechanical lock (Spahn: when rotated to the locked position but not at the key removal position para 8).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Spahn in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating device according to claim 1, wherein the key blade comprises an indentation (Spahn: 12) for receiving a geometrically complementary element (Spahn: 11, see fig 1) located in the electromechanical lock , the indentation and the geometrically complementary element being arranged to retain the lock operating device (Spahn: see fig 1) and the electromechanical lock in a retained state while the key blade is inserted in the key-receiving portion (Spahn: see fig 1), wherein the retained state is such that the lock operating device can be unauthorizedly separated from the electromechanical lock by applying at least a threshold force along an axial extension of the key blade (Spahn: when in the key release state).
In regards to claim 9, Spahn in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches a lock operating system, comprising an electromechanical lock (Spahn: 1) having a key receiving portion (Spahn: 7), and a lock operating device according to claim 1.
In regards to claim 11, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections. Spahn in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating system according to claim 9, wherein the key blade comprises a key-blade fastening element (Spahn: 12) arranged to mechanically fasten the key blade within the key-receiving portion in a fastened state (see fig 1), thereby the electromechanical lock comprises a complementary fastening element (Spahn: 11) complementary to the key- blade fastening element, for setting the lock operating device and the electromechanical lock in a mutually fastened state (Spahn: when not in the key release state; para 8) in response to locking the electromechanical lock, thereby preventing separation of the lock operating device and the electromechanical lock (Spahn: paras 1-2 and 13).
In regards to claim 13, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating system according to claim 9, wherein the key blade comprises a key-blade fastening element (Spahn: element receiving 11, see fig 1) for receiving a fastening element (Spahn: 11) of the electromechanical lock to fasten the lock operating device (Spahn: see fig 1) and the electromechanical lock in a mutually fastened state (Spahn: see fig 1), the fastening element of the electromechanical lock being actuated in response to receiving valid authentication information from the electronic device (Spahn: at least since 6 blocks insertion if invalid, meaning 11 can engage with 6 permitting; see fig 1).
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating system according to claim 9, wherein the key blade comprises an indentation (Spahn: portion for 11, see fig 1) for receiving a geometrically complementary element (Spahn: 11, see fig 1) located in the electromechanical lock, the indentation and the geometrically complementary element being arranged to retain the lock operating device (Spahn: see fig 1) and the electromechanical lock in a retained state while the key blade is inserted in the key-receiving portion (Spahn: see fig 1), wherein the retained state is such that the lock operating device can be unauthorizedly separated from the electromechanical lock by applying at least a threshold force along an axial extension of the key blade (Spahn: when in the key release state), and wherein the key-receiving portion comprises the geometrically complementary element (Spahn: see fig 1, considering 11 apart of the key receiving portion).
In regards to claim 15, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating system according to claim 9,wherein the electromechanical lock is, provided the electromechanical lock has received valid authentication information from the electronic device (Spahn: since valid information is needed to inert key properly), arranged to be set in an unlocked state by rotating the lock operating device about the axial extension of the key blade when the key blade is inserted in the key-receiving portion (as to get to fig 4 requires rotation of the keyblade see figs 2-4).
Claim(s) 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Stobbe et al. US 20090255303 A1 (hereinafter Stobbe).
In regards to claim 2, Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating device according to claim 1.
However, Spahn does not teach wherein the circuitry is arranged to transmit electrical power to the electromechanical lock.
Stobbe teaches wherein the circuitry is arranged to transmit electrical power to the electromechanical lock (para 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have the circuitry is arranged to transmit electrical power to the electromechanical lock in order to allow for a smaller electromechanical lock (Stobbe para 14).
In regards to claim 8, in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating device according to claim 1.
However, Spahn does not teach where the lock operating device comprises a battery or an electric generator. Although it’s very likely Spahn uses a battery to power the transmitter, Spahn is silent.
Stobbe teaches a similar device using a battery (112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Spahn’s lock operating device with a battery as it is well known to use a battery to power portable objects, furthermore using a battery in Spahn would allow power transfer allowing for a smaller electromechanical lock (Stobbe para 14).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Stobbe and JP 2016536497 A (hereinafter JP ‘497).
In regards to claim 6, Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating device according to claim 1.
However, Spahn does not teach wherein the circuitry is arranged to wirelessly transmit electrical power from an electronic device to the electromechanical lock.
Stobbe teaches wherein the circuitry is arranged to wirelessly transmit electrical power to the electromechanical lock (para 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have the circuitry arranged to transmit electrical power to the electromechanical lock in order to allow for a smaller electromechanical lock (Stobbe para 14).
JP ‘497 teaches transmitting power from an electronic device (mobile device) to a similar lock operating device (para 128, charging the key fob).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have charged Spahn’s lock operating with an electronic device such as in JP ‘497 in order to allow for convenient and mobile charging.
With the modifications above Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, Fawcett, and Stobbe teaches wherein the circuitry is arranged to wirelessly transmit electrical power from an electronic device to the electromechanical lock (through the lock operating device, since power goes from the electronic device to the lock operating device then to the electromechanical lock).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 13-15 above, and further in view and JP ‘497.
In regards to claim 7, Spahn in view of in view of Bickert, Gapco, and Fawcett teaches the lock operating device according to claim 1, teach wherein the circuity comprises a transponder means to allow either or both of authentication and electrical power to be wirelessly transmitted from the electronic device to the electromechanical lock (Spahn: para 19, allows authentication information to be wirelessly transmitted.
However, Spahn is silent on the type of communication protocol the transponder uses.
JP ‘497 teaches a similar device with the use of a NFC (para 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used NFC as the communication protocol in Spahn as NFC improves security by physically limiting the range of communication so that it is difficult to forge or intercept cryptographic transactions (JP ‘497 para 124).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett in view of Harley US 20090308119 A1 (hereinafter Harley).
In regards to claim 16, Fawcett teaches a method for converting an electromechanical lock (cabinet lock see para 84, also note para 88) from a first operating mode (alarming) in which the electromechanical lock can be operated (to alarm) by a programmable physical key (a key programmed with an incorrect SDC, see para 74 )receivable in a key-receiving portion (265, see fig 20) of the electromechanical lock , to a second alternative operating mode (para 76) utilizing a lock operating device (a key 205 programmed with the correct SDC, see paras 74 and 76) , said method comprising: inserting a key protrusion (293) of the lock operating device into said key-receiving portion (para 88), said lock operating device comprising circuitry which includes wireless communication means arranged to wirelessly receive authentication information pertaining to the electromechanical lock (para 87), and which circuitry is arranged to communicate the received authentication information to the electromechanical lock via the inserted key protrusion (para 87) and fastening the lock operating device to the electromechanical lock in a mutually fastened state (a state when fastened with 11) to prevent separation of the lock operating device and the electromechanical lock when the electromechanical lock is in the unlocked state (when 6 is unlocked; see fig1 and para 8) and/or when the electromechanical lock is in a locked state (considering the “locked state” as a state when the key blade within locked within the key-receiving portion, see para 8).
However, Fawcett does not teach the key protrusion is a key blade. Fawcett does recognize a need for the key to mechanically operate a device (note para 96).
Harley teaches a similar device with a key blade (26) capable of transferring both power and data to an electromechanical lock (para 49).
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 Fawcett’s key protrusion as a key blade in order to allow for mechanical effort to be transmitted to a lock (see Harley para 49).
In regards to claim 17, Fawcett in view of Harley teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising transmitting electrical power to the electromechanical lock (Fawcett para 79).
In regards to claim 18, Fawcett in view of Harley teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising wirelessly transmitting authentication information between an electronic device and the lock operating device.
In regards to claim 19, Fawcett in view of Harley teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising rotating a maneuver knob (Fawcett upper part of 205 wrt fig 19) of the lock operating device about an axial extension of the key blade for unlocking the electromechanical lock (Fawcett note fig 19 and Harley para 52).
Allowable Subject Matter
If properly written to overcome 112 rejections, claim 12 would be 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.
ConclusionApplicant'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 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