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 III (Fig7a-7c, 10a-10b) in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 will be examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adhesive, magnet (note: magnetometer is considered to be the hall effect sensor 445), LED, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitner et al. US 20080296912 (hereinafter referred to as Whitner) and further in view of Goldenson US 20170226774 (hereinafter referred to as Goldenson)
Claim 1. Whitner teaches a device, comprising:
a compartment (30,40) designed to be attached to a door (D) and be disposed outside a deadbolt base (P);
designed to detect whether a deadbolt lock turnpiece (K/170) installed on the deadbolt base is in a horizontal or vertical position (configured to based on bolt position, paragraph 35); and
a wireless transmitter (RF/IR receiver, paragraph 36- circuit 80 is equipped to receive and send IR/RF signals therefore it is configured to have a wireless transmitter that is operatively connected to receive output and further communicate with wireless transmitter 200 – see paragraphs 35-42) disposed within the compartment (fig1-3) and operatively connected to receive output (receives and communicates information of bolt position and therefore turnpiece position).
Although Whitner teaches that there are signals detected and transmitted (paragraph 35) and the deadbolt status is indicated (paragraph 35), Whitner does not explicitly teach that the status of the deadbolt is sensed, and therefore does not explicitly teach that there is a sensor that is designed to detect the deadbolt lock turnpiece is in a horizontal or vertical position, wherein the wireless transmitter receives output from the sensor.
Goldenson teaches a device comprising a sensor (magnetometer 106) designed to detect whether the deadbolt lock turnpiece (not labeled explicitly, see fig3a) is in a horizontal or vertical position, wherein the wireless transmitter (not explicitly labeled, components that allow the status of the door to be communicated to a user at a remote location, paragraph 23) receives output from the sensor (the sensor is used to determine door position, based on bolt position, paragraphs 7 and 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Whitner with the explicit addition of the sensor as taught by Goldenson in order to reduce the wiring and create a simpler system for detecting the position of the bolt (Goldenson, paragraph 4).
Claim 2. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the compartment is dimensioned to hold one or more battery (Whitner, fig1-3).
Claim 3. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the one or more battery comprises a 9 volt battery. (Whitner paragraph 34)
Claim 4. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the one or more battery comprises a AAA battery. (Whitner paragraph 34)
Claim 5. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the one or more battery comprises a coin battery. (Whitner paragraph 34 details explicitly that the batteries can be standard batteries, and then lists examples along with “etc,” therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Whitner is capable of also teach the one or more battery comprises a coin battery because it is well known in the art that a coin battery is also a standard battery.)
Claim 6. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the compartment is designed to be positioned adjacent to a portion of the deadbolt base. (Whitner, fig1-3)
Claim 7. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the compartment is designed to surround the deadbolt base. (Whitner fig1-3)
Claim 8. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a magnetometer (Goldenson 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Whitner with a magnet, wherein the sensor is magnetometer, as taught by Goldenson in order to reduce the wiring and create a simpler system for detecting the position of the bolt (Goldenson, paragraph 4).
Claim 9. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a magnet (Goldenson 106) however the combination does not teach it positioned on the deadbolt lock turnpiece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the magnet to be on the deadbolt lock turnpiece in order to detect the deflection of the turnpiece (by detecting the magnetic field due to the deflection of the magnet, Goldenson paragraph 16) since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts is of routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.
Claim 10. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising an LED disposed within the compartment. (Whitner paragraph 13)
Claim 11. Whitner in view of Goldenson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the compartment comprises an adhesive on one surface capable of attachment to the door. (Whitner paragraph 33)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to cover devices with detection capabilities.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 12322232, US 4899564, US 5423583.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675