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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are readable on the elected species, and the examination of the claims is set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 6 and points A, B, and C (discussed in Paragraphs 66-69 of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the indicator line of reference character 31 does not point to the correct structure in Figure 1. The specification sets forth that reference character 31 refers to the spring with arms 2, and therefore, the indicator line of reference character 31 should point to the area of pincer arms 2 in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 66, line 6, the phrase “the baffle plate 40” should be changed to “the splitter disk 40.”
In Paragraph 69, line 10, the phrase “the baffle plate 40” should be changed to “the splitter disk 40.”
In Paragraph 82, line 1, the phrase “comes in to ist own” should be changed to “comes in to assist.”
In Paragraph 93, lines 3, 10, and 11, each instance of the phrase “the baffle plate 40” should be changed to “the splitter disk 40.”
In Paragraph 94, line 9, the phrase “the baffle plate 40” should be changed to “the splitter disk 40.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, and 12-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In regards to claim 1, the claim should read as follows: “A method for monitoring a locking mechanism of an electric locking unit, the method comprising the steps of: moving a locking bolt of the locking mechanism into and out of a recess of a locking part of the electric locking unit between a closed position and an open position, respectively; reversibly moving the locking bolt from the open position to the closed position during a closing operation; determining a closing time span of the locking bolt, wherein the closing time span of the locking bolt comprises an amount of time that the locking bolt requires to transition from the open position to the closed position during the closing operation; comparing the determined closing time span of the locking bolt with a predetermined closing time span limit value; and detecting delayed locking of the electric locking unit when the determined closing time span exceeds the predetermined closing time span limit value.”
b. In regards to claim 4, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “further comprising the steps of: inserting the locking part of the electric locking unit into a closing recess of the electric locking unit and into an adjustment path of the locking bolt during the closing operation; during the closing operation, inserting the locking part into the closing recess causes the locking part to strike the locking bolt, so that the locking bolt is moved against a spring force of a spring, causing the spring to be tensioned and the locking bolt to be displaced into the open position, clearing the way for the locking part to be fully inserted into the closing recess; and as the recess of the locking part comes into the adjustment path of the locking bolt, the locking bolt is extended by the spring force of the spring into the recess of the locking part, thereby placing the locking bolt in the closed position, in which the locking bolt engages in the recess and blocks the locking part from exiting the closing recess.”
c. In regards to claim 5, the claim should read as follows: “A locking system with monitoring of locking in an electric locking unit according to claim 1, the locking system comprising: a control unit connected with the electric locking unit and configured to execute the method according to claim 1.”
d. In regards to claim 6, line 2, the phrase “of the locking bolt” should be inserted after the phrase “the open position,” in line 6, the phrase “of the locking bolt” should be inserted after the phrase “the closed position,” in line 7, the word “swtich” should be changed to “switch,” in line 11, the phrase “is is” should be changed to “is,” and lines 12-17 should read as follows: “those points in time at which the first electrical switch is closed at the open position of the locking bolt; and those points in time at which the second electrical switch is closed in the closed position of the locking bolt.”
e. In regards to claim 8, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the electric locking unit further comprises: a first mechanically actuatable switch for monitoring the open position of the locking bolt, the first mechanically actuatable switch configured to be actuated by a control pin arranged on the locking bolt when the locking bolt is moved into the open position; and a second mechanically actuatable switch for monitoring the closed position of the locking bolt, the second mechanically actuatable switch configured to be actuated by the control pin on the locking bolt when the locking bolt is moved into the closed position; whereby the first and second mechanically actuatable switches are connected with the control unit and wherein the control unit is configured to respectively determine: points in time of actuation of the first mechanically actuatable switch at the open position of the locking bolt; and points in time of actuation of the second mechanically actuatable switch at the closed position of the locking bolt.”
f. In regards to claim 10, line 2, the phrase “a delayed locking” should be changed to “the delayed locking.”
g. In regards to claim 12, line 2, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a closing recess,” in line 6, the word “disiplacing” should be changed to “displacing,” in line 7, the phrase “allowing the locking part into the closing recess” should be changed to “allowing the locking part to be fully inserted into the closing recess,” in line 8, the word “whrein” should be changed to “wherein,” in line 9, the word “exxtended” should be changed to “extended,” and in line 10, the phrase “the recess of the locking part and retained in the closed position, wherein the locking bolt” should be changed to “the recess of the locking part, such that the locking bolt reaches the closed position, in which the locking bolt.”
h. In regards to claim 13, line 1, the phrase “An electric locking unit for a locking system according to Claim 5, comprising” should be changed to “The locking system according to claim 5, wherein the electric locking unit further comprises,” in line 2, the phrase “the open position” should be changed to “the open position of the locking bolt,” in line 6, the phrase “the closed position” should be changed to “the closed position of the locking bolt,” and lines 13-17 should rea as follows: “points in time at which the first electrical switch is closed at the open position of the locking bolt; and points in time at which the second electrical switch is closed in the closed position of the locking bolt.”
i. In regards to claim 14, line 1, the phrase “The electrical locking unit according to Claim 13” should be changed to “The locking system according to claim 13.”
j. In regards to claim 15, line 1, the phrase “An electric locking unit for a locking system according to Claim 5, comprising” should be changed to “The locking system according to claim 5, wherein the electric locking unit further comprises,” in lines 2, 3, 5, and 6, each instance of the word “actuable” should be changed to “actuatable,” in line 8, the word “operable” should be changed to “actuatable,” and lines 10-15 should read as follows: “points in time of actuation of the first mechanically actuatable switch at the open position of the locking bolt; and points in time of actuation of the second mechanically actuatable switch at the closed position of the locking bolt.”
k. In regards to claim 16, the claim should read as follows: “A cabinet having a door and an interior space delimited by the door, the cabinet comprising the locking system according to claim 13, wherein the locking mechanism of the electric locking unit is configured in the interior space of the cabinet and the locking part of the electric locking unit is configured on the door of the cabinet, the locking pat being spaced from the locking mechanism in an open state of the electric locking unit, allowing the door to be opened.”
l. In regards to claim 17, line 1, the phrase “The electric locking unit for a locking system according to Claim 15” should be changed to “The locking system according to Claim 15,” and in line 2, the word “actuable” should be changed to “actuatable.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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 claim 1, the relationship between the locking bolt in line 3 and the locking mechanism in line 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the locking bolt is part of the locking mechanism, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear how the “providing” step is a step of monitoring the locking mechanism, when the providing step appears to be a step of a method of assembly of the device. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, lines 7-10, the phrase “the locking bolt extends from the recess of the locking part in the open position” suggests that the locking bolt is engaged with the recess in the open position. It is understood from the specification that the locking bolt is removed from or does not engage with the recess in the open position. Furthermore, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrase “wherein a locking mechanism can be produced.” This phrase suggests that the movement of the locking bolt into and out of the recess manufactures or produced a mechanical structure or locking mechanism. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “closing process” recited in line 13 and the “closing operation” recited in line 6 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the closing process is equivalent to the closing operation, and will be examined as such. The claims should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 2, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, the difference between the “closing time span maximum value” of claim 2 and the “predetermined closing time span limit value” of claim 1 is unclear. Based on the specification, it appears that the “closing time span maximum value” and the “predetermined closing time span limit value” are the same, and will be examined as such. Furthermore, claim 1 appears to be referring to monitoring of the electric locking unit during normal operation, whereas, the predetermined closing time span limit value or the closing time span maximum value, as recited in claim 2, is determined before the normal operation such that the limit or maximum value is set to which the closing time span during operation is compared.
In regards to claim 4, the relationship between the “inserting the locking part” step in line 2 and the “introducing the locking part” step in line 4 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “introducing the locking part” step is equivalent to the “inserting the locking part” step, and will be examined as such. The claims should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 4, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrase “clears the way for the locking part into the closing recess” when the locking part is already located in the closing recess to cause the locking bolt to be displaced. It is understood from the specification that during the closing operation, the locking part is inserted into the closing recess, such that the locking part strikes the locking bolt causing the locking bolt to be moved against the spring force of the spring, such that the spring is tensioned and the locking bolt is displaced into the open position, allowing or clearing the way for the locking part to move further into the closing recess or to be fully inserted into the closing recess and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 5, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. The claim incorporates the limitations of claim 1, which already recites the electric locking unit and its components, and therefore, the relationship between the electric locking unit and its components recited in claim 5 and the electric locking unit and its components recited in claim 1 is unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as drawn to a locking system with monitoring of locking in an electric locking unit according to claim 1, with the locking system comprising a control unit connected with the electric locking unit and configured to execute the method according to claim 1. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 6, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrases “the first electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state” and “the second electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state.” It is unclear what applicant considers as the initial state of each of the switches, and how this initial state is interrupted. Does this phrase refer to the switches being open in their initial state and then closed?
In regards to claim 6, lines 12-17, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrases “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the open position” and “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the closed position.” Since the language that precedes these phrases already recites points in time at which the first and second switches are closed, it is unclear how the phrases mentioned above add more to the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above, in which the control pin limitations are positively recited.
In regards to claim 8, lines 12-17, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrases “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the open position” and “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the closed position.” Since the language that precedes these phrases already recites points in time at which the first and second switches are closed, it is unclear how the phrases mentioned above add more to the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 9, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, the difference between the “closing time span maximum value” of claim 9 and the “predetermined closing time span limit value” of claim 1 is unclear. Based on the specification, it appears that the “closing time span maximum value” and the “predetermined closing time span limit value” are the same, and will be examined as such.
In regards to claim 10, the relationship between the “delayed locking” of the electric locking unit of claim 10 and the “delayed locking” of the electric locking unit of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the delayed locking of claim 10 is equivalent to the delayed locking of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 12, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrase “allowing the locking part into the closing recess” when the locking part is already located in the closing recess. It is understood from the specification that as the locking part is inserted into the closing recess, the locking part strikes the locking bolt to displace the locking bolt to the open position, such that the locking part can move further into the closing recess or can be fully inserted into the closing recess and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 13, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear since the claim depends from claim 5, which claims a locking system including an electric locking unit, not an electric locking unit for a locking system. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 13, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrases “the first electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state” and “the second electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state.” It is unclear what applicant considers as the initial state of each of the switches, and how this initial state is interrupted. Does this phrase refer to the switches being open in their initial state and then closed?
In regards to claim 13, lines 12-17, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrases “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the open position” and “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the closed position.” Since the language that precedes these phrases already recites points in time at which the first and second switches are closed, it is unclear how the phrases mentioned above add more to the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 14, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. See rejection of claim 13 in Paragraph 27 above.
In regards to claim 15, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear since the claim depends from claim 5, which claims a locking system including an electric locking unit, not an electric locking unit for a locking system. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 15, lines 10-15, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrases “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the open position” and “as those points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the closed position.” Since the language that precedes these phrases already recites points in time at which the first and second switches are closed, it is unclear how the phrases mentioned above add more to the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 16, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, since the claim depends from claim 13, which depends from claims 1 and 5, the relationship between the “electrical locking unit” of claim 16 and the electric locking unit of claim 1 is unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear how the electric locking unit can be used with more than one door simultaneously, as suggested by the phrase “at least one door,” when the locking bolt can only cooperate with a single locking part. It is unclear how the locking part, the locking bolt, and locking unit are related, since the previous claims suggest that the locking part and the locking bolt are both part of the locking unit, whereas, claim 16 suggests that the locking part is separate from the locking unit. Also, it is unclear how the locking part extends from the locking unit in the open state, which suggests that the locking part is engaged with the locking bolt, when it is understood from the specification that the locking part is separated from the locking mechanism including the locking bolt, such that the door can be opened. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 17, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, since claim 17 depends from claim 15, which depends from claims 1 and 5. Claim 5 claims a locking system including an electric locking unit, not a locking unit for a locking system. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claims 3, 7, and 11, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 5.
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(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680).
In regards to claim 1, Sparenberg et al. discloses a method for monitoring a locking mechanism of an electric locking unit, the method comprising the steps of: moving a locking bolt 1 of the locking mechanism into and out of a recess 2 of a locking part (door in which recess is located, Figure 1) of the electric locking unit between a closed position (Figure 1) and an open position (position in which the bolt is retracted from the recess 2), respectively; reversibly moving the locking bolt from the open position to the closed position during a closing operation (movement of the bolt by the drive to the closed position in Figure 1); determining a closing time span of the locking bolt, wherein the closing time span of the locking bolt comprises an amount of time that the locking bolt requires to transition from the open position to the closed position during the closing operation (Col. 6, lines 17-31); comparing the determined closing time span of the locking bolt with a predetermined closing time span limit value; and detecting delayed locking of the electric locking unit when the determined closing time span exceeds the predetermined closing time span limit value (Col. 6, lines 17-31).
In regards to claim 2, Sparenberg et al. discloses that the step of determining the closing time span further comprises monitoring the open position and the closed position of the locking bolt, whereby points in time at which the locking bolt assumes the open position and times at which the locking bolt assumes the closed position are determined (monitored by the sensors, such that the closing time span can be determined, Col. 6, lines 18-31).
In regards to claim 5, Sparenberg et al. discloses a locking system with monitoring of locking in an electric locking unit according to claim 1, the locking system comprising: a control unit 9 connected with the electric locking unit and configured to execute the method according to claim 1.
In regards to claims 6 and 13, Sparenberg et al. discloses a first electrical switch 8b (Col. 6, lines 11-16) configured to monitor the open position, wherein the first electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state, such that an electrically conductive connection is thereby established (interrupted by movement of the locking bolt, such that a signal or electrically conductive connection with the control unit is made, Col. 5, line 39 to Col. 6, line 10), and the first electrical switch being closed when the locking bolt assumes the open position (considered as closed when producing signal when using a mechanical contact type switch, Col. 6, lines 11-16); a second electrical switch 8a (Col. 6, lines 11-16) configured to monitor the closed position, wherein the second electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state, such that an electrically conductive connection is thereby established (interrupted by movement of the locking bolt, such that a signal or electrically conductive connection with the control unit is made, Col. 5, line 39 to Col. 6, line 10), and the second electrical switch being closed when the locking bolt assumes the closed position (considered as closed when producing signal when using a mechanical contact type switch, Col. 6, lines 11-16); whereby the first and second electrical switches are connected with the control unit (Col. 6, lines 17-31) and wherein the control unit is configured to respectively determine: those points in time at which the first electrical switch is closed at the open position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31); and those points in time at which the second electrical switch is closed in the closed position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31).
In regards to claim 9, Sparenberg et al. discloses that the predetermined closing time span limit value is stored in the control unit (Col. 6, lines 17-31), the predetermined closing time span limit value indicating the maximum time span for reaching the closed position of the locking bolt after reaching the open position of the locking bolt (max time span under normal operating conditions, Col. 6, lines 17-31); and wherein the control unit is configured to detect a lack of locking of the electric locking unit when a period of time since the locking bolt assumed the open position exceeds the predetermined closing time span limit before the locking bolt assumes the closed position (lack of locking due to blockage, Col. 6, lines 32-49).
In regards to claim 10, Sparenberg et al. discloses that the control unit is configured to emit a warning signal when either the delayed locking of the electric locking unit is detected or a missing locking of the electric locking unit is detected (warning or fault signal, Col. 6, lines 17-49).
In regards to claim 15, Sparenberg et al. discloses a first mechanically actuatable switch 8b (Col. 6, lines 11-16) configured to monitor the open position, the first mechanically actuatable switch being configured to be actuated when the locking bolt is moved into the open position (Col. 5, line 39-Col. 6, line 49); a second mechanically actuatable switch 8a (Col. 6, lines 11-16) configured to monitor the closed position, the second mechanically actuatable switch configured to be actuated when the locking bolt is moved into the closed position (Col. 5, line 39-Col. 6, line 49); whereby the first and second electrical switches are connected with the control unit (Col. 6, lines 17-31) and wherein the control unit is configured to respectively determine: points in time of actuation of the first mechanically actuatable switch at the open position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31); and points in time of the second mechanically actuatable switch at eh closed position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31).
In regards to claim 17, Sparenberg et al. discloses that each of the first and second mechanically actuatable switches is further configured to emit a corresponding electrical signal when actuated (signal to control unit 9, Col. 6, line 17-49).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Siegenia Aubi KG (DE 202014006760 U1). Sparenberg et al. discloses that the times at which the locking bolt assumes the open position and the times at which the locking bolt assumes the closed position are determined (determined as the end time points for the determined closing time span, Col. 6, lines 17-31), and the locking bolt has a known distance path covered by the locking bolt moving between the open and closed position since the overall dimensions of the device are known. Sparenberg et al. fails to disclose that the method includes a step of determining a closing speed of the locking bolt as a function of the determined times of the open and closed positions and the known distance path. Siegenia Aubi KG teaches a method including a step of determining a speed of a mechanically moved component 3 based on time values and known distance path or overall dimensions of the device (Paragraph 33 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the method include a step of determining a closing speed of the locking bolt, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the functionality of the drive 4 can be evaluated.
Claim(s) 1 (in the alternative), 4, 5 (in the alternative), 8, 12, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Czellary (EP 3029226 A1).
The following rejections include alternative interpretations of claims 1 and 5.
In regards to claims 1, 4, 5, and 12, Sparenberg et al. discloses a method for monitoring a locking mechanism of an electric locking unit, the method comprising the steps of: moving a locking bolt 1 of the locking mechanism into and out of a recess 2 of a locking part (door in which recess is located, Figure 1) of the electric locking unit between a closed position (Figure 1) and an open position (position in which the bolt is retracted from the recess 2), respectively; reversibly moving the locking bolt from the open position to the closed position during a closing operation (movement of the bolt by the drive to the closed position in Figure 1); determining a closing time span of the locking bolt, wherein the closing time span of the locking bolt comprises an amount of time that the locking bolt requires to transition from the open position to the closed position during the closing operation (Col. 6, lines 17-31); comparing the determined closing time span of the locking bolt with a predetermined closing time span limit value; and detecting delayed locking of the electric locking unit when the determined closing time span exceeds the predetermined closing time span limit value (Col. 6, lines 17-31). Sparenberg et al. further discloses a control unit 9 connected with the electric locking unit and configured to execute the method.
Sparenberg et al. fails to disclose that the method and switches are utilized with an electric locking unit having a closing recess into which the locking part is inserted and into an adjustment path of the locking bolt during the closing operation; during the closing operation, the locking part is inserted into the closing recess so as to cause the locking part to strike the locking bolt, so that the locking bolt is moved against a spring force of a spring, causing the spring to be tensioned and the locking bolt to be displaced into the open position, clearing the way for the locking part to be fully inserted into the closing recess; and as the recess of the locking part comes into the adjustment path of the locking bolt, the locking bolt is extended by the spring force of the spring into the recess of the locking part, thereby placing the locking bolt in the closed position, in which the locking bolt engages in the recess and blocks the locking part from exiting the closing recess. Czellary teaches an electric locking unit having a closing recess 23 into which a locking part 3 is inserted and into an adjustment path of a locking bolt 1 during a closing operation (Paragraph 28 of the Computer Generated Translation); during the closing operation, the locking part is inserted into the closing recess so as to cause the locking part to strike the locking bolt, so that the locking bolt is moved against a spring force of a spring 6, causing the spring to be tensioned and the locking bolt to be displaced into the open position, clearing the way for the locking part to be fully inserted into the closing recess; and as the recess of the locking part comes into the adjustment path of the locking bolt, the locking bolt is extended by the spring force of the spring into a recess 5 of the locking part, thereby placing the locking bolt in a closed position, in which the locking bolt engages in the recess and blocks the locking part from exiting the closing recess (Paragraph 28 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to utilize the method and switches of Sparenberg et al. with an electric locking unit as taught by Czellary, with reasonable expectation of success, since the locking bolt of Czellary moves linearly like the locking bolt of Sparenberg et al. between the open and closed positions, such that these positions can be detected and monitored to ensure that the locking bolt functions as intended.
In regards to claim 8, Sparenberg et al. discloses that the electric locking unit further comprises: a first mechanically actuatable switch 8b (mechanical contact switch, Col. 6, lines 11-16) for monitoring the open position of the locking bolt; and a second mechanically actuatable switch 8a (mechanical contact switch, Col. 6, lines 11-16) for monitoring the closed position of the locking bolt; whereby the first and second mechanically actuatable switches are connected with the control unit and wherein the control unit is configured to respectively determine: points in time of actuation of the first mechanically actuatable switch at the open position of the locking bolt; and points in time of actuation of the second mechanically actuatable switch at the closed position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31). Sparenberg et al. fails to disclose that the first and second mechanically actuatable switches are configured to be actuated by a control pin on the locking bolt. Czellary teaches a control pin 30 located on the locking bolt to actuate a switch 14 (Paragraph 29 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a control pin on the locking bolt, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the mechanical switches to be located to be actuated by the locking bolt, but not directly interfere with the locking bolt.
In regards to claim 13, Sparenberg et al. discloses a first electrical switch 8b (Col. 6, lines 11-16) configured to monitor the open position, wherein the first electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state, such that an electrically conductive connection is thereby established (interrupted by movement of the locking bolt, such that a signal or electrically conductive connection with the control unit is made, Col. 5, line 39 to Col. 6, line 10), and the first electrical switch being closed when the locking bolt assumes the open position (considered as closed when producing signal when using a mechanical contact type switch, Col. 6, lines 11-16); a second electrical switch 8a (Col. 6, lines 11-16) configured to monitor the closed position, wherein the second electrical switch is interrupted in its initial state, such that an electrically conductive connection is thereby established (interrupted by movement of the locking bolt, such that a signal or electrically conductive connection with the control unit is made, Col. 5, line 39 to Col. 6, line 10), and the second electrical switch being closed when the locking bolt assumes the closed position (considered as closed when producing signal when using a mechanical contact type switch, Col. 6, lines 11-16); whereby the first and second electrical switches are connected with the control unit (Col. 6, lines 17-31) and wherein the control unit is configured to respectively determine: those points in time at which the first electrical switch is closed at the open position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31); and those points in time at which the second electrical switch is closed in the closed position of the locking bolt (points in time determined such that the time span of the movement of the locking bolt can be determined, Col. 6, lines 17-31).
In regards to claim 16, Czellary teaches that the electronic locking unit is used on a cabinet (Paragraph 2 of the Computer Generated Translation) having a door (Paragraph 30 of the Computer Generated Translation) and an interior space delimited by the door (Paragraph 30 of the Computer Generated Translation), with Sparenberg et al. in view of Czellary teaching the cabinet comprising the locking system according to claim 13, wherein the locking mechanism of the electric locking unit is configured in the interior space of the cabinet and the locking part of the electric locking unit is configured on the door of the cabinet, the locking part being spaced from the locking mechanism in an open state of the electric locking unit, allowing the door to be opened (the door of Sparenberg et al. and the door of Czellary being openable when the locking bolt is released from the recess).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Krieger et al. (US-7705253). Sparenberg et al. discloses that the first and second electrical switches can be in the form of many different types of detecting mechanisms (Col. 6, lines 11-16), but fails to specify that the first electrical switch and the second electrical switch are both respectively created by an open pair of electrodes, and wherein current flows between the two electrodes of the open pair of electrodes when the locking bolt assumes the open position and when the locking bolt assumes the closed position, respectively. Krieger et al. teaches a locking bolt 20 whose movement is detected by a first electrical switch 90, 92 (Figure 7) and a second electrical switch 90, 94 (Figure 7) which are both respectively created by an open pair of electrodes 90 and 92 for the first electrical switch and pair of electrodes 90 and 94 for the second electrical switch (the term “electrode” is defined as “a conductor through which electricity enters or leaves an object, substance or region,” with poles 90, 92, and 94 considered as electrodes because they are conductors through which electricity enters or leaves object 84 of the locking bolt that cooperates with the electrodes, Col. 5, line 59 – Col. 6, line 12), wherein current flows between the two electrodes of the open pair of electrodes when the locking bolt assumes the open position and when the locking bolt assumes the closed position, respectively (Col. 5, line 59 – Col. 6, line 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the first and second electrical switch be in the form of electrodes, with reasonable expectation of success, since the electrodes are operable to detect the position of the locking bolt and since the various types of switches disclosed by Sparenberg et al. and the electrodes taught by Krieger et al. are equivalent for their use in the switch and sensor art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to detect the position of a movable component would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Lovejoy et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0123808). Sparenberg et al. discloses that the locking system includes the control unit, but fails to disclose a communication unit connected downstream of the control unit and configured to transmit information from the control unit to a server. Lovejoy et al. teaches a locking bolt detection system including a control unit 310 to which a communication unit is connected downstream (wireless communication system, Paragraph 163) and is configured to transmit information from the control unit to a server (Paragraph 163). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a communication unit to transmit information to a server, with reasonable expectation of success, such that information regarding the state of the electric locking unit can be conveyed to a remote location.
Conclusion
The examiner would like to note that claims 2, 6, 9, 10, and 15 could be rejected with Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Czellary (EP 3029226 A1), that claim 3 could be rejected with Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Czellary (EP 3029226 A1), and further in view of Siegenia Aubi KG (DE 202014006760 U1), that claims 7 and 14 could be rejected with Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Czellary (EP 3029226 A1), and further in view of Krieger et al. (US-7705253), and that claim 11 could be rejected with Sparenberg et al. (US-8494680) in view of Czellary (EP 3029226 A1), and further in view of Lovejoy et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0123808).
56. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights