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
Claims 16-30 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 04/24/2026. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
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) 16-17, 26-27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070214848 to Meyerle.
Regarding claim 16, Meyerle discloses:
An arrangement (fig 3) for a lock system (10), the arrangement comprising: a latch spindle (80) for engaging a follower (28) of the lock system and for rotation about a follower axis (axis of 28, see fig 3), the latch spindle comprising a handing structure (78/83); an outer spindle (72) for rotation about the follower axis, the outer spindle comprising an outer engaging structure (89) configured to engage the handing structure (fig 8); and an inner spindle (82) for rotation about the follower axis (when door handle is turned), the inner spindle comprising an inner engaging structure (84) configured to engage the handing structure independently of the outer engaging structure (see paragraph 0066); wherein the handing structure, the inner engaging structure and the outer engaging structure are configured to cooperate such that a first handing (fig 6) of the lock system is set by a first latch position of the latch spindle about the follower axis, and a second handing (fig 7)of the lock system is set by a second latch position of the latch spindle, different from the first latch position, about the follower axis (see paragraph 0096); and wherein the handing structure comprises an angular clearance with respect to the follower axis such that the inner spindle is enabled to drive the latch spindle relative to the outer spindle by engagement between the inner engaging structure and the handing structure (see paragraphs 0097-0098).
Regarding claim 17, Meyerle discloses:
The arrangement according to Claim 16, wherein the latch spindle comprises a through opening (opening seen in the bottom of fig 9b), and wherein the outer spindle passes through the through opening (see 72 in fig 9b).
A lock system (fig 1) comprising an arrangement according to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Meyerle discloses:
A lock system (fig 1) comprising an arrangement according to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, Meyerle discloses:
The lock system according to Claim 26, further comprising an inner handle (14) engaging the inner spindle and an outer handle (16) engaging the outer spindle (see figs 3 and 4)
Regarding claim 29, Meyerle discloses:
The lock system according to Claim 26, further comprising a latch (18) including the follower (fig 3).
Regarding claim 30, Meyerle discloses:
The lock system according to Claim 29, wherein the latch is a tubular latch (fig 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-25 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that both 78 and 83 are referred to as the handing structure by the Examiner despite 83 not always moving in common with 80, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require the handing structure to always move in common with the latch spindle.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the first and second handing positions are not different rotational positions of the latch spindle about the follower axis, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require a different rotational positions, the claims recite the first latch position of the latch spindle about the follower axis being different than the second position. Meyerle teaches two positions of the latch spindle about the follower axis, one where the right hand 454 of 80 is between 450 and 452 (fig 7) and one where the left hand 456 is between 450 and 452 (fig 6). Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/Y.S./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights