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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (Roos et al., US Pub. App. 2018-0051502).
4. For claim 1, D1 discloses a roll-up door door-lock system, comprising:
a door latch (37) coupled to a door (12) or to a structure defining a passageway through which the door restricts passage;
a latch lock (21, 23, 25; Figures 1B, and 1C) adapted coupled to the other of the door or to the structure (structure Figure 1B) defining the passageway; and,
a roll-up door door-lock control system arranged in communication with a network, the door-lock control system configured to engage or disengage the latch lock in response to one or more user inputs over the network (Electronic latch control unit 52 communicates with Remote key fob 60 for receiving request from user open or close the door 12. Para. [0040]. Figures 1C and 2.)
5. For claim 2, D1 discloses the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 1, wherein the latch lock comprises: a lock housing defining an interior housing chamber (Figures 1B and 1C); a latch-retainer shaft arranged within the interior housing chamber in a fixed position relative to the lock housing (The pin about which the ratchet 21 pivots defines the latch retainer shaft, Figure 1C); and a latch retainer (23) coupled to the latch-retainer shaft for pivotable movement about the latch-retainer shaft between a restricted position in which the latch retainer blocks removal of the door latch from the lock housing and an unrestricted position in which the door latch is free to retract away from the lock housing so that the door is free to move relative to the structure defining the passageway (Para. [0033], Figure 1C.)
6. For claim 3, D1 discloses the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 2, wherein the roll-up door door-lock control system is further configured to engage the latch lock in the restricted position to retain the latch retainer in the restricted position and to selectively disengage latch retainer to allow the latch retainer to move to the unrestricted position (Based on the input the electronic latch control unit 52 selectively maintains latch retainer in open or close position. Para. [0033 and 0040]. Figures 1C and 2.)
7. For claim 13, D1 discloses a method for locking a roll-up door (12) or other structure (Figure 1B) using a latch (37) and a latch lock (21, 23, 25; Figures 1B, and 1C), comprising
moving the latch from an unlocked position to a locked position, in which the latch cooperates with the latch lock to block movement of one structure relative to another structure (When the door 12 is closed, the latch lock engages the latch 37 on the structure and blocks the movement of the door relative to the structure. Para. [0033]); and,
changing at least a portion of the latch lock from an unrestricted position to a restricted position with the latch simultaneously with moving the latch from the unlocked position to the locked position (Prior to engaging the latch 37, a portion 21 of the latch lock is in the unrestricted position. When the door 12 is closed, the portion 21 of the latch lock engages the latch 37 and moves the portion 21 of the latch lock from the unlocked position to the locked position. Para. [0033].)
8. For claim 14, D1 discloses the method of Claim 13, further comprising sensing, by a roll-up door door-lock control system in communication with at least the latch lock over a network, whether the latch lock is in restricted position or the unrestricted position (Electronic latch control unit 52 senses the signal from Remote key fob 60 to open or close the door 12. Para. [0040]. Figures 1C and 2.)
9. For claim 15, D1 discloses the method of Claim 14, further comprising outputting, by the roll-up door door-lock control system, a command signal to the latch lock when the latch lock is in the restricted position in response to a user input authorizing the latch lock to move from the restricted position to the unrestricted position (Electronic latch control unit 52 communicates with Remote key fob 60 for receiving request from user to open or close the door 12. Para. [0040]. Figures 1C and 2.)
10. For claim 16, D1 discloses the method of Claim 15, further comprising biasing the latch to the unlocked position with the latch lock (When the lock is moved to unlocked position, the latch lock releases the latch 37. Para. [0033]).
11. For claim 17, D1 discloses the method of Claim 15, wherein the user input is received by the roll-up door door-lock control system from an application executing on a mobile device (Electronic latch control unit 52 communicates with Remote key fob 60 for receiving request from user to open or close the door 12. Para. [0040]. Figures 1C and 2.)
12. For claim 18, D1 discloses the method of Claim 15, wherein the user input is received by the roll-up door door-lock control system from a remote location relative thereto (Electronic latch control unit 52 communicates with Remote key fob 60 for receiving request from user to open or close the door 12. Para. [0040]. Figures 1C and 2. The key fob is in a remote location relative to lock assembly thererto.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
15. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Roos et al., US Pub. App. 20180051502) in view of D2 (Cheng et al., US Pub. Appl. 20140265359).
16. For claim 12, D1 discloses the door-lock system of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the roll-up door door-lock control system is further coupled with an indicator light configured to provide an indication of a status of the latch lock.
D2 teaches a door lock system with indicators for unlocking and locking status (Para. [0147 and 0199]) to provide a secured lock. It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the lock system of D1 with an indicator light configured to provide an indication of a status of the latch lock as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured locking system. One skill in the art would realize that providing an indicator light would alert the status of the lock.
17. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Roos et al., US Pub. App. 20180051502) in view of D3 (Curtis et al., US Pub. Appl. 20140319851).
18. For claim 19, D1 discloses the method of Claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the user input is received by the roll-up door door-lock control system from a keypad device.
D3 teaches a locking system having a control assembly with keypad user interface (Para. [0061]) for secured control. It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a keypad for input as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of interface that facilitates user input and a secured lock system. One skill in the art would realize that having keypad for input facilitates the user interface.
19. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Roos et al., US Pub. App. 20180051502) in view of D4 (Kim, KR 20170098614).
20. For claim 20, D1 discloses the method of Claim 14, but does not disclose further comprising outputting, by the roll-up door door-lock control system, an audiovisual indicator of a status associated with the latch lock. D4 teaches a door lock with audiovisual out about the door condition (P3, Para. [8]) for secured locking. It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with an audiovisual indicator of a status associated with the latch lock as taught by D4 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock system.
21. Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Roos et al., US Pub. App. 20180051502) in view of D5 (Schroeder, US 9,810,000).
22. For claim 4, D1 discloses the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 3, wherein the roll-up door door-lock control system comprises: a solenoid assembly having a solenoid pin biased toward the lock latch; a status sensor configured to sense when the latch retainer is in the restricted position and the unrestricted position; and a controller (controller 67, para. [0061]) configured to control operation of the solenoid assembly.
D5 teaches a door with solenoid 210, solenoid pin 214, and status limit switch 200, 208 (Col.5, L54-60. Figure 4) for secured and effective control of the lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a solenoid assembly having a solenoid pin biased toward the lock latch; a status sensor configured to sense when the latch retainer is in the restricted position and the unrestricted position, as taught by D5 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured and effective control of the lock.
D1 modified with features of D5 teaches the limitation the controller configured to control operation of the solenoid assembly.
23. For claim 5, the combination teaches the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to receive signals from the status sensor indicative of whether the latch retainer is in the restricted position or the unrestricted position (D1 shows controller 67, para. [0061]. D5 teaches lock status limit switch sends signal. Col. 7, L42-51. D1 modified with features of D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
24. For claim 6, the combination teaches the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to output a command signal to the solenoid assembly to withdraw the solenoid pin when the latch retainer is in the restricted position in response to the one or more user inputs authorizing the latch retainer to move from the restricted position to the unrestricted position (D1 shows controller 67, para. [0061]. D5 teaches solenoid. Abstract. D1 modified with features of D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
25. For claim 7, the combination teaches the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 4, wherein the solenoid assembly further comprises a pin-receiving slot in which the solenoid pin is inserted (D5 teaches a solenoid 210 that has a slot to receives the pin 214. D1 modified with features of D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
26. For claim 8, the combination teaches the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 7, wherein the solenoid assembly further comprises an emergency-pin release coupled to the solenoid pin such that actuation of the emergency-pin release causes the solenoid pin to be manually removed from the pin-receiving slot (D5 teaches manual activation of solenoid 210. Col. 10, L 5-10. D1 modified with features of D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
27. For claim 9, D1 discloses the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 4, wherein the controller comprises a microprocessor (54) and a memory (56) the memory storing one or more statuses of the latch lock based on signals received from the status sensor (para. [0039].)
For claim 10, D1 discloses the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to receive the one or more user inputs from an application executing on a mobile device (Para. [0040, 0057].)
28. For claim 11, D1 discloses the roll-up door door-lock system of Claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to receive the one or more user inputs from a device in a remote location from the door-lock control system (Para. [0035, 0040].)
Conclusion
29. Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Martin (US 7,032,418); Collard (US 5,852,944); and Hayward (US 3,996,591).
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights