Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,427

HANDS-FREE LOCKING MECHANISM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 08, 2024
Examiner
BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Smartstall Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
940 granted / 1220 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1238
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1220 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV – Figs. 14-20 in the reply filed on 1/8/26 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/8/26 (Claims 1-10,18-20). 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hogan et al US 2015/0330120 (hereinafter Hogan). Re Claim 1. (Original) Hogan discloses a locking mechanism (Figs. 1- 7) comprising: a latching component (130) mounted on a door frame (130); a locking component (100) mounted on a door (102), the locking component comprising a sensor (148), a controller (128) and a motor (126), wherein: the sensor senses user action and is configured to communicate sensed information to the controller; and the controller is configured to control the motor, wherein the motor is configured to extend and retract a protruding element (432; Fig.4 position) into and out of an opening (132) of the latching component, and wherein extending the protruding element (432, Fig.2) into the opening locks the locking mechanism, and retracting the protruding element (432, Fig.1) out of the opening unlocks the locking mechanism. Re Claim 4. (Original) Hogan discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the protruding element (432) comprises a spring (436) configured to allow elastic movement of the protruding element. Re Claim 5. (Original) Hogan discloses the locking mechanism of claim 4, wherein the elastic movement of the protruding element (432) causes the protruding element to extend slightly into the opening of the latching component (138; Figs.1,4) to close the locking mechanism while maintaining an unlocked state of the locking mechanism. Re Claim 18. (Original) As discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 4, Hogan discloses a locking mechanism comprising: a latching component mounted on a door frame; a locking component mounted on a door, the locking component comprising a protruding element, a sensor, a controller and a motor; wherein the protruding element comprises a spring configured to allow elastic movement of the protruding element into and out of the locking component; wherein bringing the protruding element into contact with the latching component causes the protruding element to extend slightly behind the latching component to maintain the locking mechanism in an unlocked and closed state; wherein, when the locking mechanism is in the unlocked and closed state, the sensor senses user action and communicates sensed information to a controller, causing the controller to trigger the motor to extend the protruding element into an opening of the latching component to place the locking mechanism into a locked and closed state; and wherein, when the locking mechanism is in the locked and closed state, the sensor senses further user action and communicates further sensed information to the controller, causing the controller to trigger the motor to retract the protruding element out of the opening of the latching component to place the locking mechanism into an unlocked and open state. Re Claim 19. (Original) As discussed above with respect to claim 18, Hogan discloses the locking mechanism of claim 18, wherein the sensor is one or more of: a break-beam sensor, an IR sensor, inductive sensor, capacitive sensor, magnetic sensor, and proximity sensor (para [0019-0020]). Re Claim 20. (Original) Hogan discloses the locking mechanism of claim 18, wherein the locking mechanism includes a communications module (via smartphone or the like, wireless signal, electromagnetic wave) configured to transmit information to a device (para [0019-0020]). Claim(s) 1-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 2 450 509 (hereinafter EP509). Re Claim 1. (Original) EP509 discloses a locking mechanism (Figs. 1- 10) comprising: a latching component (Fig. 1c) mounted on a door frame; a locking component (100) mounted on a door, the locking component comprising a sensor (132,138), a controller (150) and a motor (151), wherein: the sensor senses user action and is configured to communicate sensed information to the controller; and the controller is configured to control the motor, wherein the motor is configured to extend and retract a protruding element (111,114) into and out of an opening of the latching component, and wherein extending the protruding element (Figs. 2a-c,6a) into the opening locks the locking mechanism, and retracting the protruding element (Figs.2a-c,6b) out of the opening unlocks the locking mechanism. Re Claim 2. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a solid-state display (Fig.7) to visually indicate whether the locking mechanism is locked or unlocked. Re Claim 3. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a tab (113) connected to the locking component and configured for manually moving the protruding element (111,114) into and out of the opening of the latching component to manually lock and unlock the locking mechanism. Re Claim 4. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the protruding element (111,114) comprises a spring (172, Fig.5) configured to allow elastic movement of the protruding element. Re Claim 6. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the sensor (132,138) is one or more of: a break-beam sensor, an IR sensor, inductive sensor, capacitive sensor, magnetic sensor (claim 8), and proximity sensor. 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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP509 in view of Gokcebay US 10,697,203 (hereinafter Gokcebay). Re Claim 7. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising an LED state indicator to indicate whether the mechanism is in a locked state or unlocked state. Gokcebay discloses the use of an LED state indicator (512, para [0098]) to indicate whether the mechanism is in a locked state or unlocked state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lock of EP509 to include a well known LED indicator as taught by Gokcebay in order to facilitate usage of the locking mechanism. Re Claim 8. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the locking mechanism includes a communications module configured to transmit information to a device. Gokcebay discloses the use of a communications module (RFID 56/54, BLE chip 48; microprocessor 46; para [0097-0098, 0108]) configured to transmit information to a device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lock of EP509 to include a well known communications module as taught by Gokcebay in order to facilitate usage of the locking mechanism. Re Claim 9. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the communications module is configured to transmit information using one or more of: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, RF, 3G, 4G, 5G, or UHB wireless technology. Gokcebay discloses the use of a communications module (48) configured to transmit information using one or more of: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, RF (56, para [97,108]0, 3G, 4G, 5G, or UHB wireless technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lock of EP509 to include a well known communications module as taught by Gokcebay in order to facilitate usage of the locking mechanism. Re Claim 10. (Original) EP509 discloses the locking mechanism of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the communications module is configured to transmit one or more of: a position of the door, a state of the locking mechanism, a battery level of the locking component, a number of locked and unlocked states, and an amount of time in the locked and unlocked states. Gokcebay discloses the use of a communications module (48) configured to transmit information using one or more of: a position of the door, a state of the locking mechanism (para [0098]), a battery level of the locking component, a number of locked and unlocked states, and an amount of time in the locked and unlocked states. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lock of EP509 to include a well known communications module as taught by Gokcebay indicating lock status (para [98]) in order to facilitate usage of the locking mechanism. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM. 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 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. SUZANNE DINO BARRETT Primary Examiner Art Unit 3675B Sdb /SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595688
SECURE, REMOTELY CONTROLLED, INTERNALLY POWERED PADLOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584512
UNIVERSAL FASTENING LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559973
PLUG FOR LOCK SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED METHOD OF ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553258
LATCH ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546565
Restroom Stall Firearm Receptacle
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1220 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month