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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the locking mechanism” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 8, line 29, “the locking mechanism” is not understood as this is the first and only mention of this term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 10, line 4, “the locking mechanism” is firstly and only recited on page 8, line 29 of the specification and therefore, the recitation in claim 10, defining the extension element with reference to “where the locking mechanism is located” is not understood.
It is noted that claims 11 and 12 are included herein merely because of their dependency to claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13-19 are allowed.
Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach the electromechanical installation device as set forth in claim 1, wherein the locking device is designed as a locking cylinder, as a knob cylinder, as a furniture cylinder or as a padlock, or into a switching element, with a stator for insertion into a locking device housing or into a switching element housing, and with a rotor as components and with a locking element, wherein the rotor is mounted in the stator, wherein the locking element is mounted in one of the components, wherein the locking element can be moved between a first position and a second position, wherein the locking element in the first position connects the rotor and the stator and blocks a rotation of the rotor in the stator, wherein the locking element in the second position allows a rotation of the rotor in the stator, wherein the installation device comprises an electromechanical actuator, wherein the actuator is used to enable the locking element to be movable into the second position, wherein the rotor houses the electromechanical actuator and wherein the installation device comprises a key channel for inserting a key, wherein the installation device comprises an extension element, wherein the extension element is designed to move in a first direction, axially to a rotor axis of the rotor, when a key is inserted, and to move in a second direction counter to the first direction axially to a rotor axis when the key is removed.
While the cited prior art of record discloses several claimed elements such as the rotor, stator, locking element movable between two positions, allowing or blocking rotation of the rotor in the stator, none teach pr suggest the structure and functionality of the italicized language above.
Pagnoncellli, Hyatt and applicant’s cited WO 03/100199 all teach various features presented in the remainder of claim 1, but fail to provide a teaching for the italicized portions above, newly added to the end of the claim. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-8, 1-19 are allowable over the prior art of record.
It is noted that while claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 USC 112 as set forth in paragraph 3-4. As dependent on allowable claim 1, they would be allowable upon resolution of the “locking mechanism” indefiniteness discussed above.
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