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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer WO 2008074171 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kramer teaches a flat key for a cylinder lock (fig. 11a)comprising a key bow and a key shank (fig. 11a) extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the key (axis through the center of 5) and having a key tip (11), characterized in that at least one surface code (annotated fig. 1) formed for interrogation in the cylinder lock-is arranged on the end face of the key tip (fig. 7b), wherein at least one additional code (BN) with a further scanning surface is provided on the end face-of the key tip (BN is being interpreted as being on the end face because it is directly connected to 10.9 and the rest of the cutout contours of the end face), wherein the additional code at least partially overlaps the surface code such that a portion of the additional code extends beyond the surface code onto the end face (annotated fig. 1 shows the additional code extends toward the end face of the key in the same manner that the applicant’s does and therefore is interpreted as partially overlapping the surface code), and wherein the further scanning surface of the additional code differs in shape from the scanning surface of the surface code (fig. 9a,9b).
Regarding claim 2, Kramer teaches the flat key according to according to claim 1, wherein the surface code has a substantially non-linear course at least partially along a spatial axis x, y or z (fig. 9a).
Regarding claim 3, Kramer teaches the flat key-according to according claim 1, wherein the surface code has a substantially non-linear course at least partially along two spatial axes x and y, y and z, or x and z (fig. 9a).
Regarding claim 4, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 3, wherein the surface code has a substantially non-linear course at least partially along all three spatial axes x, y and z (fig. 9a, b).
Regarding claim 5, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 1, wherein at least one first surface code (annotated fig. 1) is arranged on the end face-of the key tip for interrogation in the cylinder lock, and
at least one second surface code (annotated fig. 1) is arranged on the end face of the key tip for interrogation in the cylinder lock, wherein
at least the surface codes are substantially congruent and rotated by an angle of approximately 180 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the key, so that the flat key can also be used as a reversible key (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 6, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 1, wherein the surface codes run for the most part, in particular exclusively, on the end face-of the key tip (fig. 9a).
Regarding claim 7, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 1, wherein the surface codes are shaped in the form of recesses with scanning surfaces on the end face of the key tip (fig. 11a), the scanning surfaces corresponding substantially to the circumferential surfaces of a rotational body (40.9) with a rotational axis (41.3) and preferably being shaped as millings (milling cutter).
Regarding claim 8, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 7, wherein the rotational body (40.9) has an analytically describable cross-sectional geometry in one, two or all three spatial axes (fig. 11a, 11b).
Regarding claim 9, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 7, wherein the rotational body (40.9)is substantially a sphere, a cylinder, a cone, a truncated cone or an ellipsoid (40.9).
Regarding claim 10, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 7, wherein the rotational axis is inclined at an angle a to the longitudinal axis of the key, the angle a being about 45 degrees to 90 degrees, preferably about 75 degrees (fig. 12 shows 90 degrees between the two axis).
Regarding claim 11, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 7, wherein the rotational axis is inclined at an angle a to a transverse plane (y plane shown in figure 11b) of the flat key the angle a being about 45 degrees to 90 degrees, preferably about 85 degrees (fig. 12 shows an angle W3 between the y plane and the rotational axis which is about 45 degrees; please note about is a relative term and is not limiting).
Regarding claim 12, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 7, wherein the rotational axis is arranged substantially along a transverse plane (X plane) of the flat key offset by a distance from the longitudinal axis of the key (fig. 12), the distance preferably being about 1/10 to about 1/4 of the width of the key shank.
Regarding claim 13, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 5, wherein the surface codes overlap in sections, preferably in the region of the longitudinal axis of the key (fig. 9a, 9b).
Regarding claim 14, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 5, wherein a preferably spatially curved, for example S-shaped, contour line is formed on the end face of the key tip between the surface codes (fig. 9a, 9b).
Regarding claim 16, Kramer teaches the flat key according to claim 15, wherein the additional code overlaps the surface code (fig. 9a, 9b; overlaps 10.9) over less than 50 percent of a surface area of the additional code (annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kramer teaches the flat key-according to according to claim 15, wherein at least one first surface code (annotated fig. 1) and at least one first additional code (annotated fig. 1) are arranged on the end face-of the key tip for interrogation in the cylinder lock, and
at least one second surface code (annotated fig. 1) and at least one second additional code (annotated fig. 1) are arranged on the end face of the key tip for interrogation in the cylinder lock, wherein
at least the surface codes and preferably also the additional codes are each substantially congruent with one another and are rotated through an angle of approximately 180 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the key, so that the flat key can also be used as a reversible key (annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Kramer teaches a cylinder lock (fig. 10) comprising a cylinder core (core key is inserted into in fig. 10) rotatable in a cylinder housing (Za) about an axis of rotation and having a key channel for receiving a flat key according to claim 1 (fig. 10), characterized in that the cylinder lock is designed to scan at least one surface code on the end face of the flat key (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Kramer teaches the cylinder lock according to claim 18, comprising an optionally multi-component coupling assembly (22a, 22b) rotatable about the axis of rotation and a locking nose characterized in that the cylinder lock preferably the coupling assembly is designed to transmit a rotation of the cylinder core to the locking nose upon insertion of an authorized flat key (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, Kramer teaches the cylinder lock according to claim 19, wherein the coupling assembly is designed for positive engagement in the surface codes and optionally also in the additional codes on the end face- of the flat key (fig. 10, .
Regarding claim 21, Kramer teaches the cylinder lock according to claim 18, wherein an adapter (21a) is provided between the cylinder core and the coupling assembly which adapter is displaceable (called displaceable counterpart) substantially along, or parallel to, the axis of rotation the adapter (fig. 10) having a contour (portion which couples with 22a) on the side facing away from the key channel for engagement in the coupling assembly (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 22, Kramer teaches the cylinder lock according to claim 21, wherein the adapter has at least one scanning element (convex formation 20a, 20b) for engagement with the surface code, the surface shape of the scanning element preferably corresponding to the scanning surface of the surface code (20a and 20b mesh with the key to provide contact).
Regarding claim 23, Kramer teaches the cylinder lock according claim 22, wherein the adapter has a plurality of scanning elements (20a, 20b); for engaging in the surface codes and, optionally, additional codes on the end face-t of the flat key, the surface shape of the scanning elements preferably corresponding to the scanning surfaces of the surface codes and, optionally, of the additional codes (20a and 20b mesh with the key to provide contact).
Regarding claim 24, Kramer teaches a locking system, comprising the flat key and one or more cylinder locks according to claim 18 (fig. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1, the applicant asserts that Kramer does not teach the newly added limitation “the additional code at least partially overlaps the surface code such that a portion of the additional code extends beyond the surface code onto the end face”. The examiner disagrees and points to the updated rejection to independent claim 1 above. The end face of the instant application’s key is denotated as a general area towards the end of the key (part number 5 in figure 1b). Kramer’s additional code overlaps the surface code in the same manner as the applicant’s and extends beyond the surface code onto the end face when the end face of the key is taken in a general area such as the applicant’s figure 1B. Annotated figure 1 shows the different surfaces of Kramer’s key and it is clearly visible that the additional code extends on to the end face.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that the further scanning surface of the additional code does not differ from the scanning surface of the surface code. The examiner disagrees and points to annotated figure 1 which clearly shows the differing shapes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 at (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.
/J.E.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675