Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/866,518

IMPROVED LOCK CORE WITH SIDEBARS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Priority
May 16, 2022 — AU 2022901307 +1 more
Examiner
WATSON, PETER HUCKLEBERRY
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Australian Lock Company Pty Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allowance Rate
103 granted / 187 resolved
+3.1% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
235
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 187 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Objections Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 4 “the outside of the lock core” should be “an outside of the lock core”. In claims 2 and 6 “the bores in the retention component” should be “the further bores in the retention component”. Appropriate correction is required. 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, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reikher US 5540071 A (hereinafter Reikher) in view of Lundberg US 20160060900 A1 (hereinafter Lundberg). In regards to claim 1, Reikher teaches a lock core for a pin tumbler lock (see fig 9), one or more side bars (124), a keyway (118), each of the one or more side bars being adapted in a projecting position to project from the outside of the lock core (see fig 11), and in a released position (note fig 5) to be received into the core when a correctly coded key is inserted into the keyway and engages the tumbler pins (note fig 5), wherein the lock core further includes a retention component (112), and retention projections (144-147) to prevent each of the one or more side bars when it is/they are in the projecting position from falling out radially from the lock core (see figs 9 and 10) and wherein the retention component further includes one or more further bores (see to the left of 146 wrt fig 11) and corresponding additional tumbler pins (146), which must be operatively engaged by the correctly coded key in order for each of the one or more side bars to be received into the lock core (Col 3 lines 43-60). However, Reikher does not teach a body, and tumbler pins located in bores in the body and with the retention component separately formed from the body. Lundberg teaches a body (3) and tumbler pins (5) located in bores in the body (see figs 2 and 7) with a retention component (4) separately formed from a body (see fig 7). 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 Reiker with a body and tumbler pins located in bores in the body and the retention component separately formed from the body such as in Lundberg in order to provide for a lock which is flexible to install, flexible to set up a variety of key authorizations and which provides a safe and secure lock with extra protection for attack and abuse against the cylinder core (see Lundberg para 5). In regards to claim 4, Reiker teaches a pin tumbler lock, including a lock core adapted to rotate inside a shell (lock housing as described in Col 3 lines 20-42), the lock core including one or more side bars (124), a keyway (118), each of the one or more side bars being adapted in a projecting position to project from the outside of the lock core into a corresponding recess in the lock shell (“notch”, see Col 3 line 37-60), and in a released position to be received into the core when a correctly coded key is inserted into the keyway and engages the tumbler pins, so that operatively the lock core can be rotated relative to the shell when the correctly coded key is inserted (Col 3 line 37-60), wherein the lock core further includes a retention component (115), , and including retention projections (144 – 147) to prevent each of the one or more side bars when it is/they are in the projecting position from falling out radially from the lock core (see figs 9-11) and wherein the retention component further includes one or more further bores (bores to the left of 146 wrt fig 22 and corresponding additional tumbler pins, which must be operatively engaged by the correctly coded key in order for each of the one or more side bars to be received into the lock core )Col 3 lines 43-60). However, Reikher does not teach a body, and tumbler pins located in bores in the body and with the retention component separately formed from the body. Lundberg teaches a body (3) and tumbler pins (5) located in bores in the body (see figs 2 and 7) with a retention component (4) separately formed from a body (see fig 7). 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 Reiker with a body and tumbler pins located in bores in the body and the retention component separately formed from the body such as in Lundberg in order to provide for a lock which is flexible to install, flexible to set up a variety of key authorizations and which provides a safe and secure lock with extra protection for attack and abuse against the cylinder core (see Lundberg para 5). In regards to claim 6, Reikher in view of Lundberg teaches a pin tumbler lock according to claim 4, wherein the retention component is located within the body so that the bores in the retention component and the bores in the body are correctly aligned (Lundberg see fig 2) in line to permit operation of the tumbler pins by the correctly coded key (Lundberg see fig 2). However, Reikher does not teach the retention component is located within the body. Notably, Lundberg teaches guiding pins on the body which are inserted into the retention component (see Lundberg para 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have implemented guiding pins on the retention component of Reiker instead of on a body as doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts and involve only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI A). With the modification above the retention component is located within the body (at least partially as the guiding pins would be located in the body). In regards to claim 7, Reikher in view of Lundberg teaches a retention component adapted for use in a lock core according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). In regards to claim 8, Reikher in view of Lundberg teaches a retention component adapted for use in a pin tumbler lock according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above). Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reikher in view of Lundberg as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Fliether et al. DE 10127472 A1 (hereinafter Fliether). In regards to claim 2, Reikher in view of Lundberg teaches a lock core according to claim 1. However, Reikher does not teach wherein the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core. Fliether teaches the use of hardened steel on a similar retention component, with the bores being formed on a softer, easier to machine material (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core in order to provide for a lock core that is both economical manufacture and resistive to destructive attacks (see Fliether para 13). In regards to claim 3, Reikher in view of Lundberg and Fliether teaches a lock core according to claim 2, wherein the retention component is located within the body so that the bores in the retention component and the bores in the body are correctly aligned (Lundberg see fig 2) in line to permit operation of the tumbler pins by a key (Lundberg see fig 2). However, Reikher does not teach the retention component is located within the body. Notably, Lundberg teaches guiding pins on the body which are inserted into the retention component (see Lundberg para 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have implemented guiding pins on the retention component of Reiker instead of on a body as doing so would amount to a mere rearangment of parts and involve only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI A). With the modification above the retention component is located within the body (at least partially as the guiding pins would be located in the body). In regards to claim 5, Reikher in view of Lundberg teaches a pin tumbler lock according to claim 4. However, Reikher does not teach wherein the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core. Fliether teaches the use of hardened steel on a similar retention component, with the bores being formed on a softer, easier to machine material (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core in order to provide for a lock core that is both economical manufacture and resistive to destructive attacks (see Fliether para 13). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 03, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 17, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Aug 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742343
ELECTRONIC DOOR LOCK
4y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12704001
VAULT DOOR
5y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703998
DOOR LOCK ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12687047
DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM WITH A RAPID RELEASE MECHANISM
6y 8m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12680343
DOOR LOCK WITH CLUTCH
7y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+39.0%)
3y 1m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 187 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month