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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 8,438,889 to Eller et al., in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0116102 to Lu et al.
Eller et al. disclose an anti-technical unlocking pinball lock cylinder set, comprising a lock shell (12) and a lock cylinder (14) arranged in the lock shell, wherein inside the lock cylinder are provided lower pinball cavities (22a-22f), inside the lock shell are provided upper pinball cavities (20a-20f), above upper pinballs (26a-26f) are provided springs (24a-24f), above the springs is provided a cover plate (not labeled, show above lock shell cylinder bores figures 1-6), the lower pinball cavities comprise at least one shallow cavity (figure 1), inside the at least one shallow cavity is provided at least one short lower pinball (32a-32f), upper pinballs comprise at least one stainless steel upper pinball (column 6, lines 35-48), wherein the at least one stainless steel upper pinball and at least one lower stainless steel pinball (column 6, lines 35-48) underneath the at least one upper stainless steel upper pinball form at least one stainless steel pinball set (figures 1-3), and remaining upper pinballs are irregular upper pinballs (shown in figures 1-3), as in claim 1. However, Eller et al. do not disclose the relative depth shallow cavity relative to the other lower cavities.
Lu et al. teach an anti-technical unlocking pinball lock cylinder set (100), comprising a lock shell (110) and a lock cylinder (120) arranged in the lock shell, wherein inside the lock cylinder are provided lower pinball cavities (122, 123), inside the lock shell are provided upper pinball cavities (112, 113), above upper pinballs (131, 132) are provided springs (140, 150), above the springs is provided a cover plate (not labeled, show above lock shell cylinder bores figure 1), the lower pinball cavities comprise at least one shallow cavity (123), inside the at least one shallow cavity is provided at least one short lower pinball (134), and at least one upper pinball is an irregular upper pinballs (132); wherein the at least one shallow cavity of the lower pinball cavities is shallow (L2) relative to another lower pinball cavity of the lower pinball cavities (L1), as in claim 1.
All of the component parts are known in Eller et al. and Lu et al. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the depth of one of the lower pinball cavities as taught by Lu et al. into the lower pinball cavities in Eller et al., since depth of the lower pinball cavities are in no way dependent on the overall effectuation of the lock cylinder, and the shallow pinball cavity could be used in combination with lock cylinder set to achieve the predictable results of preventing unauthorized actuation of the lock cylinder set.
Eller et al. also disclose the irregular upper pinballs (26a-26f) comprise I-shapes, mushroom-shapes or other irregular shapes (figures 7 and 8), as in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the further definition of the depth of the shallow pinball cavity, a new rejection is established with teachings from Lu et al. defining the depths of the shallow cavities within lock cylinders, where the shallow depth is smaller than the first depth, the height of each of the lower pinballs that is revealed by the keyhole is inconsistent comparing with the height of each of the second lower pinballs that is revealed by the keyhole. When an unmatched key is inserted into the keyhole, the unmatched key cannot contact and collide with the second lower pinball to prevent an unlock situation. Therefore, the burglar proof function is well achieved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
February 18, 2026