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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, 17-22, 33-35, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey (US20100180649A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harvey teaches an electromechanical combination lock comprising: a dial ring assembly (14, 16, 18) including: a housing (16) configured to be mounted on an exterior of a securable enclosure (fig. 1), and a dial (14) rotatably disposed on the housing, the dial being rotatable about a dial axis for use in connection with entry of a combination (para. 0021)); and a lock assembly including: a bolt (24), the bolt being selectively extendable and retractable (para. 0022), an internal generator (32) configured to generate electrical energy, operatively coupled to the dial such that rotation of the dial causes the internal generator to produce electrical energy (para. 0021), and a sensor (36, 40) integrated into the internal generator and configured to detect a rotation of the dial (para. 0023); wherein the sensor provides an output signal based at least in part on the rotation of the dial (para. 0023); and wherein the sensor is configured to detect the rotation of the dial over a range of dial rotational speeds (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 2, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 1 wherein the sensor is a Hall effect sensor (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 3, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 1 wherein the sensor is an optical sensor (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 1 wherein the sensor is configured to detect a direction of the rotation (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 1 further comprising an external generator (34) disposed in the housing and configured to generate electrical energy (para. 0021); wherein the external generator is operatively coupled to the dial such that rotation of the dial causes the external generator to produce electrical energy (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 7, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 1, further comprising an electronic display (18) disposed on the housing, the electronic display being configured to display at least one indicium associated with entry of the combination (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 8, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 7, wherein the sensor (18) is configured to communicate with the electronic display (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 7, further comprising a processor (48, 50), wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the sensor (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the electronic display (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Harvey teaches A securable enclosure, comprising: a plurality of walls at least partially defining an interior (para. 0021);an access component (12) arranged to selectively close an opening through the plurality of walls; and the electromechanical combination lock of claim 1 disposed on one of the door or one of the plurality of walls (fig. 1); wherein the electromechanical combination lock 1s configured to secure the door in a closed position.
Regarding claim 12, Harvey teaches A dial ring assembly for an electromechanical combination lock, the dial ring assembly comprising: a housing (16) configured to be mounted on an exterior of a securable enclosure (fig. 1); a dial (14) rotatably disposed on the housing, the dial being rotatable about a dial axis for use in connection with entry of a combination (para. 0021); an external generator (34) disposed in the housing and configured to generate electrical energy (para. 0021); and a sensor (38, 42) integrated into the external generator and configured to detect a rotation of the dial (para. 0031); wherein the external generator is operatively coupled to the dial such that rotation of the dial causes the external generator to produce electrical energy (para. 0021); wherein the sensor provides an output signal based at least in part on the rotation of the dial (para. 0023); and wherein the sensor is configured to detect the rotation of the dial over a range of dial rotational speeds (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 12 wherein the sensor is a Hall effect sensor (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 14, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 12 wherein the sensor is an optical sensor (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 15, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 12 wherein the sensor is configured to detect a direction of the rotation (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 17, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 12, further comprising an electronic display (18) disposed on the housing, the electronic display being configured to display at least one indicium associated with entry of the combination (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 18, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 17, wherein the sensor is configured to communicate with the electronic display (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 17, further comprising a processor (50), wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the sensor (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 19, wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the electronic display (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Harvey teaches an electromechanical combination lock (fig. 1), comprising: the dial ring assembly of claim 12; and a lock assembly comprising a bolt (24), the bolt being selectively extendable and retractable.
Regarding claim 22, Harvey teaches a securable enclosure (para. 0021), comprising: a plurality of walls at least partially defining an interior (para. 0021); an access component (12) arranged to selectively close an opening through the plurality of walls; and the electromechanical combination lock of claim 27 disposed on one of the door or one of the plurality of walls; wherein the electromechanical combination lock is configured to secure the door in a closed position (Para. 0021).
Regarding claim 33, Harvey teaches a method of manufacturing a security device, the method comprising: assembling a dial ring assembly (fig. 1), comprising providing a housing (16) configured to be mounted on an exterior of a securable enclosure; disposing an external generator (34), with an integral sensor (42, 38) configured to detect a rotation and produce an output signal (para. 0027), in the housing, the external generator being configured to generate electrical energy through rotation of an external generator shaft of the external generator (para. 0021); rotatably disposing a dial on the housing, the dial being rotatable about a dial axis for use in connection with entry of a combination (para. 0021); and operatively connecting the dial and the external generator shaft such that rotation of the dial rotates the external generator shaft to produce electrical energy and an output signal from the sensor (para. 0021; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 34, Harvey discloses the method of claim 33, further comprising disposing an electronic display (18) on the housing, the electronic display being configured to display at least one indicium associated with entry of the combination.
Regarding claim 35, Harvey discloses the method of claim 33, further comprising installing the dial ring assembly on an exterior of one of a wall or a door of a securable enclosure (para. 0021; fig. 1); and installing a lock assembly on an interior of one of the wall or the door, including operatively connecting the dial ring assembly and the lock assembly through one of the wall or the door (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 41, Harvey discloses the electromechanical combination lock of claim 21, wherein the lock assembly further comprises an internal generator (32); wherein the internal generator is configured to generate electrical energy; and wherein the internal generator is operatively coupled to the dial such that rotation of the dial causes the internal generator to produce electrical energy (para. 0021).
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) 5, 16, 23-32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey (US 20100180649 A1) in view of Dawson (US 6741160 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach wherein a resolution of the output signal of the sensor dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial.
Dawson teaches a similar dial ring assembly wherein a resolution of the output signal of the sensor dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial (col. 16, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Harvey with those of Dawson to include a micro processing component which determines the rate of speed which the knob is being turned. Adding an additional sensing component to determine the rate of speed allows the display to change the rate at which the displayed numbers increases as identified by Dawson (col. 16, lines 11-20). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Harvey teaches the dial ring assembly of claim 12, however does not explicitly teach wherein a resolution of the output signal of the sensor dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial.
Dawson teaches a similar dial ring assembly wherein a resolution of the output signal of the sensor dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial (col. 16, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Harvey with those of Dawson to include a micro processing component which determines the rate of speed which the knob is being turned. Adding an additional sensing component to determine the rate of speed allows the display to change the rate at which the displayed numbers increases as identified by Dawson (col. 16, lines 11-20). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Harvey teaches a dial ring assembly for an electromechanical combination lock (10), the dial ring assembly comprising: a housing (16) configured to be mounted on an exterior of a securable enclosure; a dial rotatably disposed on the housing, the dial being rotatable about a dial axis for use in connection with entry of a combination (para. 0021); an external generator (34) disposed in the housing and configured to generate electrical energy (para. 0021); and a sensor (42, 38) integrated into the external generator and configured to detect a rotation of the dial (Para. 0028); wherein the external generator is operatively coupled to the dial such that rotation of the dial causes the external generator to produce electrical energy (para. QQ21); wherein the sensor provides an output signal based at least in part on the rotation of the dial (para. 0028); wherein the sensor is configured to detect the rotation of the dial over a range of dial rotational speeds (para. 0028).
Harvey does not explicitly teach wherein a resolution of the output signal of the sensor dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial.
Dawson teaches a similar dial ring assembly wherein a resolution of the output signal of the sensor dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial (col. 16, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Harvey with those of Dawson to include a micro processing component which determines the rate of speed which the knob is being turned. Adding an additional sensing component to determine the rate of speed allows the display to change the rate at which the displayed numbers increases as identified by Dawson (col. 16, lines 11-20). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 23, Harvey further teaches wherein the sensor is a Hall effect sensor (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 25, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 23, Harvey further teaches wherein the sensor is an optical sensor (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 26, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 23, Harvey further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to detect a direction of the rotation (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 27, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 23, Harvey teaches further comprising an electronic display (18) disposed on the housing, the electronic display being configured to display at least one indicium associated with entry of the combination (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 28, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 27, Harvey further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to communicate with the electronic display (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 27, Harvey further teaches further comprising a processor (50), wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the sensor (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 30, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 23, Harvey further teaches wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the electronic display (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 31, Harvey in view of Dawson teach an electromechanical combination lock (fig. 1), comprising: the dial ring assembly of claim 23; Harvey further teaches and a lock assembly comprising a bolt (24), the bolt being selectively extendable and retractable (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 32, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 23, Harvey further teaches a securable enclosure, comprising: a plurality of walls at least partially defining an interior (para. 0021); an access component arranged to selectively close an opening through the plurality of walls (fig. 1); and the electromechanical combination lock of claim 23 disposed on one of the door or one of the plurality of walls (fig. 1); wherein the electromechanical combination lock is configured to secure the door in a closed position (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 42, Harvey in view of Dawson teach the dial ring assembly of claim 31, Harvey further teaches wherein the lock assembly further comprises an internal generator (32); wherein the internal generator is configured to generate electrical energy (para. 0021); and wherein the internal generator is operatively coupled to the dial such that rotation of the dial causes the internal generator to produce electrical energy (para. 0021).
Claim(s) 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey (US 20100180649 A1) in view of Remenicky (US 5640862 A).
Regarding claim 36, Harvey discloses a method of operating an electromechanical combination lock (para. 0021), the method comprising: entering a combination by rotating a dial (14) disposed on a dial ring assembly about a dial axis (para. 0021), wherein rotating the dial comprises producing electrical energy by rotating an external generator shaft of an external generator (34) disposed in a housing of the dial ring assembly and generating an output signal based at least partly on the rotation of the dial (para. 0021); and viewing at least one indicium associated with the combination on an electronic display (18) disposed on the housing.
Harvey does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic display is configured to change between at least two modes, each mode including a type of indicum associated with the combination.
Remenicky teaches a similar method of operating an electromechanical combination lock wherein the electronic display is configured to change between at least two modes (lockout mode and normal mode; col. 16, lines 50-65), each mode including a type of indicum associated with the combination (lockout mode indicium indicating lockout, normal mode indicating combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Harvey with those of Remenicky in order to include the ability to change between at least two modes. Providing a lockout mode for incorrectly input combinations prevents unwanted access by allowing users to have too many attempts at guessing the combination. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 37, Harvey discloses the method of claim 36, however does not explicitly teach wherein entering the combination comprises axially displacing the dial along the dial axis in a single press to actuate at least one switch.
Remenicky teaches a similar method wherein entering the combination comprises axially displacing the dial along the dial axis in a single press to actuate at least one switch (col. 6, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Harvey with those of Remenicky to include a push function in the dial to enter a combination. Adding an axial push function as well as the rotatable dial adds an extra layer of security function to the lock to prevent unwanted access. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 38, Harvey in view of Remenicky teach the method of claim 36, Remenicky further teaches wherein entering the combination comprises axially displacing the dial along the dial axis in a double press (multiple presses and incorrect combinations changes the lock to a lockout mode) to change between the modes (lockout mode and normal mode; col. 16 lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 39, Harvey in view of Remenicky teach the method of claim 36, Remenicky further teaches wherein entering the combination comprises activating a switch (switches from override function to normal function) to change between the modes (override mode and normal mode; col. 16, lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 40, Harvey in view of Remenicky discloses the method of claim 36, Harvey further teaches wherein entering the combination comprises viewing one of the types of indicium including a random alphabetic character, a random numeric character, and a random symbol, selecting one of the modes including an alphabetic mode, a numeric mode, and a symbol mode, and entering a combination element (para. 0024, both the regular operation and lockout mode utilize the numeric mode. Please note that claim 36 does not require different indicium for the two modes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 12, the applicant asserts that Harvey does not teach “the sensor is configured to detect the rotation of the dial over a range of dial rotational speeds.” The examiner disagrees, and points to paragraph 0023 which was also cited by the applicant. The synchronization transducers are utilized to detect a single position and direction of movement as stated, however that detection still occurs regardless of the dial rotational speed. When the synchronization transducers detect movement and indicate the position data from the use of optical, infrared or magnetic means, the speed at which the dial is rotated has no impact on whether or not detection occurs.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 23, the applicant asserts that Dawson does not teach “a resolution of the output signal dynamically changes based on a rotation speed of the dial.” The examiner disagrees, and points to column 16 lines 11-15 as previously cited. The microprocessor evaluates the signals sent by the position detector which are in the form of pulses. The position detector sends pulses at the rate which the knob is turned which allows the microprocessor to determine the speed of the knob. Therefore, the resolution of the output signal of the sensor is being interpreted as the number of pulses and rate that the pulses are sent, which dynamically changes based on the rotation speed of the dial.
Regarding the applicant arguments with respect to independent claim 36, the applicant asserts that Harvey does not teach the newly amended subject matter “wherein the electronic display is configured to change between at least two modes, each mode including a type of indicum associated with the combination. The examiner agrees, however points to the updated rejection above which cites to Remenicky to teach the shortcomings of Harvey. In addition, the examiner suggests adding language to claim 36 which requires the two modes to display different indicium which would align more with the content of the instant application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 on (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.
/J.E.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675