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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Worm (US 20130033045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Worm teaches an anti-knock lock, comprising a lock case (32), and a bolt (36), a stop block (72), a power device (54), a cam (56), a sliding rod (57), a first reset piece (84), and a second reset piece (66) that are arranged in the lock case, wherein the lock case is provided with a lock hole (39); the middle of the bolt is rotatably connected to the lock case (fig. 2), one end of the bolt being in a telescopic fit at the lock hole (fig. 2); the middle of the stop block is rotatably connected to the lock case (at 46; fig. 2); the power device is in a driving connection to the cam and is used for driving the cam to rotate; the cam is arranged opposite to the sliding rod, and the sliding rod moves along with the rotation of the cam (figs. 5-6); the sliding rod is in a sliding fit with the lock case and points to the lock hole (figs. 5-6), and the stop block rotates along with the movement of the sliding rod to block or allow the rotation of the bolt (figs. 6-7); the first reset piece is used for providing an elastic force to enable the bolt to be reset to a locked state (para. 0042), in which one end of the bolt extends out of the lock hole; and the second reset piece is used for providing an elastic force to enable the sliding rod to be reset to a locked state, in which the sliding rod drives the stop block to block the rotation of the bolt (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 2, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 1, wherein: when the lock is knocked by an external force, the bolt and the stop block will rotate, and the bolt will contact the stop block before the stop block reaches an unlocking position (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 2, wherein: the bolt is an eccentric structure (fig. 2), and when subjected to the same external force, the bolt has a rotational inertia greater than that of the stop block, so that the rotation angle of the bolt is greater than that of the stop block, and when the bolt contacts the stop block, the stop block is in a position that blocks the rotation of the bolt towards an unlocking direction (fig. 2; para. 0043).
Regarding claim 4, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 2, wherein: the other end of the bolt is provided with a first plane (surface of 74); one end of the stop block is provided with a second plane (surface of 72); when the lock is in the locked state, the first plane is arranged opposite to the second plane; and when the lock is knocked by an external force to enable the bolt to contact the stop block, an edge of the second plane abuts the first plane (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 5, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 2, wherein: a center of mass of the stop block is located at its rotation axis (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 1, wherein: the lock case is further provided with a boss for limiting the rotation angle of the stop block (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 8, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 1, wherein: the power device is a motor (54), and the cam (56) is coaxially connected onto a motor shaft of the motor (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 1, wherein: the sliding rod (57) is provided with a baffle (48) for fitting the cam (56), and the cam and the second reset piece are respectively fitted on two sides of the baffle (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 9, wherein: when the lock is in an unlocked state, the contact point between the cam and the baffle is lower than a shaft center height of the cam (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 1, wherein: the first reset piece is a spring (fig. 5), one end of which is connected to an inner wall of the lock case and the other end of which is connected to the other end of the bolt (fig. 5); the other end of the bolt is provided with a latch to be connected with the first reset piece; and the second reset piece is a spring, one end of which is sleeved on the other end of the sliding rod and the other end of which abuts the inner wall of the lock case (fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm (US 20130033045 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Worm teaches the anti-knock lock according to claim 1, however does not explicitly teach wherein: one end of the stop block is provided with a movable pin, and one end of the sliding rod is radially provided with a movable groove for sliding fit with the movable pin.
Worm does however teach wherein one end of the sliding rod is provided with a movable pin (58) and the stop block is provided with a movable groove (surface for 58 to ride on) for a sliding fit with the movable pin (figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to reverse the parts of Worm to include the movable pin on the stop block and the movable groove on the sliding rod. A simple reversal of parts is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore does not provide patentable significance. Reversing the parts of Worm does not affect the function of the door lock and therefore Worm’s invention is fully capable of functioning with the reversed arrangement. This ruling was upheld in case law supporting the reversal of parts [In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 at (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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights