DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2, line 2 “[[a]] elongated housing” is not grammatically correct. Rather, “an elongated housing” appears to be appropriate. Claim 2 line 15 “[[a]] inserted key “ should be “an inserted key”. Claim 7, line 5 ”[[a]] actuator rod” should be “an actuator rod” Note: the claim set appears to be replete with unintentional grammatical errors, it is the applicant’s burden to review and remove grammatical errors.
Claim 2 “a elongated housing comprising of interior mounts to direct a reciprocal bolt” is at least awkwardly written if not misleading.
In the recitation “comprising of”, “of” appears to serve no purpose and should be removed. Further, to clarify for example “an elongated housing comprising” the following should then detail the structure of the housing claimed. Review of the drawings and specification does not show any structure that is a mount which leaves the recitation subject to interpretation as to what the applicant requires..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the means of contact force” and means of manually turning a inserted key in claim 2. Also “sufficient means” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 2 is rejected (claims 3-7 are likewise rejected as being depending from claim 1) 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.
Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation: “a elongated housing comprising of interior mounts to direct a reciprocal bolt” is at least awkwardly written if not misleading.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim if the applicant intends mount structure. As written it is unclear if “mounts” is intended to be structure or functional. If the applicant intends to positively recite structure of a mount, a pair of mounts, a plurality of mounts or some indication of the applicant’s choosing to make clear that the applicant requires a specific structure is required. The limitation is taken broadly until clarified.
Claim 4, line 3, what is or is not “sufficient means” is undefined subject to interpretation rendering the claim indefinite as one does not know what is or is not “sufficient”.
Claim 7, in the recitation “a lock casing assumed to have an installed double cylinder deadbolt by user” is not a positive recitation of structure that is in possession of the applicant. It is positive recitation of structure that forms claim limitation. The open interpretation of claim language creates an undefined condition which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the applicant is claiming lock structure or the lock structure is merely intended use.
Claim 7, line 3 “an edge bore and an elongated housing opening are facing” appears at incomplete which is unclear what the applicant requires.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turnbo (US 8,001,813).
Regarding claim 7, Turnbo discloses a method for assembling gate Lockbox Latch comprising of a lockbox casing assumed to have an installed double cylinder deadbolt by user; said user then fastens an elongated housing (24) to said lockbox casing so that an edge bore (20A) and an elongated housing opening (annotated Fig.1) are facing; a bolt latch (22) is inserted into end of said elongated housing so that a notch (annotated Fig.1) is facing toward said lockbox casing; a actuator rod (34,36) is then attached to said bolt latch through an elongated slot of said elongated housing; handles (29) are then affixed to ends of said actuator rod.
Note: as written, the scope of the claim does not include double cylinder deadbolt, but is rather considered useable with, not an element of the applicant’s invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 taken from Turnbo (US 8,001,813)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 3-6 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Turnbo (US 8,001,813) discloses the claimed invention except for “lockbox casing having a bore hole configured to receive said double cylinder deadbolt, each of the two cylinders installed at the ends of said bore hole and an edge bore on said lockbox casing adapted for the mounting of a bolt assembly transversely to said bore hole; when said bolt latch is projected to latched position a predetermined notch located midway the length of said bolt latch is aligned to receive a deadbolt thrown from said bolt assembly; said deadbolt extends through an elongated housing opening into said notch by means of manually turning a inserted key in either one of the two key holes located at each of two said cylinders whereby securing said bolt latch in a locked latched position.” Modification of Turnbo to include the elemental features above does not appear to be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675