DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
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) 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prunbauer (US 6,758,074).
Regarding claim 1, Prunbauer discloses a locking device, comprising:
a cylinder lock including an outer cylinder (12) and an inner cylinder (13) that rotatably engages with the outer cylinder; and
an unlocking key (3) corresponding to a keyhole (within 13, Fig.8) at positions symmetrical to each other about a rotational axis of the inner cylinder (27 projections Fig.9) formed in the inner cylinder,
the protrusions protrude toward the center of the keyhole (Fig.9)
a pair of protrusions (27, Fig.9) is formed at an end of the keyhole, and
a pair of positioning indentation (7 two instances) engageable with the protrusion is formed at a tip of the unlocking key (Fig.2),
the indentations opening in an insertion direction of the unlocking key, each of the indentations (& Fig. 5) engaging with a corresponding protrusion (27 Fig. 9) of the pair of protrusions while the locking key is completely inserted into the key hole,
while the unlocking key is inserted into the keyhole with the indentations positioned to contact the protrusions, the inner cylinder is rotable together with the unlocking key(c.2l.33-36).
Regarding claim 2, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1, wherein the indentation (7) is formed in plural, on an outer periphery of the tip of the unlocking key (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1,wherein the unlocking key includes an insertion part (3) insertable into the keyhole, the insertion part having a columnar shape (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1, wherein a contact part that forms an area of contact between the protrusion and the indentation has an arc shape (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim1, wherein
a projection geometry of the unlocking key in a direction of insertion into the keyhole is circular (Fig.2).
6. (canceled)
7. (canceled)
Regarding claim 8, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim1, wherein
an axial length of the insertion part of the unlocking key (tip to base of 2) is longer than an axial length of the keyhole.
Regarding claim 9, Prunbauer discloses the unlocking key (1) used for the locking device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Prunbauer the locking device of claim 2, wherein the indentation formed in plural comprises a plurality of sets of the indentations (4,5,6) arranged on the unlocking key at positions symmetrical about the rotational axis.
Regarding claim 12, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of The locking device of wherein the unlocking key includes an insertion part (3) insertable into the keyhole, the insertion part having a circular columnar shape (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 13, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 11, wherein a contact part that forms an area of contact between the protrusion and the indentation has an arc shape (Fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 11, wherein
a projection geometry of the unlocking key in a direction of insertion into the keyhole is circular (Fig.2).
15. (canceled)
Regarding claim 16, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 11, wherein an axial length of the insertion part (Tip to base of 2 Fig. 2) of the unlocking key is longer than an axial length of the keyhole.
Regarding claim 17, Prunbauer discloses the unlocking key (1) used for the locking device of claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1, wherein the pair of indentations (7) are formed at positions having plane symmetry with each other in a predetermined plane including a rotation axis of the unlocking key Fig.2).
Regarding claim 20, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1 or 2, wherein the pair of indentations (7) are formed at positions having 180° rotational symmetry with each other with respect to a rotational axis of the unlocking key, and the pair of indentations being formed in plural (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 21, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1, wherein each of the indentations (7) comprises, at a position in a vicinity (anywhere) of the tip of the unlocking key (Fig.5), a contact part Interior of that contacts the corresponding protrusion 9full length of channel may contact protrusion with any less than perfect alignment insertion and when turned, contact is made), while the unlocking key is inserted into the keyhole with the indentations positioned to contact the protrusions, the inner cylinder is rotatable together with the unlocking key.
Regarding claim 22, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1, wherein each of the indentations comprise an opening (7 channel) into which the corresponding protrusion (27) is inserted, the opening has a width that is wider than the contact part between the corresponding protrusions and a corresponding indentation of the indentations.
Regarding claim 23, Prunbauer discloses the locking device of claim 1, wherein each of the indentations (7) comprise an opening into which the corresponding protrusion is inserted, the opening being arc-shaped (Fig.10).
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 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prunbauer (US 6,758,074) in view of Uljens (US 20140373581).
Regarding claim 10 and 18, Prunbauer discloses the device comprising the cylinder lock of the locking device of claim 1.
Note: A door appears to be an intended use of the locking device rather than an element of the locking device.
Prunbauer does not disclose: used for a door.
Uljens teaches the intended use of a device on a door for the purpose of providing an object to secure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prunbauer with used for a door as taught by Uljens for the expected benefit of security of an accessible object.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ argument directed to additional security structure disclosed by the refence of Prunbauer which is not relied upon for rejection is irrelevant as to what the reference teaches and suggests namely the reasonably structure capable of the same function as the instant application. Applicant has failed to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The argument is unpersuasive
The applicant fails to provide positive recitation which would preclude the references of record from disclosing the invention as currently claimed. The argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights