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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, US 2019/0301214 A1, in view of Grill, US 2,007,854 A.
Claim 1: Wahba discloses a locking assembly comprising:
a bolt carrier (30) fastened to a first side of a door ([0060]);
a bolt receiver (92) fastened to a door frame ([0060]);
a T-shaped bolt (10) configured to engage with the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver to lock or unlock the door ([0047]; Fig. 5), wherein the T-shaped bolt is configured to slide between an engaged position and a disengaged position ([0002]; [0066]);
an access box (130) fastened to a second side (Fig. 5 illustrates the access box on a side opposite the first side), wherein the access box is configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position ([0063]); and
a cable (123) configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a hole (131), wherein the cable comprises a first cable end (121) and a second cable end (122), wherein the first cable end is configured to engage with the T-shaped bolt ([0063]; Fig. 5) and the second cable end is configured to be inserted and positioned in an access box interior portion ([0063]), and
wherein the second cable end is configured to be pulled via the access box to slide the T-shaped bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position ([0063]).
Wahba teaches the bolt carrier (92) is structured to be mounted to the door frame and the bolt receiver (30) is structured to be mounted to the door to use the device with an outwardly swinging door ([0060]). However, Wahba is silent to the cable extending through a door hole.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
Grill teaches a locking assembly comprising a cable (Fig. 1) configured to extend from a first side to a second side via a door hole (35), wherein a second cable end is configured to be pulled from the second side (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking assembly disclosed by Wahba to be arranged such that the cable is configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a door hole, as taught by Grill. It is known in the prior art to provide a door hole, as evidenced by Grill, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the cable disclosed by Wahba is structurally capable of extending from the first side to the second side via a door hole.
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a cable configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a door hole, and as a result the access box is fastened to a second side of the door near the door hole.
Claim 2: Wahba, in view of Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 1, wherein the first side faces an interior portion of an enclosure, and the second side is disposed opposite to the first side (Wahba [0026], Fig. 5; one skilled in the art would understand a door has a first side facing an interior and a second side opposite the first, facing the exterior).
Claim 3: Wahba, in view of Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 1, wherein the access box is a lock box (Wahba [0063] (“lock box 130”)) configured to move to the unlocked position via an access code (Wahba [0063] (accessible via combination)).
Claim 5: Wahba, in view of Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 3, wherein the second cable end is configured to be pulled via the access box when the lock box is in the unlocked position (Wahba [0063] “tugging device, such as cable” correlates to the second end being configured to be pulled).
Claim 6: Wahba, in view of Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 1, wherein the T-shaped bolt is configured to slide parallel to a door plane to engage with the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver (Wahba Fig. 5).
Claim 12: the locking assembly of claim 1, wherein:
the T-shaped bolt engages with the bolt receiver via the bolt carrier to lock the door, in the engaged position (Wahba [0050]; claim 24), and
the T-shaped bolt disengages with the bolt receiver to unlock the door, in the disengaged position (Wahba claim 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13: the locking assembly of claim 12, wherein the T-shaped bolt comprises a first elongated portion and a second elongated portion, wherein the second elongated portion is positioned perpendicular to the first elongated portion (depicted in Wahba Fig. 1, annotated above), and wherein the first elongated portion length is greater than a second elongated portion length (depicted in Wahba Fig. 1, annotated above).
Claim 14: the locking assembly of claim 13, wherein in the engaged position, the first elongated portion is inserted in the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver (depicted in Wahba Fig. 5) and the second elongated portion is located outside the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver (depicted in Wahba Fig. 5).
Claim 15: the locking assembly of claim 13, wherein the engaged position, a first elongated portion longitudinal axis is perpendicular to a door longitudinal axis (depicted in Wahba Fig. 5).
Claim 20: Wahba discloses a locking assembly comprising:
a bolt carrier (30) fastened to a first side of a door ([0060]);
a bolt receiver (92) fastened to a door frame ([0060]);
a T-shaped bolt (10) configured to engage with the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver to lock or unlock the door ([0047]; Fig. 5), wherein the T-shaped bolt is configured to slide between an engaged position and a disengaged position ([0002]; [0066]), wherein the T-shaped bolt comprises a first elongated portion and a second elongated portion (Fig. 1 annotated below), and wherein the second elongated portion is positioned perpendicular to the first elongated portion (Fig. 1 annotated below);
PNG
media_image2.png
364
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an access box (130) fastened to a second side (Fig. 5 illustrates the access box on a side opposite the first side), wherein the access box is configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position ([0063]); and
a cable (123) configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a hole (131), wherein the cable comprises a first cable end (121) and a second cable end (122), wherein the first cable end is configured to engage with the T-shaped bolt ([0063]; Fig. 5) and the second cable end is configured to be inserted and positioned in an access box interior portion ([0063]), and
the second cable end is configured to be pulled via the access box to slide the T-shaped bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position ([0063]), wherein in the engaged position, the first elongated portion is inserted in the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver and the second elongated portion is located outside the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver (Fig. 5), and wherein in the engaged position, a first elongated portion longitudinal axis is perpendicular to a door longitudinal axis (depicted in Fig. 5).
Although Wahba teaches the bolt carrier (92) is structured to be mounted to the door frame and the bolt receiver (30) is structured to be mounted to the door to use the device with an outwardly swinging door ([0060]), Wahba is silent to the cable extending through a door hole in particular.
Grill teaches a locking assembly comprising a cable (Fig. 1) configured to extend from a first side to a second side via a door hole (35), wherein a second cable end is configured to be pulled from the second side (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking assembly disclosed by Wahba to be arranged such that the cable is configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a door hole, as taught by Grill. It is known in the prior art to provide a door hole, as evidenced by Grill, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the cable disclosed by Wahba is structurally capable of extending from the first side to the second side via a door hole.
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a cable configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a door hole, and as a result the access box is fastened to a second side of the door near the door hole.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, in view of Grill, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wepf, US 2014/0339835 A1.
Claim 4: Wahba, in view of Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 3, wherein the lock box comprises a set of rotating dials configured to receive the access code. Wahba teaches the lock box is accessible by a combination ([0063]), however Wahba, in view of Grill, does not explicitly disclose a set of rotating dials configured to receive the combination.
Wepf teaches a lock box (49) comprising a set of rotating dials (76) configured to receive an access code ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lock box taught by Wahba, in view of Grill, to include a set of rotating dials configured to receive the access code, as taught by Wepf, in order to receive a combination to practice the assembly disclosed by Wahba and limit access to authorized users (Wepf [0040]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, in view of Grill, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wepf, US 2014/0339835 A1.
Claim 7: Wahba, as modified by Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 1, but is silent to the first cable end comprising a first cable loop and the second cable end comprising a second cable loop.
However, Grill further teaches a second cable end comprising a second cable loop (36; col. 2 ln. 36-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second cable end taught by Wahba, as modified by Grill, to include a second cable loop, as taught by Grill, to make it easier for a user to grab and manually pull the cable.
Wepf teaches a cable with a first cable end comprising a first cable loop ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first cable end taught by Wahba, in view of Grill, to comprise a first cable loop, as taught by Wepf, with a reasonable expectation of success, for reliably attaching the first cable end with the T-shaped bolt.
Claim 8: Wahba, as modified by Grill and Wepf, teaches the locking assembly of claim 7, wherein the first cable loop is configured to engage with the T-shaped bolt (as modified above, the cable engages the T-shaped bolt via the first cable loop).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, in view of Grill and Wepf, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hinkey, DE 10030722 A1.
Claim 9: Wahba, as modified by Grill and Wepf, teaches the locking assembly of claim 8, but is silent to the second cable loop being engaged with a rubber grommet.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
Hinkey teaches a cable engaged with a rubber grommet ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the locking assembly taught by Wahba, in view of Grill and Wepf, to include a rubber grommet, as taught by Hinkey, to reduce friction and prevent wear on the cable moving in the door hole (Hinkey [0061]). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a cable having a second end positioned in an access box interior portion and the second cable loop engaged with the rubber grommet.
Claim 10: Wahba, in view of Grill, Wepf, and Hinkey, teaches the locking assembly of claim 9. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, as modified above, the rubber grommet is configured to be positioned in the door hole to reduce friction between the cable and the door hole (see Hinkley [0061]).
Claim 11: Wahba, in view of Grill, Wepf, and Hinkey, teaches the locking assembly of claim 10, wherein a rubber grommet diameter is greater than a door hole diameter. Wahba, in view of Grill, Wepf, and Hinkey, does not explicitly disclose a rubber grommet diameter is greater than a door hole diameter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rubber grommet having a rubber grommet diameter is greater than a door hole diameter with the locking assembly of Wahba, in view of Grill, Wepf, and Hinkey, as a matter of obvious engineering choice to secure the rubber grommet in the door hole with a friction fit, without needing additional fasteners.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, US 2019/0301214 A1, in view of Grill, US 2,007,854 A, and Hinkey, DE 10030722 A1.
Claim 16: Wahba discloses a locking assembly comprising:
a bolt carrier (30) fastened to a first side of a door ([0060]);
a bolt receiver (92) fastened to a door frame ([0060]);
a T-shaped bolt (10) configured to engage with the bolt carrier and the bolt receiver to lock or unlock the door ([0047]; Fig. 5), wherein the T-shaped bolt is configured to slide between an engaged position and a disengaged position ([0002]; [0066]);
an access box (130) fastened to a second side (Fig. 5 illustrates the access box on a side opposite the bolt carrier on the first side), wherein the access box is configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position ([0063]); and
a cable (123) configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a hole (131), wherein:
the cable comprises a first cable end (121) and a second cable end (122),
the first cable end is configured to engage with the T-shaped bolt ([0063]; Fig. 5) and the second cable end is configured to be inserted and positioned in an access box interior portion ([0063]), and
the second cable end is configured to be pulled via the access box to slide the T-shaped bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position ([0063]).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
Hinkey teaches use of a rubber grommet with a cable ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the locking assembly disclosed by Wahba to include a rubber grommet, as taught by Hinkey, to reduce friction and prevent wear on the cable where the second cable end is inserted into the access box (Hinkey [0061]). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a cable having a second end positioned in an access box interior portion and engaged with a rubber grommet.
Wahba discloses the bolt carrier (92) is structured to be mounted to the door frame and the bolt receiver (30) is structured to be mounted to the door to use the device with an outwardly swinging door ([0060]). However, Wahba, in view of Hinkey, is silent to the cable extending through a door hole.
Grill teaches a locking assembly comprising a cable (Fig. 1) configured to extend from a first side to a second side via a door hole (35), wherein a second cable end is configured to be pulled from the second side (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking assembly taught by Wahba, in view of Hinkey, to be arranged such that the cable is configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a door hole, as taught by Grill. It is known in the prior art to provide a door hole, as evidenced by Grill, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the cable disclosed by Wahba is structurally capable of extending from the first side to the second side via a door hole.
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a cable configured to extend from the first side to the second side via a door hole, and as a result the access box is fastened to a second side of the door near the door hole.
Claim 17: Wehba, in view of Hinkey and Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 16, wherein the first side faces an interior portion of an enclosure, and the second side is disposed opposite to the first side (Wahba [0026], Fig. 5; one skilled in the art would understand a door has a first side facing an interior and a second side opposite the first, facing the exterior).
Claim 18: Wehba, in view of Hinkey and Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 16, wherein the access box is a lock box (Wahba [0063] (“lock box 130”)) configured to move to the unlocked position via an access code (Wahba [0063] (accessible via combination)).
Claim 19: Wehba, in view of Hinkey and Grill, teaches the locking assembly of claim 19, wherein the second cable end is configured to be pulled via the access box when the lock box is in the unlocked position (Wahba [0063] “tugging device” correlates to pulling the cable).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strange (US 4413492) is related to a locking assembly comprising a cable coupled to a latch with a second cable end positioned in a locked access box.
Sanke (WO 2004/113653) is related to a locking assembly comprising a cable extending from one side of a door to the opposite side of the door and the cable is configured to be pulled to unlock the door.
Calamia, III (US 8636308) is related to a locking assembly comprising a cable extending through a post and having a second cable end with a loop for grasping it to release the gate.
Chiarelli (US 6178790) is related to a locking assembly comprising a cable with a loop at a second cable end, the cable extending through a door hole to be pulled by a user on a second side of the door to release a sliding bolt.
Schmitz (US 2931205) is related to a locking assembly comprising a cable accessible from the interior and extending through a door hole to engage a latching device, so a trapped user can pull the cable second end and release the latch.
Troiano (US 2014/0325805) is related to a cable comprising a first cable end with a first loop and a second cable end with a second loop for attaching the cable to other components.
Hiramoto (US 2017/0268265) is related to a cable, with a loop at an end, passing through a rubber grommet fitted the cable hole and having a diameter larger than the diameter of the cable hole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675