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 .
Current application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/538,193 which is issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,029,998.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/09/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,998 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims of 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim objections in the Office action of 09/11/2025 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are amended with limitation “self-storage door-lock system.” Since the specification is silent about the limitation “self-storage”, the amendments are improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “a self-storage door or other self-storage structure of a self-storage facility” in the preamble. Since the specification is silent about “self-storage”, and “self-storage facility”, the amendments are improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is silent about limitations “self-storage”, and “self-storage facility.” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
the subject matter of the current application is directed to a door lock system comprising a door latch coupled to a door or a structure, a latch lock coupled to the other of the door or structure, a door lock control system is in communication with a network and configured to engage or disengage the latch lock in response to one or more user input (claim 1). The latch lock comprises an interior housing chamber, a latch retainer shaft arranged within the interior housing chamber, and a latch retainer coupled to the latch retainer shaft for pivotal movement between restricted and unrestricted positions (claim 2). The door lock control system includes a solenoid, a status sensor, and a controller (claim 3). A method for locking a door involves moving the latch from unlocked to locked position and thus changing at least a portion of the latch lock from unrestricted position to restricted position (claim 13).
The subject matter of the issued patent is directed to a door lock system comprising a door latch coupled to a door or a structure, a latch lock coupled to the other of the door or structure, a door lock control system is in communication with a network and configured to engage or disengage the latch lock in response to one or more user input. The latch lock comprises an interior housing chamber, a latch retainer shaft arranged within the interior housing chamber, a latch retainer coupled to the latch retainer shaft for pivotal movement between restricted and unrestricted positions, and a door lock control system in communication with a network and configured to engage or disengage the latch lock in response to one or more user input. The lock door lock control system includes a solenoid, a status sensor, and a controller (claim 1). A method for locking a door involves moving the latch from unlocked to locked position and thus changing at least a portion of the latch lock from unrestricted position to restricted position, and the control system includes s solenoid, controller, and a status sensor (claim 12).
Generally, a continuation application will have claims directed to different aspects of what is set forth in the original description and drawings.
Conclusion
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 Curtis (US Pub. App. 2014-0319851), and Taylor (US Pub. App. 2010-0307206).
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 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