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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 57 “a supporting ring”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the limitation “the first lock body” in paragraphs 3 and 4. It is suggested amending the limitation to “the first displaceable lock body.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 54-60 need similar amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 53-72 are 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.
Claim 59 recites “the lock body” in line 2. It is not clear whether the “lock body” refers which lock body, the first lock body or the second lock body. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "“the first lock body” in paragraphs 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 54-60 recite the limitation "“the first lock body.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 60 recites “the latch” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) that depend(s) from the rejected claim(s), that is, claim(s) 61-72 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 53-54 and 56-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Cetnar (US Pub. App. 2007-0210588).
For claim 53, Cetnar discloses, in Figures 1-8, a latch mechanism (10) comprising a latch body (116, 20; Figure 1A and 3) and a lock mechanism comprising a first displaceable lock body (18), the lock mechanism defining a lock opening (54, Figure 3) and being configurable in one of
an unlocked configuration, in which the lock opening is open allowing a portion of the latch body (116) to be displaceable thereinto to cause the latch body (20) to unlatch from a catch formation (In the unlocked configuration, the hook 18 releases the striker from the catch formation state, and the portion of the latch body 116 does not inhibit the lock opening. Para. [0025-0026], Figure 4.); and
a locked configuration, in which the first lock body (18) is displaced at least partially into the lock opening, thereby inhibiting the portion of the latch body (20) from being displaced into the lock opening (In the locked configuration, the hook 18 engages the striker. Para. [0025-0026]. Figures 2 and 4.),
the latch mechanism further comprising an automated actuating mechanism for displacing the first lock body (Key fob 212 actuates release mechanism 220. Para. [0031].)
For claim 54, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 53, wherein the automated actuating mechanism comprises an electronic actuating mechanism (220) comprising an electric motor (98) associated with a gear arrangement (34), the gear arrangement configured to displace the first lock body (Para. [0031].)
For claim 56, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 53, wherein the automated actuating mechanism (220) is received within a housing which is fixed to a main body of the latch mechanism and wherein the first lock body or a drive body associated with the first lock body extends at least partially through an opening in the main body of the latch mechanism (Figure 5. Para. [0017].)
For claim 57, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 56, wherein the first lock body or the drive body is supported by a support ring (66) which extends from the housing (Figure 3), and wherein the support ring comprises a limiting formation, provided for interacting with a complementary shoulder or stopper formation on the first lock body or drive body, for limiting a range of permissible displacement of the first lock body (Figure 3.)
For claim 58, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 54, further comprising a control unit operatively connected to a power source and including a receiving means in the form of a radio receiver, configured for receiving a signal from a command module, wherein the signal is selected from a group comprising: a radio frequency (RE) signal, an RFID signal, a WIFl signal, a Bluetooth signal, and an IoT and wherein the control unit is configured for causing the electric motor to actuate the first lock body based on a command received from the command module (Fob sends signal to electronic controller 210. Para. [0020].)
For claim 59, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 53, comprising a second lock body (70) which is displaceable independently relative to the first lock body (18) and wherein, when the lock body is configured in the locked configuration, at least one of the first and second lock bodies is displaced at least partially into the lock opening (Figure 2A.)
For claim 60, Cetnar disclose the latch mechanism according to claim 59, wherein the first and second lock bodies (18, 70) are pivotably displaceable relative to each other about an axis of rotation the first lock body is pivotably supported relative to a main body of the latch mechanism; the second lock body is pivotably supported by a handle portion of the latch; and the second lock body is configured to be actuated by external means in the form of a key which is turned to displace the second lock body between active and inactive configurations (Para. [0034].)
For claim 61, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 59, wherein each of the first and second lock bodies has a cross-sectional shape of one of a ring segment and pin (63 and 57 have circular cross-section. Figure 1A.)
For claim 62, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 59, wherein each of the first and second lock bodies (18, 70) is displaceable between an active and inactive configuration (Figures 3-4) and wherein, when the first and second lock bodies are configured in their respective inactive configurations, the first and second lock bodies are located proximate each other in adjoining fashion, without physical interference between the first and second lock bodies, while defining between them, the open lock opening (Figures 4)
For claim 63, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 53, taking the form of a pressure plate latch mechanism or pressure lever lock or latch mechanism, wherein the latch mechanism comprises a main body with which the catch formation is associated; handle body associated with a main latch formation and a latch surface, the handle body pivotably fixed relative to the main body between a first configuration which is towards the main body and a second configuration which is away from the main body the handle body biased towards the second configuration, wherein the latch mechanism is configurable in a latched configuration in which the latch surface latches onto the catch formation, and an unlatched configuration, in which the latch surface does not catch onto the catch formation (Latch mechanism can be locked or unlocked via a pressure sensitive switch 216. Abstract. Para. [0021 and 0027].)
For claim 64, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 53, wherein the catch formation is formed on a catch body (56) which is displaceable relative to a main body (46) of the latch mechanism between an operative and inoperative position, and wherein the catch body is biased towards the operative position (Para. [0027].)
For claim 65, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 64, wherein the catch body comprises an extension which extends through an opening in the main body and defines a handle portion (222, Figure 8), facilitating manual displacement of the catch body towards the inoperative position (Para. [0021].)
For claim 66, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 64, wherein the catch body (56) is one of: pivotably displaceable relative to the main body (Main body 63. Figure 3.); axially displaceable relative to the main body; sideways-slidably displaceable relative to the main body; and rotatably displaceable relative to the main body Figure 3.)
For claim 67, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 64, further comprising an automated actuating mechanism (motor 30, Figure 5) provided for displacing the catch body between the operative and inoperative positions (Para. [0017] and [0032].)
For claim 68, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 53, further comprising a displaceable actuating lever (safety backup arm 158, Figure 1B) extending from a rear side of the latch mechanism and which interacts with the latch body (116), with which the latch body may be displaced to unlatch from the catch formation (Para. [0042].)
For claim 69, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 59, wherein one of the first and second lock bodies (78 of 18 and 80 of 70) is axially displaceable between an extended and retracted position, and wherein the relevant one of the first and second lock bodies is biased towards the extended position (Figure 3.)
For claim 70, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 69, wherein the relevant one of the first and second lock bodies comprises a lock pin (63, Figures 2A, 3) which is supported by a lock body support collar (Annular portion of 63 that supported in hole 64 defines the support collar.)
For claim 71, Cetnar discloses a structure defining an internal volume, the structure including at least one door which is provided with one or more latch mechanisms in accordance with claim53, and wherein the structure comprises one of: a canopy; a container; a trailer: a caravan; a camper; a car top carrier; a luggage box; a motor bike top boxes or pannier; a cubbyhole; a glove box; a cupboard; a service hatch; an access door; a toolbox; a security door; a flatbed tray; a gullwing door; a drawer; a safe; a safety deposit box; a slider; a load-bay cover of a pick-up truck; a roller door; a shutter or roller shutter a luggage compartment; and a door and/or window of a dwelling (The structure is used in door with controller and pressure sensitive switch on the outside handle of an automotive door. Abstract. Para. [0003].)
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.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetnar (US Pub. App. 2007-0210588) in view of Ginsburg (US Patent No. 3,527,268).
For claim 55, Cetnar discloses the latch mechanism according to claim 54,
But does not disclose wherein: the gear arrangement has a gear ratio selected to ensure a sufficient amount of torque is exerted on the first lock body to pivotably displace same between active and inactive configurations (18 and 20 are rotated during locking and unlocking, para. [0025-0027]. Hence, there must be sufficient torque to operate the locking system.)
Cetnar does not disclose the gear ratio is between 1:40 and 1:100; and the gear arrangement comprises one of a bevel gear arrangement, spur gear arrangement, worm gear arrangement, spur and crown arrangement, rack and pinion arrangements and a multistage gear arrangement.
Ginsburg teaches a lock assembly with a worm gear (Col.16, L59), bevel gear (Col.18, L32), and the gear ratio can be adjusted depending upon the need (Col.18, L32-35). Ginsburg teaches a method of gear arrangement to select the gear ratio to depending upon the need. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar with a gear arrangement to have desired gear ratio (including between 1:40 and 1:100), as taught by Ginsburg with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a gear arrangement with gear ratio between 1:40 and 1:100 depending on the need of the environment.
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetnar (US Pub. App. 2007-0210588) in view of Tran (US Pub. App. 2007-0290793).
For claim 72, Cetnar discloses the structure according to claim 71, further comprising a control unit for controlling automated actuating mechanisms of the one or more latch mechanism; at least a first sensor device provided in communication with the control unit, wherein the control unit is associated with a siren or alarm module and wherein the first sensor device is selected from a list comprising: a motion detector device; a smoke detector device; a temperature sensing device; a sound detector device; a door or window proximity sensor; and a light sensor (Controller 210. Abstract. Figure 8.)
Tran teaches mesh network door lock with at least a sensor provided in communication with the control unit, wherein the control unit is associated with a siren or alarm module and wherein the first sensor device is selected from a list comprising a motion detector device.; a smoke detector device; a temperature sensing device; a sound detector device; a door or window proximity sensor; and a light sensor (the network nodes can be mesh network appliances to provide voice communications, home security, door access control, lighting control, power outlet control, dimmer control, switch control, temperature control, humidity control, carbon monoxide control, and fire alarm control. Para. [0026].) Tran teaches a method of automatic control of the lock operation efficiently and remotely. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar to have at least a first sensor device provided in communication with the control unit, wherein the control unit is associated with a siren or alarm module and wherein the first sensor device is selected from a list comprising: a motion detector device; a smoke detector device; a temperature sensing device; a sound detector device; a door or window proximity sensor; and a light sensor, as taught by Tran with a reasonable expectation of success of having an automatic control of the lock operation efficiently and remotely.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Mills (US 5,632,702); House (US 8,499,495); and Kleefeldt (US 4,440,006).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675