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
Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, as stated in the specification paragraphs [0077-0086]. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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: in paragraph [0087], the recitation of positions V, G and O are confusing as these elements have not yet been identified within the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims, specification and drawings render the disclosure confusing as to the relative positions of the drive mechanism, since they are entirely functionally recited, with the structural positions of the “blocking”, “preloading” and “release” positions within the latch contour omitted. Furthermore, the grammatical issues add to the confusion. For ex, in Claim 1, line 21, “rotating the cam in accordance with the rotational movement of the cam and a contour” is confusing and not clearly understood within the metes and bounds of the claim. In Claim 12, line 4, the phrase “that characterizes a movement” is considered indefinite, since it merely indicates position rather than providing a “characterization”. And in Claim 16, line 2, “via” is considered indefinite since the structure which provides the movement to the preloading position is not clearly understood.
Since the cam structure is not clearly recited in the instant claims, merely relying on the claimed functionality, the prior art of record DE268 reference (discussed in paragraphs [0077-0086] having a second element (37) as the blocking position “S”) reads on the instant recitation of “cam positions” (rather than cam structure which engages the contour in a certain position in order to provide the blocking position of the latch).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, 15-17 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 10 2005 041 268 A1 (hereinafter DE268).
Re Claim 1. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses an electronic frame lock for a bicycle, comprising: a round hoop (11; Figs. 1a, 1b, 2a-c) that is rotatable between an open position and a closed position; an electric motor (39); a cam (29/31) that can be driven by the electric motor to make an eccentric rotational movement (31) about an axis of rotation; a latch (23) that is movable in a straight line between a locking position and an unlocking position, wherein the straight line is oriented perpendicularly to the axis of rotation and radially to the round hoop (11), and wherein the latch is preloaded towards the locking position (spring 25); a hoop detector (43/33) configured to detect the closed position of the round hoop; and a control device (41), wherein the round hoop located in the closed position can be secured against a movement towards the open position by the latch (23) located in the locking position (Fig. 1a) and can be released for a movement into the open position by moving the latch into the unlocking position (Fig.1b) , wherein the cam (29/31) can be rotated by the electric motor (39) into a blocking position (Fig. 2a), a preloading position (Fig. 2c) and a release position (Fig. 2b), wherein the latch (23) has a control opening (27) into which the cam (29) engages, wherein the latch (23) can be driven by rotating the cam (29/31) in accordance with the rotational movement of the cam and a contour of the control opening (27), wherein the latch (23) can be secured by the cam against a movement from the locking position towards the unlocking position by rotating the cam into the blocking position (Fig. 2a), can be released for a movement against the preload towards the unlocking position by rotating the cam into the preloading position (Fig. 2c), and can be moved by the cam against the preload into the unlocking position (Fig. 2b) by rotating the cam into the release position, and wherein the control device (41) is configured to control the electric motor (39) to selectively rotate the cam into the blocking position, the preloading position and the release position, and wherein the control device is configured to control the electric motor to rotate the cam into the blocking position in response to a detection of the closed position of the round hoop by the hoop detector (43).
Re Claim 2. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the round hoop has a closed position engagement recess (15), and wherein the latch (23) is configured to engage into the closed position engagement recess in the locking position when the round hoop is in the closed position and to thereby secure the round hoop against a movement into the open position.
Re Claim 3. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the control device (41) is configured, starting from the open position of the round hoop, based on a received closing command, - to first control the electric motor (39) to rotate the cam (29/31) into the release position and, thereby, move the latch (23) into the unlocking position (Fig. 2c); - to then control the electric motor (39) to rotate the cam (29/31) into the preloading position (Fig. 2b); and - to control the electric motor (39) to rotate the cam (29) into the blocking position (Fig. 2a) in response to a detection of the closed position of the round hoop by the hoop detector (43).
Re Claim 4. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the cam (29) can be rotated about a motor rotation axis (Figs. 1a,1b) of the electric motor (39).
Re Claim 5. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor (39) is arranged substantially tangentially (Figs. 1a,b) to the round hoop (11).
Re Claim 6. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the cam (29) has a control prolongation (31) with which the cam engages into the control opening (27).
Re Claim 9. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the latch (23) is configured as a flat metal sheet (Figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 10. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the round hoop (11) is preloaded into the open position (spring 17).
Re Claim 11. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the hoop detector (43) is configured to detect the open position.
Re Claim 15. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the round hoop (11) has an open position engagement recess (13), and wherein the latch (23) is configured to engage into the open position engagement recess (13) in the locking position when the round hoop is in the open position and to thereby secure the round hoop against a movement into the closed position.
Re Claim 16. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the cam (29) can be rotated from the release position via the preloading position into the blocking position.
Re Claim 17. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor (39) is only configured to move the cam (29) between the release position and the blocking position.
(Figs. 2a-c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE268 in view of Muller et al US 2020/0070912 (hereinafter Muller).
Re Claim 20. (As Best Understood)
DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, wherein the hoop detector (43) fails to teach comprises at least one permanent magnet at the round hoop and does teach a stationary magnetic field sensor (43).
Muller clearly teaches the use of permanent magnets and magnetic sensors on any desired lock components (Para [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a permanent magnet at any desired position, on any lock element, as is old and well known in facilitating security of the lock components by indicating locked and unlocked positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 12-14, 18, 19 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 positions relative to the latch contour shapes and sections as recited in claim 7, wherein the control opening has a preloading section, which has a first extent along a direction of movement of the latch, and a locking section that has a second extent along the direction of movement of the latch that is smaller than the first extent, wherein the control prolongation of the cam is arranged in the preloading section in the preloading position and is arranged in the locking section in the release position and in the blocking position, and as in claim 8, wherein the control prolongation, in the release position, contacts a boundary of the control opening facing away from the round hoop and, in the blocking position, contacts a boundary of the control opening facing the round hoop.
Furthermore, as in claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the control device is configured to control the electric motor, after the rotation of the cam into the release position, to rotate the cam into the preloading position only in response to a signal of the hoop detector that characterizes a movement of the round hoop out of the open position;
And as in claim 13, wherein the control device is configured, as a result of receiving the closing command, to control the electric motor to move the cam into the blocking position after a predefined or predefinable waiting time if the hoop detector detects the open position after the predefined or predefinable waiting time; and as in claim 14, wherein the control device is configured, starting from the closed position of the round hoop, based on a received opening command,- to first control the electric motor to rotate the cam into the release position and, thereby, to move the latch into the unlocking position; and - to control the electric motor to rotate the cam into the blocking position in response to a detection of the open position of the round hoop by the hoop detector.
Re Claim 18, DE268 discloses the electronic frame lock according to claim 1, but fails to teach or suggest wherein the cam (29) can be rotated by 180 degrees from the release position into the blocking position, and vice versa; similarly Re Claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the cam (29) can be rotated along a first direction of rotation from the blocking position into the release position and along a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation from the release position into the blocking position.
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