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 Amendment
The Amendments filed October 5, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing Objections and the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 for claim 5 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 11, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant's claim 1 arguments about the teachings of Jian et al., GB 2485852 A, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed functional and configuration limitations without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question.
Regarding Jian not teaching a “plurality of locked states”, the instant specification mentions “locked states” seven times with the page 3 discussion of “the plurality of locked states corresponding to different selections of buttons having been pressed into their pressed positions” being the most detailed (as is written at the bottom of page 6 in the Arguments). The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Jian is silent on the locked states. Jian teaches a mechanical combination lock with keys (Fig 1), those keys being called code number keys 2 (page 5). It would be been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that those keys would be used to enter a code into the combination lock to unlock the lock (claim 2). The sequential entering of the unlocking code is the equivalent to the instant specification’s “different selections of buttons having been pressed into their pressed positions”.
Regarding Jian not teaching “so as to reduce any feedback indicative of which of the unlocked states the locking mechanism is in passing from the locking plate to the actuator”, the instant specification, page 3, discusses this reduction in feedback as a result of the decoupling mechanism being arranged to decouple the actuator from the locking plate. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Jian does not teach reducing feedback. Jian teaches a decoupling mechanism therefore Jian is structurally capable without modification of reducing any feedback indicative of which of the locked states the locking mechanism is in passing from the locking plate to the actuator.
Regarding Jian not teaching first and second resilient members, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jian’s first resilient member 16 engages with driven member 13. In movement from Fig 6 to Fig 7, as main bolt seat 7 is rotated clockwise, 13 is rotated out of inner-concave circular arc 113 and is pushed back into 14. This clockwise movement of 7 and 13 results in push plate 11 being forced leftward as is discussed in page 6, lines 23-28. This motion occurs when the correct password is input. When a wrong password is input, push plate 11 doesn’t move and the lock is unable to be opened. This movement of 11 is enabled when a correct sequence of code key 2 buttons are pressed until the entire code is entered, resulting in a plurality of locked states, and 11 is able to move. Movement from Fig 6 to Fig 7 shows that movement to be to the left and the reverse movement to the right would be a result of knob button 14 and bolt seat 7 being counter clockwise. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art this movement would necessitate a resilient member to bias plate 11 against the semicircular end 131 of 13 as depicted in order to facilitate repeated locking and unlocking of the apparatus. The use of opposing resilient members is known in the art as evidenced by Wang, US 7043948 B1; Maio, US 7318331 B2; Hu, US 20080115546 A1; and Li, CN 213654498 U which teach similar structures. Page 6 lines 26-28 states the spring pressure of the clutch block 13, is greater than the elastic force of push plate 11, therefore the spring constant of the first resilient member is greater than the spring constant of the second resilient member.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jian, GB 2485852 A (hereinafter Jian), in view of Williams, US 20170321451 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jian teaches a lock comprising:
a plurality of buttons (code number keys 2; Fig 1), each button having an axis along which each of the buttons may be axially pressed between an un-pressed position and a pressed position (Fig 3 depicts the button press axis to be along the longitudinal axis of 2, 9, 10; page 6, line 15-page 7, line 7 discusses entering a code which would necessitate pressing and releasing 2; see Response to Arguments 3. a. i. for additional discussion and rationale),
a locking plate (push plate 11),
an actuator (handle knob 3; main bolt seat 7) configured to drive the locking plate (page 6,lines 23-28);
a locking mechanism (invention is directed to an engaging-disengaging protection means for a mechanical lock) having an unlocked and a plurality of locked states, the plurality of locked states corresponding to different selections of buttons having been pressed into their pressed positions (there are 10 code keys 2 which function as code keys for the mechanical push button combination lock which requires the correct combination of key presses to unlock the lock); and
a latch (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a mechanical door lock would have a latch in order to operate as intended and lock/unlock a door as discussed on page 6, line 15-page 7, line 9);
wherein, when the locking mechanism is in the unlocked state (Fig 6), the locking plate can be driven by the actuator from a locked position into an unlocked position (Fig 7) so as to disengage the latch and unlock the lock (movement from Fig 6 to Fig 7 depicts the rotation; page 6, line 23-page 7, line 2),
wherein, when the locking mechanism is in one of the locked states, the locking mechanism prevents the locking plate from being moved by the actuator (page 7, lines 3-9);
the lock further comprising a decoupling mechanism (clutch block 13; knob button 14) by means of which the actuator can drive the locking plate (page 6, line 23-page 7, line 2), the decoupling mechanism being arranged to decouple the actuator from the locking plate (page 6, line 23-page 7, line 9 discusses how 13;14 decouple 3 from moving 11), so as to reduce any feedback indicative of which of the locked states the locking mechanism is in passing from the locking plate to the actuator (page 6, line 15-page 7, line 9; see Response to Arguments 3. a. ii. for additional discussion and rationale);
wherein the decoupling mechanism comprises a driven member (13) driven for motion by the actuator (page 6, line 15-page 7, line 9), a first resilient member (spring 16) connecting the driven member with the locking plate (page 4, line 22-page 5, line 2 discusses 16 biasing 13 outwardly from 7;14 to contact and connect with 11) and a second resilient member (page 6, line 23-page 7, line 2 discusses 11 having elastic force which, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, would be generated from another spring) connecting the locking plate to a fixed member fixed relative to a housing of the lock (Figs 1;2 depict 1 to be the housing; Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Jian depicts where the Examiner believes one of ordinary skill in the art might locate a second resilient member which would be between 11 and housing 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
290
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Jian
wherein the first resilient members and the second resilient member each have a spring constant (a spring constant is a value that represents how stiff or resistant to deformation a spring is and is a measure of any spring), with the spring constant of the first resilient member being greater than the spring constant of the second resilient member (page 6, lines 26-28 discusses spring pressure of 13 is greater than the elastic force of 11, thereby the spring constant of 16, the first resilient member, is greater than the spring constant of the second resilient member; see Response to Arguments 3. a. iii. for additional discussion and rationale).
While Jian teaches a mechanical lock which secures a door (page 12, line 20), Jian is silent on a lock comprising a latch.
Williams teaches a mechanical pushbutton lock comprising a latch (17).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the silent latch of Jian with the explicit latch of Williams. The prior art contains a lock apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the silent latch of Jian) with another component (the explicit latch of Williams). A mechanical pushbutton lock with latch is known in the art, as evidenced by Williams which teaches mechanical lock (10) with a pushbuttons (11) and a latch (17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute an explicit latch into the lock apparatus in order to better define the structure for both engineering and marketing purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a mechanical push button lock apparatus with an explicit latch that is configured to function in the same manner as the mechanical pushbutton lock apparatus disclosed by Jian.
Regarding claim 2, Jian in view of Williams teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the actuator (Jian, 3; 7) comprises a rotating member (7) having an eccentric cam (square groove 71) which drives the driven member (13; page 4, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 3, Jian in view of Williams teaches the lock of claim 2, wherein the locking plate (11) comprises a blocking member (stopping protrusion 111) which; in the locked position of the locking plate (Fig 8), the blocking member limits rotation of the actuator to a limit (Fig 8 depicts 111 limiting rotation of 7); and in the unlocked position of the locking plate (Fig 9), the blocking member allows the actuator to rotate past the limit (Fig 9 depicts 7 rotating past 111).
Regarding claim 4, Jian in view of Williams teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a sub-mechanism for each button (Fig 3 depicts the sub-mechanism to be 9; 10); the sub mechanism blocks movement of the locking plate (11) unless the button has been pressed a pre-determined number of times (page 6, line 15-page 7, line 9 discuss inputting a password, using 2 which is mounted on 9;10, and when that password is correct (the correct buttons pressed the correct predetermined number of times, 11 is then movable into a position, unlocking the apparatus, and the door being openable; or when the password is incorrect, 11 is not movable into an unlocking position).
Regarding claim 6, Jian in view of Williams teaches a lockable enclosure (Williams, lockable enclosure 200) designed to contain one or more articles (Williams, [0004] discusses the enclosure restricting access to various items therefore designed to contain one or more articles), the lockable enclosure comprising the lock of any preceding claim 1,wherein the latch (Williams, 17) of the lock must be disengaged to gain access to the one or more articles (Williams, [0253]).
Regarding claim 7, Jian in view of Williams teaches the lockable enclosure of claim 6, wherein the lockable enclosure comprises a key safe, a safe, a lockable cabinet, or a lock box (Williams, [0004] discusses the enclosure being a key safe).
Conclusion
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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675