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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10, 14 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/972022 (reference application).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 6, 10, 14 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/972022. In other words, claims 1, 6, 10, 14 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/972022 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 20 and therefore anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 20. Specifically, claims 1, 13 and 20 reciting “a carrier subassembly” is anticipated by claims 1, 14 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/972022 reciting “a first carrier subassembly…, and a second carrier subassembly”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 2, 5-7, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 11,220,840 to Farag.
Farag discloses a rekeyable lock cylinder comprising: a cylinder body (214) defining a longitudinal axis, wherein the cylinder body defines a first locking bar engaging slot (right side 230) and a second locking bar engaging slot (left side 230); and a plug assembly (216) disposed at least partially within the cylinder body and being selectively rotatable around the longitudinal axis, the plug assembly including: a plug body (232); at least one key follower (238) slidably mounted on the plug body; a carrier subassembly (234) slidably mounted on the plug body, the carrier subassembly including: a carrier (270) selectively slidable along the longitudinal axis for rekeying between different keys; a first locking bar (right side 274) slidably mounted on the carrier and selectively engageable with the first locking bar engaging slot to block rotation of the plug assembly relative to the cylinder body; and at least one rack (right side 272) coupled between the at least one key follower and the first locking bar to control movement of the first locking bar; a second locking bar (left side 274) slidably mounted on the plug body and selectively engageable with the second locking bar engaging slot to block rotation of the plug assembly relative to the cylinder body; and at least one slider (left side 272) coupled to the second locking bar to control movement of the second locking bar, wherein movement of the at least one slider is independent from the movement of the at least one rack, as in claim 1.
Farag also discloses the at least one slider includes a single post (post formed below cutout; figure 5) extending from a first side and a locking bar engaging groove (204) defined within a second side, opposite the first side, as in claim 2, wherein the second side of the at least one slider includes anti-picking grooves (grooves on the outer side of the slider), as in claim 5, as well as the at least one slider is disposed on an opposite side of the at least one key follower from the at least one rack (figure 2), as in claim 6, and where the at least one slider is axially offset along the longitudinal axis from the at least one rack (offset to allow proper engagement between 231 and 273), as in claim 7, and the first locking bar engaging slot is spaced approximately 180° from the second locking bar engaging slot (figure 2), as in claim 10.
Farag further discloses a rekeyable lock cylinder assembly comprising: a key (K) having blade with a first key cut and a second key cut, the first key cut independent and at a different position on the blade than the second key cut; a cylinder body (214) defining a longitudinal axis, wherein the cylinder body defines a first locking bar (right side 274) engaging slot (right side 230) and a second locking bar engaging slot (left side 230); and a plug assembly (216) disposed at least partially within the cylinder body and being selectively rotatable around the longitudinal axis, the plug assembly including: a plug body (232) defining a keyway opening (244) for receiving the key; at least one key follower (238) slidably mounted on the plug body and configured to interact with the first key cut when the key is received within the keyway opening; a carrier subassembly (234) slidably mounted on the plug body, the carrier subassembly including: a carrier (270) selectively slidable along the longitudinal axis for rekeying between different keys; a first locking bar (right side 274) slidably mounted on the carrier and selectively engageable with the first locking bar engaging slot to block rotation of the plug assembly relative to the cylinder body; and at least one rack (right side 272) coupled between the at least one key follower and the first locking bar to control movement of the first locking bar; a second locking bar (left side 274) slidably mounted on the plug body and selectively engageable with the second locking bar engaging slot to block rotation of the plug assembly relative to the cylinder body; and at least one slider (left side 272) coupled to the second locking bar to control movement of the second locking bar, wherein the at least one slider is configured to interact with the second key cut when the key is received within the keyway opening (via actuation of the follower), as in claim 13.
Farag additionally discloses the plug assembly is only rekeyable with respect to the carrier subassembly and the first key cut of the key while the plug assembly is disposed within the cylinder body (column 3, lines 66-67), as in claim 14, and the plug body includes at least one transverse channel (266) that slidingly receives the at least one slider (via the carrier), the at least one transverse channel being at least partially open with respect to the keyway opening (allowing passage of the follower arms), as in claim 16, as well as the at least one slider includes a first slider and a second slider, the first slider different than the second slider (right side and left side sliders), as in claim 19.
Farag also discloses a method of rekeying a rekeyable lock cylinder comprising: inserting a first key into a keyway opening (244) of a plug body (232) of a plug assembly (216) of the rekeyable lock cylinder, the first key having a first key cut and a second key cut, the plug assembly including at least one key follower (238), a carrier subassembly (234) with a carrier (270), a first locking bar (right side 274), and at least one rack (right side 272) coupled between the at least one key follower and the first locking bar, a second locking bar (left side 274), and at least one slider (left side 272) coupled to the second locking bar, wherein the first key cut positions the first locking bar in an unlocked position and the second key cut positions the second locking bar in an unlocked position; rotating the plug assembly within a cylinder body (214); inserting a rekeying tool to longitudinally push the carrier with the at least one rack such that the at least one rack is disengaged with the at least one key follower; removing the first key; inserting a second key having a third key cut and a fourth key cut; and rotating the plug assembly so as to reengage the at least one rack with the at least one key follower and the first locking bar is rekeyed to the third key cut that is different than the first key cut, the fourth key cut being the same as the second key cut (column 6, line 59-column 7, line 47), as in claim 20.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag, as applied above.
Farag discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Farag does not disclose the material the sliders or racks are made from. It is common knowledge in the prior art to use differing materials within a lock cylinder in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of thwarting unauthorized access and corrosion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use different materials for the at least one slider and the at least one rack in order to prevent unauthorized access and corrosion.
The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not teach or render obvious the combination set forth, including that of the post extending at least partially within the keyway opening such that the at least one slider is actuated directly by a key received within the keyway opening; wherein the first locking bar and the second locking bar are biased in a same direction; the cylinder body defines at least one third locking bar engaging slot for rekeying the carrier subassembly; the at least one slider is not rekeyable within the cylinder body while the plug assembly is disposed within the cylinder body; wherein the first key cut is transversely office in two orthogonal directions relative to the second key cut on the blade; and wherein the first locking bar engaging slot has a different shape and size than the second locking bar engaging slot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to rekeyable lock cylinders:
U.S. Patent Number 6,959,569 to Strader et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,007,528 to Chong et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,900,491 to Chong; U.S. Patent Number 9,657,499 to Emory; U.S. Patent Number 11,220,840 to Farag; U.S. Patent Number 11,572,708 to Farag; U.S. Patent Number 12,188,258 to Farag; U.S. Patent Number 12,421,762 to Farag; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0277240 to Huang et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0247163 to Damikolas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
December 8, 2025