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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Foreign references and NPL in the IDS not present in the application file are considered since copies were provided in parent application 17/145,922.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 “user interface” 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
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the another actuator of the actuator includes energizing the actuator” should be “the another actuation of the actuator includes energizing the actuator”.
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 26-27, 35-37 and 39-40 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 26 and 39, the claims are unclear as they it’s unclear how they are intended to further limit the scope from “the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after a predetermined period of time after being unlocked” present in claims 25 and 38. The claims as written appear to be a redundant repetition. To the best of the examiner’s understanding the applicant is attempting to claim that the period of time can be configured by a user (para 66) and thus relocking can happen after the predetermined time (i.e. at 10 seconds instead of 5). More clarity is needed if this is indeed the intention of the claim (for instance claiming multiple predetermined periods of time). For the purpose of examination, the claims are assumed to be require the same features as claimed in claim 25 and 38.
In regards to claims 27 and 40, the claims are unclear as they it’s unclear how they are intended to further limit the scope from “the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after a predetermined period of time after being unlocked” present in claims 25 and 38. It appears the claims are in direct opposition to the limitation as the claim auto locking prior to the expiration of the predetermined time. To the best of the examiner’s understanding the applicant is attempting to claim that the period of time can be configured by a user (para 66) and thus relocking can happen before the predetermined time (i.e. at 3 seconds instead of 5) however the claims do not achieve this and more clarity is needed if this is indeed the intention of the claim (for instance claiming multiple predetermined periods of time). For the purpose of examination, the claims are assumed replace the limitation “the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after a predetermined period of time after being unlocked” in claims 25 and 38 respectively.
In regards to claim 35, the claim introduces “a first direction” and “a second direction”. However, these limitations were already introduced in claims 25 and 31 respectively. Thus, it’s unclear if the claims are referring to the old elements or introducing new elements. For the purpose of examination, the latter is assumed.
Claims 36-37 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) 25-32 and 38-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frolov et al. US 20050050928 A1 (hereinafter Frolov) in view of Liddell US 20180179785 A1 (hereinafter Liddell).
In regards to claim 25, Frolov teaches a method, comprising: receiving, using at least one logic circuit, via a user interface (22) of a locking mechanism, a credential from at least one of: a mobile device or an access control device (such as a card see para 55); determining, using the at least one processor, validity of the received credential (para 64; note “appropriate signal”); upon determining that the credential is valid, triggering, using the at least one logic circuit, actuation of an actuator (70) to bias a carriage assembly (16) of the locking mechanism in a first direction (down wrt fig 3) to unlock the locking mechanism (see fig 3), wherein the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after a predetermined period of time after being unlocked (para 67); upon determining that the credential is invalid, preventing, using the at least one processor, unlocking of the locking mechanism (para 65).
However, Frolov does not teach a processor. Frolov teaches a logic circuit. Logic circuits may be a part of a processor but are not necessarily processors.
Lidell teaches a similar device using a processor (para 123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used a processor in Frolov in order to achieve a well-known and conventional way of applying a logic circuit to a device. Furthermore, a processor would allow for more complex operations to be used.
In regards to claim 26, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after expiration of the predetermined period of time (Frolov: para 67).
In regards to claim 27, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock prior to expiration of the predetermined period of time (Frolov: with an input 22).
In regards to claim 28, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the actuation of the actuator to bias the carriage assembly of the locking mechanism in the first direction to unlock the locking mechanism includes de-energizing the actuator (Frolov: once the motor finishes; also note para 63).
In regards to claim 29, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the method of claim 28, wherein another actuation of the actuator to bias the carriage assembly of the locking mechanism in a second direction triggers re-locking of the locking mechanism, wherein another actuator of the actuator includes energizing the actuator (Frolov: when reversing the motor to move to fig 4).
In regards to claim 30, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 25.
However, Frolov does not teach wherein the determining the validity of the received credential includes receiving, using a wireless communications module communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the credential.
Lidell teaches wherein the determining the validity of the received credential includes receiving, using a wireless communications module (“a receiver for wireless communication” para 123) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (para 123), the credential (“digital keys” para 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Frolov with a wireless communications module such as in Lidell in order to improve third party access (Lidell para 161).
In regards to claim 31, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the locking mechanism includes a main hub assembly (Frolov: 3 and 7) coupleable with a deadbolt (Frolov: see figs 1 and 3 and para 2); a clutch assembly (Frolov: at least 32 and Pc see fig 4) coupled to the main hub assembly (Frolov: see fig 3); an actuator assembly (Frolov: 18) coupled to the clutch assembly (Frolov: see fig 3), the actuator assembly including the actuator operable to bias a carriage along the first direction to bring the clutch assembly (Frolov: see fig 3) and the main hub assembly closer to one another along a second direction (Frolov: A1, see figs 3-4; at least portions closer together), wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (Frolov: see fig 3); and a thumbturn assembly (Frolov: 4) coupled to the clutch assembly (Frolov: see fig 3), the thumbturn assembly including a thumbturn (Frolov: 8) positionable on an exterior side of a door (Frolov: see fig 1).
In regards to claim 32, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the main hub assembly includes a tailpiece hub (Frolov: 3), wherein the tailpiece hub includes a main cylinder (Frolov: 80; para 48 describes “generally circular cylindrical body”) including a hub wall (Frolov: 80a); and a hub shaft (Frolov: 30) extending from the hub wall, wherein the hub shaft includes a first engagement surface (Frolov: 45) and a second engagement surface (Frolov: surface in-between 45’s see fig 10), and wherein the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are operable to engage a locking tab (Frolov: 89) of the thumbturn assembly (Frolov: see fig 5).
In regards to claim 38, Frolov teaches an apparatus, comprising: a locking mechanism having a carriage assembly (60), an actuator (70), a user interface (22) and at least one logic circuit, the at least one logic circuit is configured to receive, via the user interface of the locking mechanism, a credential from at least one of: a mobile device or an access control device (such as a card, para 55); determine validity of the received credential (para 64); upon determining that the credential is valid, trigger actuation of the actuator to bias the carriage assembly of the locking mechanism in a first direction (D1) to unlock the locking mechanism (para 64 and see fig 4), wherein the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after a predetermined period of time after being unlocked (para 67); upon determining that the credential is invalid, prevent unlocking of the locking mechanism (para 65).
However, Frolov does not teach a processor. Frolov teaches a logic circuit. Logic circuits may be a part of a processor but are not necessarily processors.
Lidell teaches a similar device using a processor (para 123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used a processor in Frolov in order to achieve a well-known and conventional way of applying a logic circuit to a device. Furthermore, a processor would allow more complex operation to be used.
In regards to claim 39, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock after expiration of the predetermined period of time (para 67).
In regards to claim 40, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to automatically re-lock prior to expiration of the predetermined period of time (para 67, as input may be received before then from input 12).
In regards to claim 41, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the actuation of the actuator to bias the carriage assembly of the locking mechanism in the first direction to unlock the locking mechanism includes de-energizing the actuator (Frolov: once the motor finishes also note para 63).
In regards to claim 42, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the apparatus of claim 41, wherein another actuation of the actuator to bias the carriage assembly of the locking mechanism in a second direction (D2) triggers re-locking of the locking mechanism, wherein the another actuator of the actuator includes energizing the actuator (para 67).
In regards to claim 43, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the apparatus of claim 38.
However, Frolov does not teach further comprising a wireless communications module communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein determining the validity of the received credential includes receiving, using the wireless communications module, the credential.
Lidell teaches further comprising a wireless communications module (“a receiver for wireless communication” para 123) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein determining the validity of the received credential includes receiving, using the wireless communications module, the credential (“digital keys” para 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Frolov with a wireless communications module such as in Lidell in order to improve third party access (Lidell para 161).
In regards to claim 44, Frolov in view of Lidell teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the locking mechanism includes a main hub assembly (3 and 7) coupleable with a deadbolt (see figs 1 and 3 and para 2); a clutch assembly (12) coupled to the main hub assembly (see fig 3); an actuator assembly (18) coupled to the clutch assembly (see fig 3), the actuator assembly including the actuator operable to bias a carriage along the first direction to bring the clutch assembly (see fig 3) and the main hub assembly closer to one another along a second direction (A1, see figs 3-4), wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (see fig 3); and a thumbturn assembly (4) coupled to the clutch assembly (see fig 3), the thumbturn assembly including a thumbturn (8) positionable on an exterior side of a door (see fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-34 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. Claims 35-37 would be objected to as being allowable if they were written to overcome the 112 rejections. For clarity of the record the examiner would like to note Joergensen (EP 1803875 A2) in view of Kwak (KR 101912381 B1), Kusanale (US 20210174620 A1 ) and Florian (US 5233851 A) were used to reject similar claims in the parent, however upon further review the examiner considers the combination as non-obvious and relying on impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
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