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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Chang US 6813916 B2 has been introduced to teach the limitations regarding the dual drive.
Drawings
The previous drawing objections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are overcome by the present amendments. However New issues have arisen.
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.
Claim 1-12 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 claim 1, “dual drive motor” is unclear. The term seems to refer to a single motor with two drives however as best understood two motors are being claimed. For the purpose of examination “dual drive motor” is assumed to read “dual drive motor system”.
In regards to claims 1 and 11, claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the drive motor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if the applicant intended to introduce the drive motor or if it was meant to be replaced by “the dual drive motor”. For the purposes of examination claim 1 is assumed to introduce a drive motor and for said drive motor to be apart of the dual drive motor system.
In regards to claim 5, “each of the dual drive motors” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Furthermore, if its’ unclear if the limitation is claiming separate motors with dual drives or motors a part of a dual drive system. Also, It’s unclear how the applicant intended to introduce the separate dual drive motors. For the purpose of examination, it’s assumed claim 1 specifies the dual drive motor system includes two drive motors and that “a gear of each of the dual drive motors” reads “a gear of each of the drive motors”.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, and 12 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, 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliferis et al. US 20090322473 A1 (hereinafter Aliferis) in view of Chang US 6813916 B2 (hereinafter Chang) Jin CN 111691762 A (hereinafter Jin).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Aliferis teaches a locking mechanism, comprising: a casing (16); a sheath (18); a bolt (5), the bolt being partially surrounded by the sheath (see fig 5); a drive motor (2) within the casing and in communication with opposing sides of the bolt (as it is in at least indirect communication with all sides of the bolt), the drive motor configured to selectively position the bolt relative to the sheath (see fig 1 and fig 4); a battery (11); and a circuit (7) in communication with the drive motor and configured to regulate operation of the drive motor to selectively move the bolt position (para 23-24).
However, Aliferis does not teach a dual drive motor.
Chang teaches a similar device utilizing a dual drive motor (44 and 45) Each motor on opposing ends of the actuated part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have duplicates Aliferis motor and placed it on the opposite side of the bolt in order to allow for a backup in case one motor fails and to prolong the devices service life (Chang Col 6 lines 26-40)
Additionally, Aliferis is silent on a control box, it appears from figure 2 the circuit 7 may be in a control box.
Jin teaches a similar device with a control box (5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Aliferis’ circuit within a control box such as in Jin in order to protect the electronics.
In regards to claim 7, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1, wherein the casing is mountable to a door (Aliferis: see fig 3).
In regards to claim 8, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: a remote electronic device (Aliferis: remote control para 3).
In regards to claim 9, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 8, wherein the remote electronic device is configured to regulate operation of the bolt by communicating with the control box (Aliferis: paras 24-25), the remote electronic device configured to send command data to the control box, the control box configured to automatically translate the bolt in response to command data (Aliferis: para 25).
In regards to claim 11, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 8, wherein the remote electronic device is configured to selectively regulate operation of the drive motor (Aliferis paras 24-25).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of Weisshaupt et al. US 20170001770 A1 (hereinafter Weisshaupt).
In regards to claim 2, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1.
However, Aliferis does not teach wherein the bolt includes a slot for a keyway. Important to note however Aliferis does teach a flat mill to prevent the bolt from rotating (see para 25).
Weisshaupt teaches a similar bolt with a slot (32) for a keyway (see fig 1) in order to prevent rotation (para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have replaced Aliferis’ Flat mill with a slot such as in Aliferis as doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (flat mill) for another (slot) to obtain predictable results (preventing rotation; see MPEP 2141 III B).
In regards to claim 3, Aliferis in view of Chang, Jin and Weisshaupt teaches the locking mechanism of claim 2, further comprising: a plate (Aliferis: base plate 1 since this is where the flat Mill was and is now modified with Weisshaupt) with a rib (Weisshaupt 33, see figs 1-2) configured to pass within the slot (Weisshaupt see fig 1), the plate configured to maintain alignment of the bolt, the rib remaining within the slot as the bolt translates (Weisshaupt fig 1 and para 46).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of Campironi et al. EP 2905404 A1 (hereinafter Campironi).
In regards to claim 4, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1, the dual drive motor on opposing sides of the bolt (as per the modification with Chang).
However, Aliferis is silent on if the dual drive motor is gear driven.
Campironi teaches a similar device using a gearmotor (abstract; note gear motors are gear driven).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Aliferis with gear motors in order to improve torque.
In regards to claim 5, Aliferis in view of Chang, Jin, and Campironi, locking mechanism of claim 4, wherein the bolt includes gear teeth (Aliferis: see rack teeth in fig 7) to engage a gear (Aliferis: 3) of each of the dual drive motors (Aliferis: see fig 6 and note modification with Chang).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of Coutermarsh et al. US 20070109097 A1 (hereinafter Coutermarsh).
In regards to claim 6, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches locking mechanism of claim 1.
However, Aliferis is silent on if the casing is mountable to a trailer.
Coutermarsh teaches a similar device (see fig 3b) mountable to a trailer (para 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Aliferis’ casing mountable to a trailer in order to increase trailer security (para 25).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of Huang CN 106088911 A (hereinafter Huang).
In regards to claim 10, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 8, wherein the control box configured to translate the bolt in response to motion detected by the remote electronic device (Aliferis paras 24-25).
However, Aliferis does not teach wherein the remote electronic device is a motion sensor.
Hoang teaches the use of a motion sensor (4; described as radar) in order to automatically unlock and open a door (see para 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Aliferis’ remote electronic device be a motions sensor in order to reduce user input improving convenience, especially for the handicap.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of Roberto GB 2607825 A (hereinafter Roberto)
In regards to claim 12, Aliferis in view of Chang and Jin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1.
However, Aliferis does not teach wherein the battery is rechargeable.
Roberto teaches a rechargeable battery (page 16 lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Aliferis’ battery be a rechargeable battery in order to reduce waste.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6889578 B2 – teaches a rack driven by two motors with two rack and pinion mechanisms.
US 5480198 A – teaches a rack driven by a dual drive.
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 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
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675