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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5 “the electronic code” should read “an electronic code”.
In claim 1, line 22 “the hole” should read “a hole”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is 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 claim 1 , lines 18 and 22 “a tang” is claimed however “a tang” is already claimed in line 11. Thus, it’s unclear if these other instances are intended to introduce new tangs or to refer to the one previously introduced. For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed.
In claim 1 lines 10-11 “the locking mechanism” lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, in line 15 “a locking mechanism” is introduced. It’s unclear if these are the same locking mechanism or different. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed and “the locking mechanism” in lines 10-11 is assumed to read “a first locking mechanism” and “a locking mechanism” in line 15 to read “a second locking mechanism”. Further “the locking mechanism in lines 18 and 23 to read “the second locking mechanism”.
In claim 1 line 13, “the trigger spring pin” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore “a slider” and “a return spring” were already introduced in line 12. It’s unclear if this element is separate from these previously introduced elements. Further from the spec it appears “trigger spring pin” refer to separate elements. For the purposes of examination, the slider and return spring are assumed to be different than the trigger spring and pin. Further the “the trigger spring pin” is assumed to read “a trigger spring and a pin” and lines 15 and 24 “the trigger spring pin” is assumed to read “the trigger spring and the pin”.
Allowable Subject Matter
If properly written to overcome the 112 rejections, claim 1 would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the electromechanical locking device as claimed in independent claim 1 of the instant application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, including Schulze (DE 102013218216 A1) and Chies et al. (WO 9602721 A1), teaches electromechanical locking devices having much of the claimed structure, but fails to teach each and every limitation of the claims. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach “an electronic key comprising:- a tail section with protrusions, negative and positive contacts” and “the end section is connected to the locking mechanism of the lock by means of a tang”, in addition to the other claimed structure and functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the structure and functionality of the key and lock case of the prior art without the use of hindsight and/or destroying the references. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose the electromechanical locking device arrangement of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schulze EP 2674553 A1 – teaches a similar device.
Schulze et al. DE 10049477 A1 – teaches a similar device.
Chow US 20160281390 A1 – teaches a similar device.
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
Prosecution Insights