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:
“housing” of claims 1, 18 and 19 (should be numbered).
“spring-loaded fingers” of claims 1, 18, and 19 (should be numbered).
“pin cylinder” of claims 1, 18 and 19.
“bidirectional motor” of claims 1 and 19. Only “Motor with screw drive” is shown and it’s unclear if this is the same as the bidirectional motor.
“Manual override mechanism” and “two release buttons” of claims 1, 18, and 19.
“Manual slide stopper” of claims 1, 18, and 19.
“protective covers” and “the gears and internal components” of claim 2.
“two circular plates”, “square frame”, and “center pin” of claim 3.
“turn handle” and “an open button” of claim 4.
“actuator” of claims 6 and 20.
“skeleton frame” and “optional decorative exterior” of claim 7.
“recatching center pin mechanism” of claim 10.
“externally accessible wireless antenna connection point” of claim 13.
“power electronics” of claim 15.
“an electronically controlled physical stopper” of claims 16, 18 and 19.
“a bidirectional electronically controlled motor” of claim 18.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12, 14, and 18-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 18 and 19, “the bottom” should read “a bottom”
In claims 1, 4, 8-9 and 18-19 “the device” should be “the smart deadbolt locking device”.
In claims 1, 12, 14, and 19 “the motor” should be “the bidirectional motor”.
In claim 15 “the power supply” should read “a power supply”.
In claims 18 “the motor” should be “the bidirectional electronically controlled motor”.
In claim 4, “the device turn handle” should be “a device turn handle”.
In claim 5 “the status” should read “a status”.
In claim 5 “the dead bolt lock” should read “the smart deadbolt locking device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-20 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 regards to claims 1, 18, and 19, An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (see MPEP 2163.03). In this case “a manual slide stopper located at the bottom of the housing, configured to physically lock the device in place” Lacks proper written description as it it’s unclear in which way “physically lock the device in place” is achieved and the original disclosure fails to sufficiently describe this.
Claims 2-17 and 20 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 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.
In regards to claims 1, 18, and 19, “manual slide stopper located at the bottom of the housing, configured to physically lock the device in place” is unclear. Specifically, it’s unclear in which aspect the manual slide stopper locks the device in place. For instance, does it lock the device in place relative to the door, lock the spring biased pins relative to the housing, or lock the pin cylinder, etc.? The original disclosure provides no further clarity. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is assuming the manual slide stopper prevents movement of the pin cylinder. However, the examiner would like to note it appears there is insufficient support for this into the original disclosure.
In regards to claim 2, “the gears and internal components” and “the pins” lack proper antecedent basis. It’s unclear if the applicant intended to introduce these terms in this claim or to introduce these limitation in claim 1. Furthermore, it’s unclear what is considered the “internal components”. For the purposes of examination “the gears” is assumed to read just “gears” and the bidirectional motor and spring-loaded fingers are assumed to be the “internal components”. The examiner is also assuming the pins to be refereeing to be referring to the spring-loaded fingers. Still “excluding the pins is unclear” as it appears the pins (spring-loaded fingers) are at least partially within protective covers thus it’s unclear how “excluding” limits the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination if an element is not completely surrounded by the protective covers it may be considered to be excluded.
In regards to claim 8, “wherein the device can be installed using the same spring pins as the original non-smart deadbolt version” is unclear. First “spring pins” lacks proper antecedent basis. The examiner is assuming this is refereeing to the spring-loaded fingers. Furthermore “the original non-smart deadbolt version” lacks proper antecedent basis while also being unclear from the original disclosure. It’s therefore unclear how “installed using the same spring pins as the original non-smart deadbolt version” further limits the scope. For the purposes of examination as long as the spring biased finger are operable to be used with any other device, the limitation is assumed to be met.
In regards to claim 9, “a bidirectional motor” is unclear as “a bidirectional motor” was already introduced in claim 1. Thus, it’s unclear if the applicant is intending to introduce a new element or to refer to an element already previously introduced. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
In regards to claim 11, it’s unclear how “wherein the manual slide stopper also serves as a safety lock to prevent accidental engagement of the motor” is intended to further limit the scope. From the specification, this limitation is a result of the manual slide stopers ability to “cut power to the motor”, which is already claimed in claim 1, thus it’s unclear how the claim was intended to further limit the scope.
In regards to claim 17, “common” is unclear. It’s unclear what the applicant considers common. For the purposes of examination as long as the protocol is known it’s considered common.
Claims 3-7, 10, 12-16, and 20 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above.
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) 1-4, 6-12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoo et al. WO 2022250611 A1 (hereinafter Khoo) in view of Yu et al. US 20230193655 A1 (hereinafter Yu) and Plato et al. US 20130264128 A1 (hereinafter Plato) and Bliding et al. US 20180163431 A1 (hereinafter Bliding).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo teaches a smart deadbolt locking device (50) comprising: a housing configured to be placed over a deadbolt knob (34, see fig 9); spring-loaded fingers (at least some of 20, see fig 54) within the housing (see figs 10a-10b), configured to engage and interfere with the rotation of the deadbolt knob, maintaining it in a locked or unlocked state (at least when no longer moving); a motor (54, see para 56) within the housing, configured to move a pin cylinder (12) to engage or disengage the deadbolt knob (as in operate).
However, Khoo does not teach a manual override mechanism comprising two release buttons configured to disengage the spring-loaded fingers for manual operation of the deadbolt knob.
Yu teaches a manual override mechanism (1218 and 228) comprising two release buttons (128 and 228 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with a manual override mechanism such as in Yu in order to allow convenient mounting and dismounting to Khoo’s 58.
With the modifications above Khoo in view of Yu teaches a manual override mechanism comprising two release buttons configured to disengage the spring-loaded fingers for manual operation of the deadbolt knob (Khoo: since removal from 58 would also mean removal of the pins from 34, see figs 10a-10b).
Additionally, Khoo does not teach a manual slide stopper located at the bottom of the housing, configured to physically lock the device in place and cut power to the motor.
Plato teaches a manual slide stopper (124) located at the bottom of the housing (consider face seen in fig 2 as the bottom), configured to physically lock the device in place (at as least it causes the physical locking of the motor) and cut power to the motor (see para 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with a manual slide stopper such as in Plato in order to reduce battery drain (Plato para 42).
However, Khoo is silent on if the motor is bi directional.
Bliding teaches a bi directional motor (120 para 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Khoo’s motor be a bi directional motor as doing so is well known and conventional way of actuating a deadbolt with a motor.
In regards to claim 2, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches a smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the housing includes protective covers over the gears and internal components (Khoo: at least 52, 56 and 57), excluding the pins (Khoo: see fig 10a), for added security and durability.
In regards to claim 3, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the spring-loaded fingers are held in place by two circular plates (17 and plate with 15, see fig 1), one of which is geared inside a frame (57 and/or 52) on a center pin (Khoo pin of 51, see fig 10a).
However, Khoo does not teach the frame is a square frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Khoo such as the shape of the frame is square as doing so would amount to a mere change in shape and involve only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B).
In regards to claim 4, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the pin cylinder is movable manually by depressing the two release buttons (with Yu, pin cylinder is movable off of the plate) and turning the device turn handle (Khoo turning 51 also moves the pin cylinder) or pressing an open button.
In regards to claim 6, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, further comprising an actuator (Khoo: 51) within the housing, configured to assist in the engagement and disengagement of the spring-loaded fingers (Khoo: see fig 5).
In regards to claim 7, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the housing is designed with a skeleton frame (Khoo: 57) and an optional decorative exterior (Khoo: 56).
In regards to claim 8, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the device can be installed using the same spring pins as the original non-smart deadbolt version (20 would work for other devices).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the device includes a bidirectional motor (Khoo: 54) geared (Khoo: at least via 53) for fine control over the deadbolt locking mechanism (Khoo: see fig 4).
In regards to claim 10, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, further comprising a recatching center pin mechanism (Khoo: 22) for additional control over the deadbolt lock (Khoo: see fig. 3 and fig 10a).
In regards to claim 11, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the manual slide stopper also serves as a safety lock to prevent accidental engagement of the motor (as it turns off the power).
In regards to claim 12, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, further comprising a wireless communication module (Khoo: wireless transceiver) within the housing, configured to receive remote control signals for operating the motor (para 68).
In regards to claim 17, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 12, wherein the wireless communication module supports communication protocols compatible with common smart home systems (Khoo para 69).
In regards to claim 18, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo teaches a smart deadbolt locking device (50) comprising: a housing configured to be placed over a deadbolt knob (34, see fig 9); spring-loaded fingers (at least some of 20, see fig 54) within the housing (see figs 10a-10b), configured to engage and interfere with the rotation of the deadbolt knob, maintaining it in a locked or unlocked state (at least when no longer moving); an electronically controlled motor (54, see para 56) within the housing, configured to move a pin cylinder (12) to engage or disengage the deadbolt knob (as in operate) a wireless communication module within the housing, configured to receive remote control signals for operating the motor (wireless transceiver, see para 68). and an electronically controlled physical stopper (Khoo: 51 as it may be used to stop rotation) with a no-power fail-open configuration for safety (Khoo as when power fails is still enables access), allowing manual operation of the deadbolt knob in the event of power failure (Khoo see para 53)
However, Khoo does not teach a manual override mechanism comprising two release buttons configured to disengage the spring-loaded fingers for manual operation of the deadbolt knob.
Yu teaches a manual override mechanism (1218 and 228) comprising two release buttons (128 and 228 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with a manual override mechanism such as in Yu in order to allow convenient mounting and dismounting to Khoo’s 58.
With the modifications above Khoo in view of Yu teaches a manual override mechanism comprising two release buttons configured to disengage the spring-loaded fingers for manual operation of the deadbolt knob (Khoo: since removal from 58 would also mean removal of the pins from 34, see figs 10a-10b).
Additionally, Khoo does not teach a manual slide stopper located at the bottom of the housing, configured to physically lock the device in place and cut power to the motor.
Plato teaches a manual slide stopper (124) located at the bottom of the housing (consider face seen in fig 2 as the bottom), configured to physically lock the device in place (at as least it causes the physical locking of the motor) and cut power to the motor (see para 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with a manual slide stopper such as in Plato in order to reduce battery drain (Plato para 42).
However, Khoo is silent on if the motor is bi directional.
Bliding teaches a bi directional motor (120 para 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Khoo’s motor be a bi directional motor as doing so is well known and conventional way of actuating a deadbolt with a motor.
In regards to claim 19, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Khoo teaches a smart deadbolt locking device (50) comprising: a housing configured to be placed over a deadbolt knob (34, see fig 9); spring-loaded fingers (at least some of 20, see fig 54) within the housing (see figs 10a-10b), configured to engage and interfere with the rotation of the deadbolt knob, maintaining it in a locked or unlocked state (at least when no longer moving); a motor (54, see para 56) within the housing, configured to move a pin cylinder (12) to engage or disengage the deadbolt knob (as in operate) and an electronically controlled physical stopper (Khoo: 51 as it may be used to stop rotation) with a no-power fail-open configuration for safety (Khoo as when power fails is still enables access), allowing manual operation of the deadbolt knob in the event of power failure (Khoo see para 53).
However, Khoo does not teach a manual override mechanism comprising two release buttons configured to disengage the spring-loaded fingers for manual operation of the deadbolt knob.
Yu teaches a manual override mechanism (1218 and 228) comprising two release buttons (128 and 228 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with a manual override mechanism such as in Yu in order to allow convenient mounting and dismounting to Khoo’s 58.
With the modifications above Khoo in view of Yu teaches a manual override mechanism comprising two release buttons configured to disengage the spring-loaded fingers for manual operation of the deadbolt knob (Khoo: since removal from 58 would also mean removal of the pins from 34, see figs 10a-10b).
Additionally, Khoo does not teach a manual slide stopper located at the bottom of the housing, configured to physically lock the device in place and cut power to the motor.
Plato teaches a manual slide stopper (124) located at the bottom of the housing (consider face seen in fig 2 as the bottom), configured to physically lock the device in place (at as least it causes the physical locking of the motor) and cut power to the motor (see para 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with a manual slide stopper such as in Plato in order to reduce battery drain (Plato para 42).
However, Khoo is silent on if the motor is bi directional.
Bliding teaches a bi directional motor (120 para 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Khoo’s motor be a bi directional motor as doing so is well known and conventional way of actuating a deadbolt with a motor.
In regards to claim 20, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 19, further comprising an actuator (Khoo 12) within the housing, configured to assist in the engagement and disengagement of the spring-loaded fingers (see fig 5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Bar et al. WO 2021137221 A1 (hereinafter Bar).
In regards to claim 5, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 1, wherein the bidirectional motor is electronically controlled (Khoo teaches an electric motor)
However, Khoo does not teach wherein the bidirectional motor is configured to provide feedback on the status of the deadbolt lock to a remote user.
Bar teaches a similar device where the bidirectional motor is configured to provide feedback on the status of the deadbolt lock (at least via 70) to a remote user (page 15 line 32- page 16 line 6 and abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the bidirectional motor configured to provide feedback on the status of the deadbolt lock to a remote user in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way remotely indicating a locked or unlocked position (Bar: page 15 line 32- page 16 line 6).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoo in view of Yu, Plato and Bliding as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Zabala WO 2017068211 A1 (hereinafter Zabala).
In regards to claim 13, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, and Bliding teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 12.
However, Khoo does not teach wherein the wireless communication module includes an externally accessible wireless antenna connection point for use with an external antenna for shielded or metal doors.
Zabala teaches a wireless communication module includes an externally accessible wireless antenna connection point for use with an external antenna for shielded or metal doors (paras 38 and 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Khoo with an external antenna such as in Zabala in order to allow Khoo to be used with metal doors (Zabala paras 38 and 68).
In regards to claim 14, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, Bliding and Zabala teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 13, further comprising a processor controller (Khoo: controller in para 56 also note para 70) within the housing, configured to control the operation of the motor and the wireless communication module (Khoo: see para 68).
In regards to claim 15, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, Bliding and Zabala teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 14, further comprising power electronics configured to manage the power supply to the motor and wireless communication module (Khoo paras 56 and 68).
In regards to claim 16, Khoo in view of Yu, Plato, Bliding and Zabala teaches the smart deadbolt locking device of claim 15, further comprising an electronically controlled physical stopper (Khoo: 51 as it may be used to stop rotation) with a no-power fail-open configuration for safety (Khoo as when power fails is still enables access), allowing manual operation of the deadbolt knob in the event of power failure (Khoo see para 53).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070266747 A1 – teaches a manual slide stopper.
CN 105587181 A – teaches spring biased fingers on a “pin cylinder”.
WO 9914457 A1- teaches the electrical blocking of a lock.
US 4438962 A – teaches a locking/unlocking a deadbolt with a motor.
US 20080296912 A1 – teaches a similar device.
WO 2014186475 A1 – teaches an electronically controlled physical stopper.
US 20230082726 A1 – teaches a similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675