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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 15, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been fully considered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed December 15, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing Objections and the Claim Objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 15, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claims 1, 14, and 15 arguments about the teachings of Marsden, US 11680425 B2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed latch structure and functioning without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question.
Marsden’s latch (latch 110; lever 120), designed in two pieces, functions in the same manner and performs the same locking function as the instant invention. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit). The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice; Marsden’s use of a two piece construction was a matter of obvious design choice. Marsden’s latch design, consisting of lever 120 with magnet 122 and latch 110 which translates between extended (locked orientation) and retracted (unlocked orientation) positions as a result of the magnetic attraction forces acting on 122 causing 120 to rotate around pivot axis 126. Marsden’s latch 110 comprises pin 128 which is engaged in lever slot 124 on lever 120 (see Fig 4). This structure allows latch 110 to move about a center defined 126 as 120 itself pivots around 126 thereby meeting Merriam-Webster’s definition of rotate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
Marsden, col 6, lines 36-48, teaches the claimed tension device and teaches it disposed about pivot 126. This structure directly maps to the amended claim limitations “the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis” (as recited in claim 1).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsden, US 11680425 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Marsden teaches a magnetic lock system (cabinet lock 100) for an enclosure (cabinet comprising first portion 300; second portion 302 as depicted in Fig 4 and discussed in col 4, lines 25-33), the magnetic lock system comprising:
a receiver (catch 150) disposed within the enclosure (Fig 4 depicts 150 disposed within the enclosure);
a locking mechanism coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure (Fig 4 depicts the locking mechanism coupled to an interior surface of 300), the lock mechanism including:
a latch (latch 110; lever 120) rotatable around a pivot axis (first pivot 126; Fig 4 depicts an arrow around which 120 rotates) and configured to engage the receiver in a locked orientation (Fig 4 depicts 110 engaging 150 in the locked orientation);
a tension device coupled to the latch and configured to exert a force on the latch to maintain it in the locked orientation (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses a spring configured to urge 110 into the locked orientation depicted in Fig 4), the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses the spring to be torsion spring disposed about pivot 126 which would axially align it with 126); and
PNG
media_image1.png
363
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden
a magnet (magnet 122) coupled to the latch (Fig 4 depicts 122 coupled to 120), the magnet configured to interact with a magnetic key (cabinet lock key 200; Fig 4; col 5, lines 11-18) to overcome the force of the tension device and transition the latch to an unlocked position (movement from Fig 4 to Fig 5 depicts 200 aligned with 122 of 110;120 and unlocking the latch).
Regarding claim 2, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the latch (110; 120) comprises:
a main portion (120);
a latching portion (110) extending from a first end of the main portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), the latching portion configured to engage with the receiver in the locked orientation (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts 110 engaging 150 in a locked orientation); and
a magnet portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending from a second end of the main portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), the magnet portion having the magnet coupled thereto (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts 122 coupled to the magnet portion).
Regarding claim 5, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1 further comprising a mounting plate (housing 102) coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure (Annotated excerpt Fig 4 depicts 102 mounted to interior of 300); wherein the mounting plate and the latch (110; 120) are pivotably coupled to each other via a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) associated with the pivot axis (126; col 4, lines 25-33).
Regarding claim 6, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 5, wherein the mounting plate (102) includes a base plate (mounting flange 104) and a plurality of extensions extending upward from the base plate (Fig 1 depicts a plurality of sidewall extensions extending from 104);wherein each extension includes an opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) formed therein, the opening configured to receive a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) aligned with the pivot axis (126; col 5, lines 55-37 discusses 120 being mounted to 102 via 126); and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses a spring configured to urge 110 into the locked orientation depicted in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 5, wherein the mounting plate (102) further includes a stopper element (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) configured to limit the pivot of the latch (Fig 5 depicts the stopper element limiting the pivot of 110;120 further to the left).
Regarding claim 13, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the enclosure (cabinet comprising first portion 300; second portion 302 as depicted in Fig 4 and discussed in col 4, lines 25-33) further comprises: a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) that couples the latch (110; 120) to a mounting plate (housing 102) and acts as the pivot axis (126) for the latch (see movement between Fig 4 and Fig 5); and the mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure, the mounting plate (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection claim 13) including: a base plate (mounting flange 104); and a number of extensions extending upward from the base plate (Fig 1 depicts a plurality of sidewalls of 102 extending from 104), wherein each extension may include an opening formed therein configured to receive the pin (col 5, lines 55-37 discusses 120 being mounted to 102 via pin and 126).
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda, JP H08312214 A.
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda teaches a magnetic lock system ([Abstract]; Note – page, section, and paragraph numbers are from the JP-H08312214-A PE2E merged image and text document attached) for an enclosure (furniture comprising box body 4; fitting plate; door 22; side plate 23; Fig 2), the magnetic lock system comprising:
a receiver (engaging body 3) disposed within the enclosure (Fig 2 depicts 3 disposed within the enclosure);
a locking mechanism coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure (Fig 2 depicts the locking mechanism coupled to an interior surface of 22), the lock mechanism including:
a latch (turning body 5) rotatable around a pivot axis (Figs 1;2 depict the pivot axis to be along longitudinal axis of pin 12; Fig 3 depicts the arrow first pivot 126; Fig 4 depicts the rotation of 5 with arrow A) and configured to engage the receiver in a locked orientation (Fig 2 depicts 5 engaging 3 in the locked orientation);
a tension device (iron piece 11; instant specification paragraph [0037] discusses the tension device to be tension element 112, such as, but not limited to, a coiled spring aligned with the pivot axis, that maintains the latch to be in its locked orientation; Merriam-Webster noun definition 3a defines tension as “either of two balancing forces causing or tending to cause extension” which agrees with the instant specification discussion; Kuroda 11 performs the same function as instant application component 112 by creating a tension force with latch magnet 13 which causes 5 to assume the extended and locked position depicted in Fig 2; 13 is a magnet located in 5 and is attracted to 11 mounted on the sides of box body 4, the attraction force causes the rotation, and resulting extension, of 5 out of 4 into engagement with 3; since 11 creates a tension force with 13, it is a tension device; the Examiner notes the use of the term “tension” allows a broader interpretation of the claimed “tension device” whereas an “elastic device” would necessitate a more narrow interpretation) coupled to the latch (Fig 1 depicts 13 coupled to 5) and configured to exert a force on the latch to maintain it in the locked orientation (bottom of page 3; Fig 2), the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis (the tension forces acting on tension device 11 act axially around pivot axis and 11 is situated along the pivot axis, thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of axially and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase axially aligned); and
a magnet (magnet 13) coupled to the latch (Fig 1 depicts 13 coupled to 5), the magnet configured to interact with a magnetic key (unlocking body 2) to overcome the force of the tension device and transition the latch to an unlocked position (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 3 depicts 2 overcoming the tension force towards 11 and 5 transitioning to an unlocked position; top of page 3-bottom of page 4).
Regarding claim 11, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the enclosure (4; 6; 22; 23; Fig 2) further comprises:
a mounting plate (6) coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure (Fig 2);
a bracket mount (flange 9), extending from each side of a bracket (4) and associated components, configured to mount the bracket and its associated components to the mounting plate (Fig 1 depicts how 9 mounts 4 to 6);
the bracket;
a pin (12; In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."; the instant specification does not discuss any significance or criticality for the pin to be a separate structure, 12 functions as 100 does in the instant invention by securing the latch to the bracket and forming the pivot axis for latch rotation) secured to the bracket (top of page 3), the pin being configured to comprise the pivot axis about which the latch may rotate (Figs 1; 3); and
a fastener (wood screw discussed on page 3) attaching each bracket mount to the mounting plate (middle of page 3 discusses how 4 and 6 of 1 are attached to 22 using wood screws).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden, US 11680425 B2.
Regarding claim 3, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 2, wherein the latch (110; 120) further comprises a plurality of sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending downward from opposite ends of the main portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts the front end of 120 with a sidewall extending downward; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the depicted front end structure of 120 would be duplicated on the back opposite side end of 120, as is practice with molded levers to reduce warpage during lever operation, such that 120 comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of 120); wherein each sidewall includes an opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) formed therein and configured to receive a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) aligned with the pivot axis (126); and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin (col 6, lines 36-48).
Regarding claim 4, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 2, wherein the latch (110; 120) further comprises a plurality of sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending downward from opposite ends of the magnet portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts the front end of the magnet portion with a sidewall extending downward; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the depicted front end structure of magnet potion would be duplicated on the back opposite side end of the magnet portion, as is practice with molded levers to reduce warpage during lever operation, such that magnet portion comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of the magnet portion); wherein each sidewall includes an opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) formed therein and configured to receive a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) aligned with the pivot axis (126); and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin (col 6, lines 36-48).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden, US 11680425 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wyant, US 3713561 A.
Regarding claim 8, Marsden teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the enclosure (cabinet comprising first portion 300; second portion 302 as depicted in Fig 4 and discussed in col 4, lines 25-33) further comprises a housing (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Marsden’s cabinet discussed in col 5, lines 28-42 would comprise the first portion 300, the cabinet door, and multiple second portions 302 comprising the horizontal and vertical walls necessary to form a complete cabinet); wherein the housing surrounds an inner volume of the enclosure (Fig 4 depicts enough housing to further depict the inner volume surrounded by the housing).
Marsden teaches a simplified cabinet comprising his housing so is silent on the housing including: a number of sidewalls formed in any shape; a top wall attached to the sidewalls; a bottom wall attached to the side walls; and a back plate attached to the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls.
Wyant teaches it is known in the art for a paper towel dispensing cabinet to comprise a housing (Fig 1), the housing including: a number of sidewalls formed in any shape (sidewall 11; Fig 5); a top wall attached to the sidewalls (flange 19; Fig 5); a bottom wall attached to the side walls (bottom member 13; Fig 5); and a back plate attached to the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls (rear wall 12; Fig 5).
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 housing disclosed by Marsden with the housing of Wyant. The prior art contains an enclosure which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the housing of Marsden) with another component (the housing of Wyant). Housing comprising multiple walls surrounding an inner volume are known in the art, as evidenced by Wyant, Evans, EP 0101287 A2, and Krueger et al., US 2830728 A, which teach paper towel dispensers structured as walled dispensers with an internal volume which holds the paper towels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute housings in order to expand intended use markets for their latch apparatus. 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 lock system mounted on a paper towel dispenser configured to function in the same manner as the lock system mounted on a generic cabinet.
Claims 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden, US 11680425 B2, in view of Wyant, US 3713561 A, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kitagawa, JP H05340145 A.
Regarding claim 9, Marsden in view of Wyant teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 8, wherein the housing of the enclosure (Wyant, Fig 1) further comprises: a lock indicator (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Wyant) that indicates the location where a key must be placed by a user to transition the lock of the enclosure from the locked orientation to the unlocked orientation (Wyant, col 2, lines 37-57 lock 26 used to secure door 14 to projection 27; Marsden, col 5. ;lines 11-18 teaches bring magnet key 200 within a threshold distance to operate the magnetic lock and movement between Fig 4 and Fig 5 depicts this operation); and an indicator slot (slot 20; col 2, lines 37-57 discusses the purpose of 20 to determine the amount of toweling still in the dispense) that may (the Examiner notes the limitations that follow “may” are considered optional limitations rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention and, thus, not necessary for rejection) be either completely open to the inner volume of the enclosure or that includes a clear barrier that is visually open to the inner volume of the enclosure such that a user may inspect the enclosure to determine if additional dispensing product is needed.
PNG
media_image2.png
465
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Wyant
Marsden in view of Wyant is does not teach a lock indicator that indicates the location where the magnetic key (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection claim 9) must be placed by a user to transition the magnetic lock of the enclosure from the locked orientation to the unlocked orientation.
Kitagawa teaches it is known in the art for a magnetic lock mechanism (Fig 10) to comprise a lock indicator (knob position instruction mark 1013) that indicates the location where the magnetic key (opening/closing magnet 1031) must be placed by a user to transition the magnetic lock of the enclosure from the locked orientation (Fig 11) to the unlocked orientation (Fig 13; page 6 of 15; Note: page numbers are from the PE2E merged image and text translation of JP H05340145 A).
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 keyed lock structure with silent indicator disclosed by Wyant with the magnetic lock structure with explicit indicator of Kitagawa. The prior art contains an enclosure housing which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (Wyant’s keyed lock and indicator) with another component (Kitagawa’s magnetic lock and indicator). It is known in the art for enclosure housings to be secured using a variety of lock apparatus as evidenced by Marsden, Wyant, Kitagawa, and Ingvarsson et al., US 20140014675 A1. Most lock apparatus provide visual cues to properly operate the apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure the lock indicator matched to the type of lock apparatus installed and the indicator was clearly present in order to facilitate user operation. 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 an enclosure housing secured by a lock apparatus with an indicator to guide user operation.
Regarding claim 10, Marsden in view of Wyant and Kitagawa teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 9, wherein the receiver (Marsden, 150) is in the form of a locking plate (Wyant, Fig 1 depicts 150 to be structured as a locking plate) that extends from the housing in any direction toward the locking mechanism associated with the lock indicator (Marsden Fig 4 depicts 150 extending downward from 302 towards the lock mechanism 100 associated with Kitagawa 1013); and wherein the distal end of the locking plate may include a locking tab (Marsden, locking face 152) configured to interact with the locking mechanism (Marsden Fig 4 depicts 152 engaging with 100).
Regarding claim 15, Marsden teaches an enclosure (cabinet comprising first portion 300; second portion 302 as depicted in Fig 4 and discussed in col 4, lines 25-33) comprising:
a housing (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Marsden’s cabinet discussed in col 5, lines 28-42 would comprise the first portion 300, the cabinet door, and multiple second portions 302 comprising the horizontal and vertical walls necessary to form a complete cabinet) surrounding an inner volume of the enclosure (Fig 4 depicts enough housing to further depict the inner volume surrounded by the housing),
a magnetic lock system (cabinet lock 100) including: a receiver (catch 150) disposed within the housing (Fig 4 depicts 150 disposed within the housing); a locking mechanism coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure (Fig 4 depicts the locking mechanism coupled to an interior surface of 300), the locking mechanism including: a latch (latch 110; lever 120) rotatable around a pivot axis (first pivot 126; Fig 4 depicts an arrow around which 120 rotates) and configured to engage the receiver in a locked orientation (Fig 4 depicts 110 engaging 150 in the locked orientation); a tension device coupled to the latch and configured to exert a force on the latch to maintain it in the locked orientation (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses a spring configured to urge 110 into the locked orientation depicted in Fig 4), the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses the spring to be torsion spring disposed about pivot 126 which would axially align it with 126); and a magnet (magnet 122) coupled to the latch (Fig 4 depicts 122 coupled to 120), the magnet configured to interact with a magnetic key (cabinet lock key 200; Fig 4; col 5, lines 11-18) to overcome the force of the tension device and transition the latch to an unlocked position when the magnetic key is aligned with the lock (movement from Fig 4 to Fig 5 depicts 200 aligned with 122 of 110;120 and unlocking the latch).
Marsden teaches a simplified cabinet so is silent on housing including: a number of sidewalls; a top wall attached to the sidewalls; a bottom wall attached to the sidewalls; a back plate attached to the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls; and a door pivotably attached to the at least one of the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls; and does not teach a lock indicator disposed on the door of the housing.
Wyant teaches it is known in the art for a paper towel dispenser cabinet to comprises a housing (Fig 1), the housing including: a number of sidewalls (sidewall 11; Fig 5); a top wall attached to the sidewalls (flange 19; Fig 5); a bottom wall attached to the sidewalls (bottom member 13; Fig 5); a back plate attached to the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls (rear wall 12; Fig 5); and a door (door member 14) pivotably attached to the at least one of the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls (col 2,lines 37-57 discusses and Fig 1 depicts 14 hingedly mounted to 11 by pins 22).
Kitagawa teaches it is known in the art for a lock mechanism (Fig 10) to comprise a lock indicator (knob position instruction mark 1013) disposed on the door (swing door 1003) of the housing (box body 1001; 1003) such a magnet (engaging magnet 1021) coupled to the latch (movable member 1015), the magnet configured to interact with a magnetic key (opening closing magnet 1031) to overcome the force of the tension device (engaging spring 1019) and transition the latch to an unlocked position when the magnetic key is aligned with the lock indicator (movement from Fig 11 to Fig 13 depicts the attraction between 1031 and 1021 overcoming the force of 1019 and 1015 transitioning to an unlocked position.
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 housing disclosed by Marsden with the housing of Wyant. The prior art contains an enclosure which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the housing of Marsden) with another component (the housing of Wyant). Housing comprising multiple walls surrounding an inner volume are known in the art, as evidenced by Wyant, Evans, EP 0101287 A2, and Krueger et al., US 2830728 A, which teach paper towel dispensers structured as walled dispensers with an internal volume which holds the paper towels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute housings in order to expand intended use markets for their latch apparatus. 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 lock system mounted on a paper towel dispenser configured to function in the same manner as the lock system mounted on a generic cabinet.
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 A, to modify Marsden’s enclosure door to have the lock indicator of Kitagawa. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. Marsden shows a magnetic key operating a magnetic lock in the same manner as Kitagawa but is silent on any feature to align the key to the lock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a lock indicator in order to facilitate user operation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a magnetic lock configured to be operated by a magnetic key.
Regarding claim 16, Marsden in view of Wyant and Kitagawa teach the enclosure of claim 15, wherein the latch (Marsden, 110; 120) comprises: a main portion (Marsden, 120); a latching portion (Marsden, 110) extending from a first end of the main portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), the latching portion configured to engage with the receiver in the locked orientation (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts 110 engaging 150 in a locked orientation); and a magnet portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending from a second end of the main portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), the magnet portion having the magnet coupled thereto (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts 122 coupled to the magnet portion).
Regarding claim 17, Marsden in view of Wyant and Kitagawa teach the enclosure of claim 16, wherein the latch (Marsden, 110; 120) further comprises a plurality of sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending downward from opposite ends of the main portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts the front end of 120 with a sidewall extending downward; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the depicted front end structure of 120 would be duplicated on the back opposite side end of 120, as is practice with molded levers to reduce warpage during lever operation, such that 120 comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of 120); wherein each sidewall includes an opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) formed therein and configured to receive a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) aligned with the pivot axis (Marsden, 126); and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin (col 6, lines 36-48).
Regarding claim 18, Marsden in view of Wyant and Kitagawa teach the enclosure of claim 16, wherein the latch (Marsden, 110; 120) further comprises a plurality of sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending downward from opposite ends of the magnet portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden depicts the front end of the magnet portion with a sidewall extending downward; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the depicted front end structure of magnet potion would be duplicated on the back opposite side end of the magnet portion, as is practice with molded levers to reduce warpage during lever operation, such that magnet portion comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of the magnet portion); wherein each sidewall includes an opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) formed therein and configured to receive a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) aligned with the pivot axis (Marsden, 126); and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin (col 6, lines 36-48).
Regarding claim 19, Marsden in view of Wyant and Kitagawa teach the enclosure of claim 15, further comprising a mounting plate (Marsden, housing 102) coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure (Annotated excerpt Fig 4 depicts 102 mounted to interior of 300); wherein the mounting plate and the latch (Marsden, 110; 120) are pivotably coupled to each other via a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) associated with the pivot axis (126; col 4, lines 25-33).
Regarding claim 20, Marsden in view of Wyant and Kitagawa teach the 20. The magnetic lock system of claim 19, wherein the mounting plate (Marsden, 102) includes a base plate (Marsden, mounting flange 104) and a plurality of extensions extending upward from the base plate (Fig 1 depicts a plurality of sidewall extensions extending from 104), each extension including an opening (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) formed therein and configured to receive a pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) aligned with the pivot axis (126; col 5, lines 55-37 discusses 120 being mounted to 102 via 126); and a tab (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) extending upward from the base plate and configured to limit the pivot of the latch (Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden the tab to be on side walls of 102 extending upward from 104 and projecting downward to limit the pivot of 120 by engaging an upper surface of 120, see movement from Fig 5 to Fig 4 and what stops 120’s pivot around 126).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda, JP H08312214 A, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Prevot, US 4856832 A.
Regarding claim 12, Kuroda teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 11.
Kuroda does not teach wherein the bracket mount and mounting plate each include a textured surface formed thereon configured to fit with the each other along a vertical plane such that the vertical alignment of the latch of the locking mechanism when configured in the locked orientation may be adjusted by moving the bracket and bracket mounts such that the textured surface of the bracket mount fits together with a different vertically aligned region of the textured surface of the mounting plate; wherein the fastener locks together the textured surfaces of the bracket mount and mounting plate; and wherein an additional one or more fasteners associated with one or more bracket mounts may be tightened or loosened to adjust the horizontal alignment of the latch of the locking mechanism in the locked orientation.
Prevot teaches it is known in the art for a strike plate for a lock (striker plate 1) which is adjustable along two axes [Abstract] to comprise two plates (bottom 14; face plate 21) each including a textured surface (elongated groove areas 18; 19; 20 on 14; elongated ribs 29; 30; 31 on 21) configured to fit with each other along a vertical plane such that the vertical alignment of the strike of the lock mechanism when configured in the locked orientation may be adjusted by moving the plates such that the textured surfaces fit together with different vertically aligned regions, wherein fasteners (col 2, lines 52-58 discuss fasteners) lock together the textured surfaces of the plates; wherein an additional fastener associated with the plates may be tightened or loosened to adjust the horizontal alignment of the strike of the locking mechanism in the locked orientation such that Prevot teaches wherein the bracket mount and mounting plate each include a textured surface formed thereon configured to fit with the each other along a vertical plane such that the vertical alignment of the latch of the locking mechanism when configured in the locked orientation may be adjusted by moving the bracket and bracket mounts such that the textured surface of the bracket mount fits together with a different vertically aligned region of the textured surface of the mounting plate; wherein the fastener locks together the textured surfaces of the bracket mount and mounting plate; and wherein an additional one or more fasteners associated with one or more bracket mounts may be tightened or loosened to adjust the horizontal alignment of the latch of the locking mechanism in the locked orientation
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 C, to modify the unadjustable plate structure of Kuroda with the adjustable plate structure of Prevot. The prior art contains a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” (the magnetic lock system of Kuroda) and a “comparable” device that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (the two axis adjustable strike for lock mechanism of Prevot). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve Kuroda’s apparatus with the adjustability features of Prevot in order to improve the installation efficiency and efficacy of Kuroda by allowing both horizontal and vertical adjustment capabilities after fasteners have been installed. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely a magnetic lock system adjustably mounted on an enclosure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden, US 11680425 B2, in view of Kitagawa, JP H05340145 A.
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art; therefore Marsden discloses a method of operating a magnetic lock system (cabinet lock 100) for an enclosure (cabinet comprising first portion 300; second portion 302 as depicted in Fig 4 and discussed in col 4, lines 25-33), the method comprising:
providing a housing (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Marsden’s cabinet discussed in col 5, lines 28-42 would comprise the first portion 300, the cabinet door, and multiple second portions 302 comprising the horizontal and vertical walls necessary to form a complete cabinet), a magnet key element (cabinet lock key 200; Fig 4; col 5, lines 11-18), a magnet (magnet 122) within the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), a tension element within the locking mechanism (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses a spring configured to urge 110 into the locked orientation depicted in Fig 4), a latch (latch 110; lever 120) within the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), a pin within the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden), the tension device axially aligned with the pin (col 6, lines 36-48 discusses the spring to be torsion spring disposed about pivot 126 which would axially align it with 126), and a locking tab within the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Marsden) that contains an opening (catch engagement face 152 is an open width: span thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2a(2) of opening and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) fitted to be able to contain the latch in order to maintain the magnetic lock system in a locked orientation (Fig 5 depicts 110 fitted with 152 to maintain 100 in a locked orientation);
placing the magnet key element adjacent the lock (movement between Fig 4 and Fig5 depicts placing 200 to interact with 122);
generating an interaction between the magnet key element and the magnet of the locking mechanism (movement from Fig 4 to Fig 5 depicts the interaction between 200 and 122), the interaction between the magnet key element and the magnet of the locking mechanism configured to overcome a force of the tension element of the locking mechanism (movement from Fig 4 to Fig 5 depicts the interaction between 200 and 122 overcoming a force of the tension element);
causing the latch of the locking mechanism to rotate about the pin of the locking mechanism such that the latch is no longer disposed within the opening of the locking tab (movement between Fig 4 and Fig 5 depicts 120 rotating around the pin and 110 moving away from 152); and in response to the latch no longer being within the opening of the locking tab (Fig 5),transitioning the magnetic lock system from the locked orientation to an unlocked orientation (movement between Fig 4 and Fig 5 depicts transitioning from a locked orientation to an unlocked orientation).
While Marsden teaches placing a magnetic key element in such a manner to operate a magnetic lock, Marsden does not teach a lock indicator or placing the magnetic key element on the lock indicator.
Kitagawa teaches it is known in the art for a magnetic lock mechanism (Fig 10) to comprise a lock indicator (knob position instruction mark 1013) that indicates the location where the magnetic key (opening/closing magnet 1031) must be placed by a user to transition the magnetic lock of the enclosure from the locked orientation (Fig 11) to the unlocked orientation (Fig 13; page 6 of 15; Note: page numbers are from the PE2E merged image and text translation of JP H05340145 A) such that Kitagawa teaches a lock indicator and placing the magnetic key element on the lock indicator.
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 A, to modify Marsden’s enclosure door to have the lock indicator of Kitagawa. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. Marsden shows a magnetic key operating a magnetic lock in the same manner as Kitagawa but is silent on any feature to align the key to the lock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a lock indicator in order to facilitate user operation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a magnetic lock configured to be operated by a magnetic key.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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