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
Claims 23-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, Figures 11-27, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 28, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 11, 20, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, line 5, “lock tongue” is recited. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for recited components to help ensure clarity. The claim 3 component is introduced in claim 1 as “locking tongue”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “locking tongue”.
Regarding claim 8, line 5, “module generate a magnetic field” is recited. The word “generate” should likely be “generates”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “generates”.
Regarding claim 8, line 7, “form” is recited. The word “form” should likely be “from”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “from”.
Regarding claim 11, line 8, “the doorframe” is recited. The “the” should likely be an “a” because a “doorframe” has not been previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a doorframe”.
Regarding claim 20, line 4, “cap” is recited. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for recited components to help ensure clarity. The component “locking tongue cap” is introduced in lines 3-4”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “locking tongue cap”.
Regarding claim 21, line 3, “the plurality of protrusions” is recited. The “the” should likely be an “a” because a “plurality of protrusions” has not been previously recited. Claim 12 first recites “a plurality of protrusions” and claim 21 does not pend from claim 12. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a plurality of protrusions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by Gering et al., US 4596411 A (hereinafter Gering).
Regarding claim 1, Gering teaches an electric door lock device (door lock assembly 10), comprising:
a strike assembly and a lock body (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering);
the strike assembly including a power module for operatively performing as either an electric module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is an electric module) or an electromagnetic power module (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required);
the lock body including:
a cam (camming member 36) capable of moving (col 3, lines 52-62); a center of the cam defining a hole for a doorknob shaft (hub 34) to enter therethrough (col 3, lines 52-62); the cam further defining a groove (recess 40);
a cam locking member (trip member 18, third arm 64; spring 68; arm 90; locking plate 92) disposed between the power module and the cam for engaging with the groove in the cam (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts the cam locking member disposed between 98 and engageable with 40 of 36);
a link strip (first arm 42; arm 56; arm 78) in contact with the cam (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 50 of 42 in contact with 38 of 36), wherein movement of the linked strap is controlled by movement of the cam (col 2, lines 52-63);
a locking tongue mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) controlled by movement of the link strip (col 3, lines 52-62), the locking tongue mechanism including a locking tongue body (latch 24; rod 26; projection 28; spring 32) having a locking tongue (24) and a locking tongue spring (32) disposed on the body (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering); the locking tongue body being in contact with the link strip (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 28 in contact with 56); and the locking tongue capable of retracting and extending into a doorframe (door frame 96) strike plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) of the strike assembly (col 3, lines 52-62);
wherein, when a door (door 11) in the doorframe is closed the locking tongue is extended into the doorframe strike plate and the cam locking member moves towards the cam and engages the groove for locking the cam and preventing the cam from moving and maintaining the door locked (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 11 in a close position with 24 extended into doorframe strike plate and 92 engaged in 40 thereby locking 34 against moving and maintain the door locked).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering
Regarding claim 2, Gering teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the cam locking member (18, 64; 68; 90; 92) further comprises a proximal end facing the power module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it has a power module) and a distal end facing the cam (36; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering); and wherein the distal end engages into the groove of the cam (40; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering).
Regarding claim 9, Gering teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the locking tongue mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) further includes a locking tongue spring (32), a locking tongue positioning plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering), and a locking tongue cap (28); wherein the locking tongue spring is in contact with the locking tongue positioning plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering), and the link strip (42; 56; 78) is positioned between the locking tongue positioning plate and the locking tongue cap for controlled movement of the locking tongue (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 56 between the positioning plate and 28).
Regarding claim 10, Gering teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the cam locking member (18; 64; 68; 90; 92) further includes a spring (68) and a positioning piece (???), wherein where the cam locking member is an auxiliary latch the spring is positioned closer to the power module and when the spring is extended the cam (36) is allowed to move (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 72 of 68 extended closer to the power module and 36 allowed to move); and wherein where the cam locking member is a blocking block the spring is positioned closer to the cam and when the spring is extended the cam is an unable to move (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 72 of 68 stretched out to the left thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster intransitive verb definition 1 of extended and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term and 92 engaged with 40 of 36 thereby making 36 unable to move).
Regarding claim 11, Gering teaches an electric door lock device (door lock assembly 10), comprising:
an electric module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it has an electric module) or an electromagnetic module;
a cam (camming member 36) capable of moving about a center of the cam, the cam receiving a doorknob shaft to enter therethrough (col 2, lines 52-62);
a cam locking member (trip member 18, third arm 64; spring 68; arm 90; locking plate 92) disposed between the module and the cam for engaging with the cam (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts the cam locking member disposed between 98 and engageable with 36);
a locking tongue mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) controlled by movement of the cam (col 3, lines 52-62), and
wherein, when a door (door 11) in a doorframe (door frame 96; see claim interpretation under claim 11 Claim Objection) is closed a locking tongue (latch 24) is extended into a doorframe (door frame 96) strike plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) and the cam is prevented from moving and maintaining the door locked (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 24 extended into strike plate and 92 engaged in 40 thereby locking 34 against moving and maintain the door locked).
Regarding claim 12, Gering teaches the device of claim 11, further comprising a plurality of protrusions (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) thereabout the cam (36) that move in a directional path when the cam is rotated (col 3, lines 52-62 discusses 36 rotating which would rotate the protrusions on each side of cavity 38), and move horizontally, or move vertically (col 3, lines 52-62 discusses 36 rotating which would move the plurality of protrusion vertically with regards to 34 and well as translate them horizontally with regards to 34); and a link strip (first arm 42; arm 56; arm 78) in contact with the plurality of protrusions (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts the protrusions in contact with 50 of 42), wherein movement of the linked strap is controlled by movement of the plurality of protrusions of the cam and the link strip drives the locking tongue mechanism (col 3, lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 13, Gering teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the locking tongue mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) further comprises a locking tongue body (latch 24; rod 26; projection 28; spring 32) having the locking tongue (24) and a locking tongue spring (32) disposed on the body (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering); the locking tongue body being in contact with the link strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering); and the locking tongue capable of retracting and extending into a doorframe (door frame 96) strike plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering; col 3, lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 21, Gering teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the cam (36) is capable of rotating about a center of the cam (col 3, lines 52-62); the center of the cam defining a hole for a doorknob shaft (34) to enter therethrough (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering); and a plurality of protrusions (see claim interpretation under claim 21 Claim Objection; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) move in a circular directional path when the cam is rotated (col 3, lines 52-62 discusses 36 rotating which would rotate the protrusions on each side of cavity 38).
Regarding claim 22, Gering teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the cam (36) is capable of moving either horizontally or vertically (col 3, lines 52-62 discusses 36 rotating which would move the plurality of protrusion vertically with regards to 34 and well as translate 40 horizontally with regards to 34).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gering, US 4596411 A.
Regarding claim 3, Gering teaches the device of claim 2, further comprising an electronic key that controls the power module (col 3, lines 22-29 teaches “associated actuating members, all of which are well known in the art”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Gering’s apparatus would have a known in the art electronic key/user interface as those listed in instant specification paragraph [0060] such as Pickard, US 6005306 A, which teaches a user fob transmitting unit 36 electronic key for wireless control of the apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Waugh et al., US 10619382 B2, which teaches a mobile phone 102 electronic key for operating a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Ricci, US 5990579 A, which teaches a switch user interface S2 electronic key as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Quan et al., CN 114419771 A, which teaches a facial recognition 210 electronic key to operate a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]); wherein when the electronic key is inputted the power module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is a power module) causes the distal end of the cam locking member (18; 64; 68; 90; 92) to detach from the groove (40) of the cam (36) allowing the cam to move (see movement from Fig 2 to Fig 1); and wherein movement of the cam by the doorknob shaft (34) drives the link strip (42; 56; 78) to move (col 2, lines 52-63), and wherein the link strip drives the locking tongue (24; see claim interpretation under claim 3 Claim Objection) to retract from the striking plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) for unlocking the door (col 3, lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 4, Gering teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the cam locking member (18; 64; 68; 90; 92) is an auxiliary latch (18; 64; 68; 90; 92 serves as an auxiliary latch to lock the cam in the same manner as described in instant specification [0010]) or a blocking block (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 5, Gering teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the power module is an electric module for the auxiliary latch (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is an electric module; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 98 engaging with 18 of the auxiliary latch/camming lock member), or an electromagnetic module for the blocking block (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 6, Gering teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the electric module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is an electric module) further comprises a block (bolt 98) controlled by the electric module (col 3, lines 22-29); the block capable of motion in a linear distal direction and a linear proximal direction relative to the power module (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 98 capable of motion in linear distal and proximal directions to the power module).
Regarding claim 7, Gering teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the block (98) is an expansion block disposed inside the electric module (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 98 to function in the same manner as described in instant specification [0015]) and in contact with a proximal end of the auxiliary latch (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 98 in contact with a proximal end of 18 of 18; 64; 68; 90; 92); wherein when the door (door 11) is closed the expansion block is extended for moving the auxiliary latch to engage a distal end of the auxiliary latch into the groove (40) of the cam (36) for locking the cam and preventing the cam from moving and maintaining the door locked (movement from Fig 1 to Fig 2 depicts 98 extending into 18 and 92 engaging 40 to lock 36; col 3, line 62-col 4, line 12); and wherein after input of the electronic key (col 3, lines 22-29 teaches “associated actuating members, all of which are well known in the art”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Gering’s apparatus would have a known in the art electronic key/user interface as those listed in instant specification paragraph [0060] such as Pickard, US 6005306 A, which teaches a user fob transmitting unit 36 electronic key for wireless control of the apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Waugh et al., US 10619382 B2, which teaches a mobile phone 102 electronic key for operating a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Ricci, US 5990579 A, which teaches a switch user interface S2 electronic key as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Quan et al., CN 114419771 A, which teaches a facial recognition 210 electronic key to operate a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]), the expansion block is retracted into the electric module and the distal end of the auxiliary latch detaches from the groove of the cam allowing the cam to move and drive the link strip to retract the locking tongue from the strike plate allowing the door to open (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 1 depicts 98 retracting from 18 and 92 disengaging from 40, resulting 36 able to rotate and 24 to retract; col 3, line 62-col 4, line 12).
Regarding claim 14, Gering teaches the device of claim 11, further comprising an electronic key for opening the door (col 3, lines 22-29 teaches “associated actuating members, all of which are well known in the art”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Gering’s apparatus would have a known in the art electronic key/user interface as those listed in instant specification paragraph [0060] such as Pickard, US 6005306 A, which teaches a user fob transmitting unit 36 electronic key for wireless control of the apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Waugh et al., US 10619382 B2, which teaches a mobile phone 102 electronic key for operating a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Ricci, US 5990579 A, which teaches a switch user interface S2 electronic key as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Quan et al., CN 114419771 A, which teaches a facial recognition 210 electronic key to operate a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]), wherein the cam locking member (18; 64; 68; 90; 92) is retracted from a groove (recess 40) of the cam (36) and the cam is allowed to rotate and retract the locking tongue (24) from the doorframe strike plate (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) to unlock the door (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 1 depicts 92 being withdrawn from 40 such that 36 is allowed to rotate; col 3, line 63-col 4, line 12 discusses how a powered 98 keeps the lock apparatus locked, an unpowered 98 would allow the biased apparatus to assume the unlocked condition in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Gering teaches the device of claim 14 wherein the cam locking member (18; 64; 68; 90; 92) is either an auxiliary latch member driven by an expansion block (bolt 98) and the power module is an electric power module (18 serves as an auxiliary latch to lock the cam in the same manner as described in instant specification [0010]; col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is an electric power module; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 98 engaging with 18 of the auxiliary latch/camming lock member); or the cam locking member is a blocking block driven by electromagnetic forces and the power module is an electromagnetic power module (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 16, Gering teaches an electric door lock device (door lock assembly 10), comprising
a power module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is a power module) for driving either an expansion block (bolt 98) in contact with an auxiliary latch (trip member 18, third arm 64; spring 68; arm 90; locking plate 92), or only a blocking block (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required);
a cam (camming member 36) for receiving a doorknob shaft (hub 34), the cam further defining a groove (recess 40) wherein either a distal end of the auxiliary latch engages the groove (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 92 engageable with 40 as depicted in Fig 1) or a distal end of the blocking block engages the groove to lock the cam and door (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required); and
wherein when an electronic key (col 3, lines 22-29 teaches “associated actuating members, all of which are well known in the art”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Gering’s apparatus would have a known in the art electronic key/user interface as those listed in instant specification paragraph [0060] such as Pickard, US 6005306 A, which teaches a user fob transmitting unit 36 electronic key for wireless control of the apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Waugh et al., US 10619382 B2, which teaches a mobile phone 102 electronic key for operating a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Ricci, US 5990579 A, which teaches a switch user interface S2 electronic key as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Quan et al., CN 114419771 A, which teaches a facial recognition 210 electronic key to operate a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]) is inputted either the auxiliary latch or the blocking block are released from the groove (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 1 92 released from 40) of the cam allowing the cam to rotate (col 3, line 63-col 4, line 12), move horizontally, or move vertically (col 3, lines 52-62 discusses 36 rotating which would move protrusions formed by cavity 38 to move vertically with regards to 34 and well as translate 40 horizontally with regards to 34), and release a locking tongue (24) for the door to open (col 3, line 52-62).
Regarding claim 17, Gering teaches the device of claim 16, further comprising a linking strip (first arm 42; arm 56; arm 78), wherein when the cam (36) is allowed to rotate the cam moves the link strip that releases a locking tongue (latch 24) for the door (door 11) to open (col 3, lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 18, Gering teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the cam (36) further includes protrusions (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) and the protrusions drive the linking strip (42; 56; 78) when the cam is rotated (col 3, lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 19, Gering teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the linking strip (42; 56; 78) is an integral part of the locking tongue (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts the linking strip formed as a unit with 14 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1c of integral and the broadest reasonable expectation of the term).
Regarding claim 20, Gering teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the locking tongue (24) is part of a locking tongue mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) that includes a locking tongue body (24; rod 26; projection 28; spring 32), a locking tongue spring (32) disposed thereon(see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering), a locking tongue positioning piece in contact with the spring (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering) and a locking tongue cap (28), and wherein the linking strip is positioned between the locking tongue cap (see claim interpretation under claim 20 Claim Objection) and the positioning piece to move the locking tongue (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Gering depicts 56 between the positioning plate and 28).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gering, US 4596411 A, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gering et al., US 5876073 A (hereinafter Gering-6073).
Regarding claim 8, Gering teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the blocking block (18; 64; 68; 90; 92 serves as a blocking block to lock the cam in the same manner as described in instant specification [0011]) is disposed outside the electric module (col 3, lines 22-29 discusses bolt 98 being electrically powered therefore it is an electric module); wherein when the door (11) is closed a distal end of the blocking block extends into the groove (40) of the cam (36) for locking the cam and preventing the cam from moving and maintaining the door locked (Fig 2 depicts a distal end of 92 extended into 40 locking 36 preventing 36 from moving; col 3, line 63-col 4, line 12 ); and wherein after input of the electronic key (col 3, lines 22-29 teaches “associated actuating members, all of which are well known in the art”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Gering’s apparatus would have a known in the art electronic key/user interface as those listed in instant specification paragraph [0060] such as Pickard, US 6005306 A, which teaches a user fob transmitting unit 36 electronic key for wireless control of the apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Waugh et al., US 10619382 B2, which teaches a mobile phone 102 electronic key for operating a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Ricci, US 5990579 A, which teaches a switch user interface S2 electronic key as listed in paragraph [0060]; or Quan et al., CN 114419771 A, which teaches a facial recognition 210 electronic key to operate a lock apparatus as listed in paragraph [0060]), the electric module moves a proximal end of the blocking block closer to the electric module and the distal end of the blocking block is detached from (see claim interpretation under claim 8 Claim Objection) the groove (40) of the cam (36) allowing the cam to rotate and drive the link strip to retract the locking tongue from the strike plate allowing the door to open (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 1 depicts 18 moving closer to the power module and 92 disengaging from 40, resulting 36 able to rotate and 24 to retract; col 3, line 62-col 4, line 12).
Gering does not teach wherein the power module is an electromagnetic module for the blocking block which generates (see claim interpretation under claim 8 Claim Objection) to move the blocking block.
Gering-6073 teaches it is known in the art for an electric door lock device to comprise an electromagnetic module (electromagnetic actuator 20) for the blocking block (locking member 70) which generates (see claim interpretation under claim 8 Claim Objection) to move the blocking block (col 9, lines 43-54).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the electric module disclosed by Gering with the electromagnetic module of Gering-6073. The prior art contains an electric door lock device which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the electric module disclosed by Gering) with another component (the electromagnetic module disclosed by Gering-6073). Door lock devices with electromagnetic modules are known in the art, as evidenced by Gering-6073 and Gokcebay, US 5228730 A, which teaches a magnetic latching solenoid 11. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute an electric module for an electromagnetic module in order to improve electrical consumption as taught by Gering-6073. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a door lock device comprising an electromagnetic module that is configured to function in the same manner as the door lock device with electric module disclosed by Gering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for electric door locks.
Gering et al., US 4623178 A, teaches a lock assembly with a strike assembly with a power module and a lock body with a cam, cam locking member, a link strip, and a locking tongue mechanism.
Gering, US 3872696 A, teaches a combination lock and fail-safe latch for exit doors with a strike assembly with a power module and a lock body with a cam, cam locking member, a link strip, and a locking tongue mechanism.
Senften, US 4529234 A, teaches an electrical operating means for door locks with a strike assembly with a power module and a lock body with a cam, cam locking member, a link strip, and a locking tongue mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675