Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/631,111

ELECTRONIC CONTROL COMPOUND LOCK

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Apr 10, 2024
Examiner
WATSON, PETER HUCKLEBERRY
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sinox Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
91 granted / 166 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
216
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 166 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
PWDETAILED 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 II in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-5, 10-17 and 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025. Claim Objections Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first output portion and the second output portion are respectively rotate toward different directions” should read “the first output portion and the second output portion are respectively rotated toward different directions”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-3, 6-9, 18, and 22-24 is 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. The term “lock core” as used in claims 1, 7, and 18 is unclear. This is because one of ordinarily in the art would recognize lock core is appropriately used to describe the first lock core 10. However, the term is also used to describe a motor 20 which one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a lock core. Thus, arises uncertainty in what is required by the term “lock core”. For the purposes of examination as long as an element is a basic or essential part of a lock, the limitation is met. In claims 1, 7 and 18 the term “movable or rotatable” is unclear. This is because rotation is a type of movement. Thus, from the term it’s unclear if the applicant intended a different term than movable such as “slidable” or if the applicant is using an unclear interpretation of “moveable”. For the purposes of examination “movable or rotatable” is assumed to read just “moveable”. In regards to claims 1, 7, 18, 22-23 “the second lock core is unlocked” is unclear as from the specification the lock core is a motor, thus it’s unclear if the unlocking of the motor is the motor moving to an unlock position or if there is an internal mechanism within the motor that “unlocks” the motor, allowing it to be driven. For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed. Consequently because of this language it’s unclear if in “the first lock core is unlocked” is claiming the first lock core moving to an unlocked position or being internally unlocked (i.e. lock pins being correctly moved). For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed. In regards to claim 8 “the clutch structure prevents the other one of the first output portion and the second output portion from being driven” is unclear this is because from the specification and drawings it appears even when one of the output portions is driven the other still may be driven. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming the limitation requires the clutch structure to prevent back driving of the non-driven output portion. Claims 2-3, 6, and 9 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 18 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia US 4170374 A (hereinafter Garcia). In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 issues, Garcia teaches an electronic control compound lock (see fig 6) comprising: a first lock core (180) having a first output portion (portion of 190 that 182 contacts and 216) being driven when the first lock core is unlocked (see fig 6); a second lock core (202) having a second output portion (208) being driven when the second lock core is unlocked (see fig 6); one of the first lock core and the second lock core unlocked through electronic signals (second core), the other one of the first lock core and the second lock core unlocked mechanically (note fig 3); a first latch tongue (projecting portion of 188) being movable or rotatable; and wherein the first output portion and the second output portion are driven together (in the case 202 is operated); the first output portion is driven with the first latch tongue (see fig 6)); when one of the first lock core and the second lock core is unlocked (either in this case), the first output portion unlocks the first latch tongue (see fig 6). In regards to claim 2, Garcia teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic control compound lock further comprises a clutch (at least 214) structure mounted between the first output portion and the second output portion (see fig 6); and when the first output portion is driven, the clutch structure prevents the second output portion from being driven (see fig 6). In regards to claim 3, Garcia teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 2, wherein the clutch structure has an elongated recess(214); when the first output portion is driven, the first output portion moves in the elongated recess (216 would move through 214); and when the second output portion is driven, the second output portion drives the first output portion through a wall of the elongated recess as walls of 214 would pull 216). In regards to claim 6, Garcia teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein when one of the first lock core and the second lock core is unlocked, the first output portion drives the first latch tongue to move or rotate (see fig 6). In regards to claim 18, as best understood in light of previous 112 issues, Garcia teaches the electronic control compound lock (see fig 6) comprising: a first lock core (180) having a first output portion (172) being driven when the first lock core is unlocked; a second lock core (202) having a second output portion (208) being driven when the second lock core is unlocked; one of the first lock core and the second lock core unlocked through electronic signals (second lock core), the other one of the first lock core and the second lock core unlocked mechanically (note fig 3); a first latch tongue (projecting portion of 188) being movable or rotatable; the first output portion and the second output portion respectively driven with the first latch tongue (see fig 6); and wherein when one of the first lock core and the second lock core is unlocked, the first output portion and the second output portion unlock the first latch tongue (see fig 6). In regards to claim 23, Garcia teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 18, wherein when the first lock core is unlocked, the first output portion is rotatable (see fig 6); the first output portion is rotated to rotate and unlock the first latch tongue (see fig 6); when the second lock core is unlocked, the second output portion is rotatable (see fig 6); the second output portion is rotated to rotate and unlock the first latch tongue (see fig 6); and the first output portion and the second output portion rotate the first latch tongue toward a same direction to be unlocked (clockwise, see fig 6). In regards to claim 24, Garcia teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 23, wherein the first output portion and the second output portion are respectively rotate toward different directions (at least since 208 rotates both clockwise and counter clockwise) . Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mencarelli et al. WO 2013175514 A1 (hereinafter Mencarelli). In regards to claim 7, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Mencarelli teaches an electronic control compound lock (see fig 3) comprising: a first lock core (12) having a first output portion (10) being driven when the first lock core is unlocked; a second lock core (18) having a second output portion (20) being driven when the second lock core is unlocked; one of the first lock core and the second lock core unlocked through electronic signals (second lock core), the other one of the first lock core and the second lock core unlocked mechanically (see fig 3); an output unit (at least 11 and 22) connected to the first output portion and the second output portion; a first latch tongue (5) being movable or rotatable and connected to the output unit (see fig 3); and wherein when one of the first lock core and the second lock core is unlocked, the first output portion and the second output portion unlock the first latch tongue through the output unit (see fig 3). In regards to claim 8, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Mencarelli teaches electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 7, wherein the electronic control compound lock further comprises a clutch structure (at least 17 and 22) mounted at the output unit; and when one of the first output portion and the second output portion (first output portion in this case) is driven, the clutch structure prevents the other one of the first output portion and the second output portion from being driven (prevents back driving 18). In regards to claim 9, Mencarelli teaches electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 8, wherein the clutch structure has a first elongated slot (17); a second elongated slot (one of the vertical slots of 22 see fig 3); when the first output portion is driven and drives the output unit through a wall of the first elongated slot to unlock the first latch tongue (when 10 drives 17), the second output portion and the second elongated slot move relatively (when retracting, note figs 1 and 3); and when the second output portion is driven and drives the output unit through a wall of the second elongated slot (as5 and 20 are connected through the slot) to unlock the first latch tongue, the first output portion and the first elongated slot move relatively (note figs 1, 17 would slide relative to 10). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seacat US 20200149317 A1 – teaches a similar device. Liao CN 112832596 A – teaches a similar device. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601199
HANDLE LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595679
LOCKSET ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577811
ELECTRONIC LOCK ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546152
SECURITY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12540494
CLOSURE LATCH ASSEMBLY WITH CRASH UNLOCK MECHANISM USING SINGLE ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+35.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 166 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month