Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/866,518

IMPROVED LOCK CORE WITH SIDEBARS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Examiner
WATSON, PETER HUCKLEBERRY
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Australian Lock Company Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
91 granted / 166 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
216
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 166 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 1-8 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 1 and 4 “separately formed” is unclear. This is because it’s unclear what the retention component is separately formed from. For the purposes of examination, the retention component is assumed to be separately formed from the body. Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiscocks et al. US 20150114059 A1 (hereinafter Hiscocks). In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Hiscocks teaches a lock core for a pin tumbler lock, including a body (119), one or more side bars (at least one of 126), a keyway (164), and tumbler pins (some of 122) located in bores (120) in the body, the or each side bar being adapted in a projecting position to project from the outside of the lock core (such as in fig 4), 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 (para 34), wherein the body includes a retention component (see reference image 1), separately formed and including engagement features to retain the or each side bar when it is/they are in the projecting position (at least as they retain 128, note fig 1) and wherein the retention component includes one or more of said bores and corresponding additional tumbler pins (see reference image 1). PNG media_image1.png 876 834 media_image1.png Greyscale Reference image 1 In regards to claim 4, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Hiscocks teaches a pin tumbler lock, including a lock core adapted to rotate inside a shell, the lock core including a body (119), one or more side bars (at least one of 126), a keyway (164), and tumbler pins (some of 122) located in bores in the body, the or each side bar being adapted in a projecting position to project from the outside of the lock core into a corresponding recess in the lock shell (such as in fig 4), 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 (para 34), so that operatively the lock core can be rotated relative to the shell when the correctly coded key is inserted (paras 16-18), wherein the body includes a retention component (see reference image 1), separately formed and including engagement features (see reference image 1) to retain the or each side bar when it is/they are in the projecting position (at least as they retain 128, note fig 1) and wherein the retention component further includes one or more of said bores and corresponding additional tumbler pins (see reference image 1). In regards to claim 6, Hiscocks 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 in line to permit operation of the tumbler pins by the correctly coded key (para 16). In regards to claim 7, Hiscocks teaches a retention component adapted for use in a lock core according to any one of claim 1 (see reference image 1). In regards to claim 8, Hiscocks teaches a retention component adapted for use in a pin tumbler lock according to claim 4 (see reference image 1). 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) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiscocks as applied to claim 1, 4, and 6-8 above, and further in view of McCarthy GB 2439781 A (hereinafter McCarthy). In regards to claim 2, Hiscocks teaches a lock core according to claim 1. However, Hiscocks does not teach wherein the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core. McCarthy teaches an insert (8A-9B) made of a material harder than the body (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 made the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core in Hiscocks in order to make attacking the lock more difficult (McCarthy: page 2 lines 1-2). In regards to claim 3, Hiscocks in view of McCarthy teaches 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 in line to permit operation of the tumbler pins by a key (Hiscocks para 16). In regards to claim 5, Hiscocks teaches a lock core according to claim 4. However, Hiscocks does not teach wherein the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core. McCarthy teaches an insert (8A-9B) made of a material harder than the body (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 made the retention component is formed from a hardened material relative to the body of the lock core in Hiscocks in order to make attacking the lock more difficult (McCarthy: page 2 lines 1-2). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. AU 2013204530 B1 – teaches a similar lock core. AU 2013248267 B1 – teaches a similar device. US 5826451 A – teaches a similar retention device. US 20150247344 A1 – teaches a similar device. US 5209087 A – teaches a similar retention device. US 5540071 A -teaches a similar retention 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601199
HANDLE LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595679
LOCKSET ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577811
ELECTRONIC LOCK ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546152
SECURITY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12540494
CLOSURE LATCH ASSEMBLY WITH CRASH UNLOCK MECHANISM USING SINGLE ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+35.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 166 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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