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 filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees Schlage in view of Amari does hot teach “the electro-mechanical mechanism configured to fit within a cylindrical hole or opening formed in a door” since at least Schlage’s drive linkage (which is a part of the electro-mechanical mechanism) is configured to fit within a cylindrical hole or opening formed in a door. Therefore at least a part of electro-mechanical mechanism of the prior art is configured to fit within a cylindrical hole or opening formed in a door. The examiner would also like to note the size of the cylindrical hole or opening is not claimed.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been overcome by the present amendments however new claim objections have arisen.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4 “a motor shaft of the motor spins in reverse” should read “the motor shaft of the motor spins in reverse” as a motor shaft is now introduced in claim 1
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlage US 2613094 A (hereinafter Schlage) in view of Armari et al. US 20140183881 A1 (hereinafter Armari).
In regards to claim 1, Armari teaches a cylindrical lock with a latch bolt (16) for locking an access door, comprising: a latch bolt assembly comprising a latch bolt (16) and an outer housing (13), the latch bolt arranged for linear movement between an extended position in which the lock is in a locked state and a retracted position in which the lock is in an unlocked state (see fig 3 also Col 3 lines 55-70); an mechanical mechanism enabling pull-back of the latch bolt from the extended position to the retracted position (see fig 3), the mechanical mechanism comprising a drive linkage system (22 and 23) coupling to the latch bolt to convert rotary motion of the motor shaft to linear motion (see fig 3), the mechanical mechanism configured to fit within a cylindrical hole or opening formed in a door (c, see fig 3).
However, Schlage does not teach the mechanical mechanism is an electro-mechanical mechanism with an electrically powered motor with a motor shaft.
Armari an electro-mechanical mechanism (20 and 14) with an electrically powered motor (14) with a motor shaft (seen in figs 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Schlage’s mechanical mechanism be an electro-mechanical mechanism with an electrically powered motor with a motor shaft such as in Armari in order to allow remote actuation while also allowing fail safe and fail secure modes (Armari para 23 and 39). Also note MPEP 2144.04 III.
In regards to claim 2, Schlage in view of Armari teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 1, wherein the drive linkage system comprises: a crank (Schlage: 23) driven by the motor (Armari’s motor drives a crank) and a latch moving bracket (22) configured to retract the latch bolt of the cylindrical lock from the extended position (see fig 3) to the retracted position (Col 3 lines 55-70).
In regards to claim 3, Schlage in view of Armari teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 2, further comprising: a control module (Armari on-board controller) and one or more return capacitors (Armari super capacitor para 24).
In regards to claim 4, Schlage in view of Armari teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 3, wherein the electro- mechanical mechanism is configured so that when electrical power to the control module is cut, a motor shaft of the motor spins in reverse, returning the latch bolt to the extended position (Armari para 23; in the case the bolt is retracted).
In regards to claim 5, Schlage in view of Armari teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 4, wherein the reverse motion is powered by the stored energy in said one or more return capacitors (Armari para 23) and force of one or more latch bolt springs (Schlage 29) configured to bias the latch bolt to the extended position (Schlage’s 29 would assist in extending).
In regards to claim 6, Schlage in view of Armari teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 3, further including an access control system (Armari: Security Control center para 21), and wherein the control module is responsive to a latch retract signal (Armari: “control signals” para 22) from the access control system and configured to supply drive signals to the motor (Armari on Board controller signals the motor, note para 23) to retract the latch bolt (see para 22 and abstract).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlage in view of Armari as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of McGourty et al. US 4810014 A (hereinafter McGourty).
In regards to claim 7, Schlage in view of Armari teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 3, wherein the crank is secured to a shaft of the motor (See Armari fig 9).
However, Schlage does not teach further comprising: a position sensor; a magnet secured to the crank, the crank secured to a shaft of the motor; wherein said position sensor is responsive to the magnet secured to the crank, and the control module is responsive to the position sensor to sense when the latch is fully retracted from the extended position.
McGourty teaches a similar device with a position sensor (60 and/or 61); a magnet (62) secured to the crank (Col 4 lines 36-49); wherein said position sensor is responsive to the magnet secured to the crank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Schlage with a magnet on the crank and a sensor such as in McGourty in order to allow remote communication of the position of the crank while preventing mechanical wear.
With the medications above Schlage in view of Armari and McGourty teaches the control module is responsive to the position sensor to sense when the is fully retracted from the extended position (As McGourty teaches sensing the locked an unlocked positions of the pawl 35 as read in Col 4 lines 36-49, as applied to Schlage it logically follows the retracted and extended positions of the bolt would be sensed).
In regards to claim 8, Schlage in view of Armari and McGourty teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 7, further comprising a latch bolt link structure (Schlage: 21) extending from the latch bolt (Schlage: see fig 3), and wherein the latch bolt bracket is coupled to the latch bolt link structure, wherein the crank, latch bolt bracket and latch bolt link structure cooperate to convert rotary motion of the motor shaft into linear motion of the latch bolt (Schlage: see fig 3).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlage in view of McGourty.
In regards to claim 9, Schlage in view of Armari and McGourty teaches the cylindrical lock with a latch bolt configured for locking an access door (see figs 1 and 2), comprising: a latch bolt assembly comprising a latch bolt (16) and an outer housing (13), the latch bolt arranged for linear movement between an extended position in which the lock is in a locked state (see fig 3) and a retracted position in which the lock is in an unlocked state (Col 3 lines 55-70); a mechanical mechanism (at least 22 and 23) enabling pull-back of the latch bolt to a retracted position (see fig 3), the mechanical mechanism configured to fit within a cylindrical hole or opening formed in the access door (see fig 3), the mechanical mechanism comprising:; a drive linkage system coupling to the latch bolt (see fig 3), the drive linkage system including a crank (23), a latch moving bracket (22) coupled to the crank and to the latch bolt (see fig 3).
McGourty teaches the mechanical mechanism is an electro-mechanical mechanism (see fig 4) with an electrically powered motor (51) having a motor shaft (shaft of 51) and a crank (48) carrying a magnet (62) and a position sensor (60 and/or 61) arranged to sense the presence of the magnet when the latch bolt is at the retracted position (Col 4 lines 36-49); and the lock further comprising a control module (65) including a microcomputer (see fig 9, considered a microcomputer as it’s a small computer that can store via 66, receive via 61 and 60 and process via 65 data) responsive to access control signals to activate and provide drive signals to a motor (51), the microcomputer responsive to the position sensor to stop motor drive signals when a latch bolt (35) is at the second position (Col 4 line 50- Col 5 line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Schlage with an electromechanical mechanism with a motor and motor shaft and a magnet, position sensor and microcomputer such as in McGourty in order to allow automatic actuation of Schlage allowing easier opening for the disabled.
In regards to Claim 13, Schlage in view of McGourty teaches the cylindrical lock of Claim 9, further comprising a latch bolt link structure (Schlage 21) extending from the latch bolt (Schlage see fig 3), and wherein the latch bolt bracket is coupled to the latch bolt link structure, wherein the crank, latch bolt bracket and latch bolt link structure cooperate to convert rotary motion of the motor (McGourty has rotary motion) shaft into linear motion of the latch bolt (Schlage see fig 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 allowed.
Claims 14-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675