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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7, 18 and 24 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections have been overcome by the present amendments.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soloviff US 4438962 A (hereinafter Soloviff).
In regards to claim 1, Soloviff teaches an electronic control compound lock comprising: a lock core (60) having a core shaft (68); a core output portion (90) being driven by the core shaft to move to an unlock position when the lock core is unlocked (see fig 4); a locking actuator (at least 38 and 84) having an actuator shaft (92) parallel to the core shaft (see fig 4): an actuator output portion (86) being driven by the actuator shaft to move to an unlock position when the locking actuator is unlocked (see fig 3); the locking actuator unlocked through electronic signals, and the lock core unlocked mechanically (see fig 4); a first latch tongue (42) being slidable or rotatable (see fig 7); and wherein the core output portion and the actuator output portion are driven together (when the actuator output portion is operated); the core output portion is driven with the first latch tongue (see fig 7); when one of the lock core and the locking actuator is unlocked, the first output portion unlocks the first latch tongue (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 2, Soloviff teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic control compound lock further comprises a clutch structure (88) mounted between the core output portion and the actuator output portion (see fig 3); and when the core output portion is driven, the clutch structure prevents back driving of the actuator output portion (due to the recess in the teeth, see fig 3).
In regards to claim 3, Soloviff teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 2, wherein the clutch structure has an elongated recess (elongated recess between teeth facing 90 wrt fig 3); when the core output portion is driven , the core output portion moves in the elongated recess (see fig 3); and when the actuator output portion is driven, the actuator output portion drives the core output portion through a wall of the elongated recess (a wall of a tooth adjacent the recess, see fig 3).
In regards to claim 6, Soloviff teaches the electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein when one of the lock core and the locking actuator is unlocked, the core output portion drives the first latch tongue to move or rotate (see figs 3 and 7).
Claim(s) 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang CN 113152992 A (hereinafter Fang).
In regards to claim 18, Fang teaches an electronic control compound lock comprising: a lock core (core of 6) having a core output portion (62) being driven to move to an unlock position when the lock core is unlocked (see fig 8); a locking actuator (51) having an actuator output portion (52) being driven to move to an unlock position (see fig 8) when the locking actuator is unlocked; the locking actuator unlocked through electronic signals (see fig 8), and the lock core unlocked mechanically (see fig 8); a first latch tongue (at least a portion of 7 and 71) being rotatable and having a first operating portion (at least a portion of 72) protruding from the first latch tongue (see fig 8); and a second operating portion (at least a portion of the right protrusion with 73 wrt fig 8) protruding from the first latch tongue (to the right wrt fig 8); the first operating portion and the second operating portion extending along opposite directions (left and right in relation to 7 wrt fig 8); the core output portion and the actuator output portion respectively driven with the first latch tongue (see fig 8); wherein when one of the lock core and the locking actuator is unlocked, the core output portion and the actuator output portion unlock the first latch tongue (see fig 8); wherein when the lock core is unlocked, the core output portion is rotatable; the core output portion is rotated and directly pushes the second operating portion to rotate the first latch tongue (see fig 8), thereby unlocking the first latch tongue; when the locking actuator is unlocked, the actuator output portion is rotatable; the actuator output portion is rotated and directly pushes the first operating portion to rotate the first latch tongue, thereby unlocking the first latch tongue (see fig 8); and the core output portion and the actuator output portion rotate the first latch tongue toward a same direction to be unlocked (see fig 8).
In regards to claim 24, Fang teaches an electronic control compound lock as claimed in claim 18, wherein the core output portion and the actuator output portion are respectively rotated toward different directions (at least due to the gearing see fig 8; Note also 6 and 51 can rotate in both directions).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao CN 112832596 A (hereinafter Liao) in view of Cabral US 12012779 B1 (hereinafter Cabral).
In regards to claim 7, Liao teaches an electronic control compound lock comprising: a lock core (see reference image 1-2) having a core output portion (an output of the core see reference images 1-2) being driven to move to an unlock position when the lock core is unlocked (see reference image 1-2); a locking actuator having an actuator output portion being driven to move to an unlock position when the locking actuator is unlocked (see reference image 1-2); the locking actuator unlocked through electronic signals, and the lock core unlocked mechanically (see fig 2); an output unit (at least 102 and see reference image 1-2) connected to the core output portion and the actuator output portion; a first latch tongue (the main lock tongue or the inclined lock tongue, see para 54) being slidable or rotatable and connected to the output unit (see fig 2); and wherein when one of the lock core and the locking actuator is unlocked, the core output portion and the actuator output portion unlock the first latch tongue through the output unit (see reference image 1-2); the electronic control compound lock further comprises a clutch structure (see reference image 1-2) mounted at the output unit; the clutch structure has a curved second elongated slot (see reference image 2).
However, Liao is silent on details of the core output portion and therefore does not teach a curved first elongated slot, part of the core output portion is continuously disposed within the first elongated slot. The examiner would like to note that with the actuator driving counterclockwise to open the lock a lost motion connection would be needed between the output portion and the core output portion in order for Liao’s device to operate (otherwise the lock core would not allow the output unit to rotate due to the lock tumbler; see reference image 4).
Cabral teaches a similar core output portion (tail of 125) and output unit (130) with a curved first elongated slot (slot of 120, see fig 3A), part of the core output portion is continuously disposed within the first elongated slot (see figs 5 and 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Liao with a curved first elongated slot, part of the core output portion is continuously disposed within the first elongated slot in order to provide a well-known and conventional method of preventing a lock core from interfering with an electronic unlock operation.
Further Liao does not teach a part of the actuator output portion is continuously disposed within the second elongated slot. This is because the lug is on the output unit while the slot rotates with the actuator output portion. However, if the lug and slot were reversed the limitation would be met.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the lug on the actuator output portion and the slot on the cutch structure as doing so would amount to a simple rearrangement of parts and involve only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C).
With the modifications above Liao in view of Cabral teaches when one of the core output portion and the actuator output portion is driven, the clutch structure prevents back driving of the other one of the core output portion and the actuator output portion (see reference image and note lost motion of Cabral); when the core output portion is driven and drives the output unit through a wall of the first elongated slot to unlock the first latch tongue (when the lock core is rotated), the actuator output portion and the second elongated slot move relatively to prevent back driving of the actuator output portion (note with the lock core rotating clockwise due to the slot the actuator output portion would not rotate, see reference image 3 and Liao para 59); and when the actuator output portion is driven and drives the output unit through a wall of the second elongated slot to unlock the first latch tongue the core output portion and the first elongated slot move relatively to prevent back driving of the core output portion (see reference image 4 and note Cabral fig 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
PNG
media_image2.png
502
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference image 2
PNG
media_image3.png
542
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reference image 3
PNG
media_image4.png
524
493
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reference image 4
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taylor US 0474783 A – teaches a similar clutch structure.
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 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
Prosecution Insights