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 filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees the amendments overcome Beudat as at least a portion of his lock is configured to be mounted to an outer surface of a door. The claims do not require the lock to be mounted to a face of the door that faces an interior/exterior of a room when closed only that it be mounted to an outer surface of the door. The examiner considers the surface that faces the door frame when the door is closed to be an outer surface. The examiner does agree the amendments overcome the previous rejections of Appleby in view of Allenbuagh and Beudat and Nelson in view of Allenbaugh and Beudat.
Drawings
The drawing objections are withdrawn as per MPEP 1893.03(f).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beudat US 4633688 A (hereinafter Beudat) in view of Allenbaugh US 4492397 A (hereinafter Allenbaugh) and Sharma et al. US 20120167646 A1 (hereinafter Sharma).
In regards to claim 1, Beudat teaches a locking device comprising: a lock comprising a bolt (15) and configured to be mounted on an outer surface of a door (plate of 1 would be on an outer surface); a counter plate (co-acting striking plate abstract) =for receiving said bolt and as such allowing locking an access point (Col 1 lines 22-45); a housing (1); an electrically powered actuator (M) driving said bolt or counter plate between a locking position (see fig 3) wherein said bolt is positioned in the slot of the counter plate and an unlocking position (see fig 4) wherein said bolt is retracted from the counter plate; a carriage (2) movably mounted in the housing between an active position (see fig 4) and an inactive position (see fig 5), such that in the active position with said bolt or counter plate in the locking position, said bolt is positioned in engagement with the counter plate (see fig 3), whereas in the inactive position of the carriage, said bolt and counter plate cannot engage with one another (see fig 5), irrespective of position of the bolt versus the actuator (see fig 5), a spring (18) provided in the housing and biasing the carriage to its active position (see fig 2); and a handle (6) configured to drive the carriage by manpower against the force of said spring (see figs 1, 2 and 5), from the active position (see fig 3) to the inactive position (see fig 5).
However, Beudat does not teach the counter plate defines a slot for receiving said bolt or the counter plate configured to be mounted on a fixed door frame. Although this is extremely common in the art.
Allenbaugh teaches a similar device with a slot (19; described as rectangular) for receiving said bolt in the counter plate (24) and the counter plate configured to be mounted on a fixed door frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Beudat’s counter plate with a slot such as in Allenbaugh and to have the counter plate configured to be mounted on a fixed door frame in order to provide for a well-known and conventional bolt and counter plate engagement, and counter plate mounting. Furthermore, with a slot, the counter plate would surround the bolt in the locked position, further improving security.
Additionally, Beudat does not teach comprising a detector unit configured to determine whether said bolt is facing the slot in the counter plate.
Sharma teaches a detector unit (326) configured to determine whether said bolt is facing the slot in the counter plate (para 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Beudat with a detector unit such as in Sharma in order to prevent actuator stress (Sharma para 6).
In regards to claim 2, Beudat in view of Allenbuagh and Sharma teaches locking device according to claim 1, wherein said handle is mounted on the housing by a pivot (Beudat: spindle with 9, see fig 1).
In regards to claim 3, Beudat in view of Allenbuagh and Sharma teaches the locking device according to locking device according to claim 1, comprising a lever (9 and portion connected to 6, see fig 1) pivotably coupled to on the one hand, the carriage and, on the other hand, the handle (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 5, Beudat in view of Allenbuagh and Sharma teaches the locking device according to claim 1, wherein said detector unit is electronically coupled to a microprocessor (Sharma: 316, see para 44) configured to control the electrically powered actuator (Sharma: 322), said microprocessor configured to control said electrically powered actuator such that said bolt or counter plate is driven or maintained in the unlocking position in case the bolt is not facing the slot in the counter plate (Sharma abstract, as the actuator is not driven until the alignment); and in that said bolt or counter plate is driven to the locking position when said bolt is facing the slot in the counter plate (Sharma abstract).
In regards to claim 6, Beudat in view of Allenbaugh and Sharma teaches the locking device according to claim 5.
However, Beudat does not teach an electronic access controller electronically coupled to said microprocessor, whereby said microprocessor is configured to control the electrically powered actuator, said microprocessor configured to control said electrically powered actuator on basis of a signal provided by the electronic access controller.
Sharma teaches comprising an electronic access controller (314 and/or 318) electronically coupled to said microprocessor (see fig 3), whereby said microprocessor is configured to control the electrically powered actuator (para 44), said microprocessor configured to control said electrically powered actuator on basis of a signal provided by the electronic access controller (para 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Beudat with an electronic access controller in order to allow for secure and convenient operation with a keycard (Sharma para 44).
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzel US 5511832 A (hereinafter Kunzel) in view of Sharma, Hawkins US 20210363784 A1 (hereinafter Hawkins), and McConnell US 4929003 A (hereinafter McConnell).
In regards to claim 9, Kunzel teaches a locking device comprising: a lock comprising a bolt (3) and configured to be mounted on a fixed door frame (see fig 1); a counter (11) defining a slot (see fig 1) for receiving said bolt and as such allowing locking an access point (see fig 1), the counter configured to be mounted on an outer surface of a door (see fig 1, as 7 is mounted to an exterior surface); a housing (1a); an electrically powered actuator (4) driving said bolt or counter between a locking position (see fig 2) wherein said bolt is positioned in the slot of the counter and an unlocking position (see fig 4) wherein said bolt is retracted from said slot in the counter; a carriage (plate connected to motor, see fig 2) movably mounted in the housing between an active position (see fig 2) and an inactive position (see fig 3), such that in the active position with said bolt or counter in the locking position, said bolt is positioned in the slot of the counter, whereas in the inactive position of the carriage, said bolt and counter cannot engage with one another, irrespective of position of the bolt versus the actuator (see figs 2-3), a spring (24) provided in the housing and biasing the carriage to its active position (see figs 2-3).
However, Kunzel does not teach comprising a detector unit configured to determine whether said bolt is facing the slot in the counter.
Sharma teaches a detector unit (326) configured to determine whether said bolt is facing the slot in the counter (para 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Kunzel with a detector unit such as in Sharma in order to prevent actuator stress (Sharma para 6).
Additionally, Kunzel does not teach and a handle configured to drive the carriage by manpower against the force of said spring, from the active position to the inactive position.
Kunzel does teach the operation of 28 via a tool, which very commonly have handles but Kunzel is silent on.
Hawkins teaches a similar device using a similar tool with a handle (handle of 42, see fig 8).
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 Kunzel with a handle in order to allow easy hand operation of the tool.
Additionally, Kunzel is silent on if the counter is a counter plate, however this is extremely common in the art.
McConnell teaches a similar device with a counterplate (16) with a slot (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Kunzel’s counter be a counter plate with a slot such as in McConnell in order to provide for a well known and conventional way of receiving a bolt.
In regards to claim 10, Kunzel in view of Sharma and Hawkins teaches the locking device according to claim 9, wherein said handle is mounted on the housing by a pivot (Kunzel 23).
In regards to claim 11, Kunzel in view of Sharma, Hawkins, and McConnell teaches the locking device according to claim 9, comprising a lever (23) pivotably coupled to on the one hand, the carriage (see figs 2-3) and, on the other hand, the handle (as 23 receives the handle).
In regards to claim 12, Kunzel in view of Sharma and Hawkins teaches the locking device according to claim 9, wherein said detector unit is electronically coupled to a microprocessor (Sharma: 316, see para 44) configured to control the electrically powered actuator (Sharma: 322), said microprocessor configured to control said electrically powered actuator such that said bolt or counter plate is driven or maintained in the unlocking position in case the bolt is not facing the slot in the counter plate (Sharma abstract, as the actuator is not driven until the alignment); and in that said bolt or counter plate is driven to the locking position when said bolt is facing the slot in the counter plate (Sharma abstract).
In regards to claim 13, Kunzel in view of Sharma, Hawkins, and McConnell teaches the locking device according to claim 12, comprising an electronic access controller (Kunzel 10) electronically coupled to said microprocessor, whereby said microprocessor is configured to control the electrically powered actuator, said microprocessor configured to control said electrically powered actuator on basis of a signal provided by the electronic access controller (as with Sharma a microprocessor is used).
Conclusion
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