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 Amendment
Amendment to claims of 04/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawing objections in the Office action of 01/15/2026 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered and rejected as given below.
For amended independent claim 1, the arguments are moot because of new ground of rejection.
For amended independent claim 15, applicant argues, on page 11, that combination of Dost and Larson providing an additional layer of security is unnecessary. The combination of Dost and Larson with additional layer of security provides extra security against unauthorized access. Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Claim(s) that depend(s) from the rejected claim(s), that is claims 17-20 are rejected. is/are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because claim 17 depends on itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner considers claim 17 depends on claim 15.
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.
12. Claim(s) 1-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2020-0317445) in view of Dost et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2014-0167425) and Ayrest (U.S. Pub. App. 2015-0240520).
13. For claim 1, Schultz et al. discloses a lockable unit (101) comprising:
a storage space (Abstract); and
a lock system configured to control access to the storage space (Para. [0075]), the lock system comprising:
an electronic lock comprising an electronic actuator and a retainer, wherein the electronic actuator is configured to move the retainer from a first position to a second position;
an electronic interface (Abstract, para. [0017]) configured to activate the electronic actuator;
a mechanical lock comprising a body, wherein the mechanical lock is configured to transition from an immobile state to a mobile state when engaged by a key, the body is movable from a third position to a fourth position when the mechanical lock is in the mobile state, and the body is not movable from the third position to the fourth position when the mechanical lock is in the immobile state; and
an override actuator connected to the mechanical lock and the electronic lock, wherein the override activator is configured to move the retainer from the first position to the second position when the body moves from the third position to the fourth position,
wherein the electronic interface and the mechanical lock are accessible from outside the unit.
Dost et al. teaches an electronic lock (100, para. [0024]) comprising an electronic actuator (110 and access control device, para. [0025]) and a retainer (111), wherein the electronic actuator is configured to move the retainer (111) from a first position to a second position (The position, when the retainer 111 engages the bolt 120, defines the first position. The position, when the retainer 111 disengages the bolt 120, defines the second position.); and an override actuator (Override mechanism 300 includes 310 striker and trigger 130. Para. [0027]) connected to the mechanical lock and the electronic lock, wherein the override activator is configured to move the retainer (111) from the first position to the second position when the body moves from the third position to the fourth position providing a reliable and secured locking system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schultz et al. with an electronic lock comprising an electronic actuator and a retainer, wherein the electronic actuator is configured to move the retainer from a first position to a second position; and an override actuator connected to the mechanical lock and the electronic lock, wherein the override activator is configured to move the retainer from the first position to the second position when the body moves from the third position to the fourth position, as taught by Dost et al. with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock system.
Ayrest teaches, in Figures 1-33, a mechanical lock (cam lock) that can be operated by a key 101 to move the body 67 from locked state (third position) to unlocked state (fourth position) as in Figures 5-6 (Para. [0022]), and thus providing a secured and safe operation of the locking system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schultz et al. with a mechanical lock that locks the movement of the striker 310 of the override actuator such that the mechanical lock is able to transition from an immobile state to a mobile state when engaged by the key, the body is movable from a third position to a fourth position when the mechanical lock is in the mobile state, and the body is not movable from the third position to the fourth position when the mechanical lock is in the immobile state, as taught by Ayrest with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a secured and safe operation of the lock.
Schultz et al. modified with Dost et al. and Ayrest teaches the claimed limitations, the electronic interface (Abstract, para. [0017] of Schultz) configured to activate the electronic actuator, and the electronic interface and the mechanical lock are accessible from outside the unit.
14. For claim 2, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 1, wherein the mechanical lock comprises a lever (91 of Ayrest) configured to rotate when the body (67 of Ayrest) moves from the third position to the fourth position, and the override actuator is connected to the lever (When Schultz et al. modified with features of Ayrest, override actuator will be connected to the lever.)
15. For claim 3, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 2, wherein the override actuator comprises a cable (320 of Dost) connected to the lever (330, para. [0027] of Dost. When Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
16. For claim 4, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 3, wherein the override actuator comprises a sleeve through which the cable extends such that the sleeve and the cable form a Bowden cable (320 defines the Bowden cable with cable and sleeve. Figure 3of Dost. Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
17. For claim 5, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 4, wherein the retainer (111 of Dost et al.) is configured to return from the second position to the first position when the body (67 of Ayrest) moves from the fourth position to the third position if the electronic actuator is inactive (In the event of power failure [Para. 007 of Dost et al.] Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost and Ayrest teaches the claimed limitations.)
18. For claim 6, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 1, wherein the lock system is configured to move the retainer (111 of Dost et al.) from the second position to the first position when the body (67 of Ayrest) moves from the fourth position to the third position (The retainer 111 is biased to the first position [Para. 0026 of Dost et al.]. The override actuator enable mechanical actuation of retainer 111 [Para. 0027 od Dost et al.] to move to the second position. When the body [67 of Ayrest] moves from the fourth position to the third position, the striker plate 310 is biased to the first position, i.e., the retainer 111 is free to move to the first position [Para. 0028 of Dost et al.] Thus, Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost and Ayrest teaches the claimed limitations.)
19. For claim 7, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 6, wherein the retainer (111 of Dost) is biased toward the first position (Para. [0026] of Dost. Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
20. For claim 8, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 7, wherein the override actuator is biased toward a position allowing the retainer to return from the second position to the first position (Figure 3 od Dost. Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
21. For claim 9, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 8, comprising a spring (311), wherein the override actuator comprises a cable (320 of Dost), and a bias on the override actuator is provided by the spring acting on the cable (Para. [0028], Figures 3-4 of Dost. Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
22. For claim 10, the combination teaches the lockable a unit of claim 1, comprising: the lock system of claim 1; an anchor (120 of Dost); a first portion (Side wall of the tray compartment. Para. [0025] of Dost); and a second portion (Lid, para. [0024] of Dost); wherein: the retainer (111 of Dost) is configured to engage the anchor (120 of Dost) when the first portion contacts the second portion and the retainer is in the first position, the retainer is configured to prevent the first portion from moving out of engagement with the second portion when the retainer engages the anchor (When the lid is in the closed position, the retainer is configured to engage the anchor, and prevent the first portion from moving out of engagement with the second portion.), and the retainer is configured to disengage the anchor when the retainer moves from the first position to the second position (In the open position, the retainer is configured to disengage from the anchor. Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
23. For claim 14, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 10, wherein: the first portion comprises a frame, the electronic lock is movably mounted to the frame, and the electronic lock is biased relative to the frame; or the second portion comprises a door, the anchor is movably mounted to the door, and the anchor is biased relative to the door (The lock is mounted on the lid [0024 of Dost] and the anchor [120 of Dost] is mounted to the frame [0025 of Dost]. The retainer [111 of Dost] is biased to the locked state, para. [0026 of Dost].)
Dost et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the lock is mounted to the frame and the anchor is mounted to the door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lock on the frame and anchor on the lid, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. One skill in the art would realize that having the lock on the frame and anchor on the lid would not affect the function of the invention.
Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.
24. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2020-0317445) in view of Dost et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2014-0167425), Ayrest (U.S. Pub. App. 2015-0240520) and Rendell et al (US Pub. App. 2022-0092907).
25. For claim 11, Schultz et al. discloses the lockable unit of claim 10, wherein the unit is a cooler (para. [0005]) comprising: a merchandise storage space (Abstract); a payment interface; a frame comprising the first portion of the unit; and a door comprising the second portion of the unit (Figure 1), wherein the door is configured to prevent manual access to the merchandise storage space when the retainer engages the anchor and to enable manual access to the merchandise storage space when the first portion is out of contact with the second portion (para. [0075].
Rendell teaches a vending machine with payment interface (Para. [0010]) for secure transaction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schultz with a payment interface, as taught by Rendell with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a secured transaction. Schultz modified with features of Ayrest and Rendall teaches a lock system between a door and a frame to securely lock the interior space.)
26. For claim 12, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 11, wherein either the first portion or the second portion comprises the anchor and the other of the first portion or the second portion comprises the retainer of the electronic lock (The lid comprises the retainer [0024 of Dost] and the side wall comprises the anchor 120 [0025] of Dost. Schultz et al. modified with features of Dost teaches the claimed limitations.)
27. For claim 13, the combination teaches the lockable unit of claim 11, wherein the unit is configured to activate the electronic actuator to move the retainer to the second position in response to receipt of a payment or payment authorization by the payment interface (Schultz et al. modified with features of Ayrest teaches a lock system between a door and a frame to securely lock the interior space. The lock system can be used in any intended environment including a cooler to move the retainer to the second position in response to receipt of a payment or payment authorization by the payment interface.)
28. Claim(s) 15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dost et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2014-0167425) in view of Larson (U.S. Patent No. 4,407,147).
29. For claim 15, Dost et al. discloses an assembly comprising:
an electronic lock (100, para. [0024]) configured to electronically move between a first state, wherein the electronic lock engages an anchor (120), and a second state, wherein the electronic lock does not engage the anchor (The position, when the retainer 111 engages the bolt 120, defines the first state. The position, when the retainer 111 disengages the bolt 120, defines the second state.); and
an override (Override mechanism 300 includes 310 striker and trigger 130. Para. [0027]) comprising a mechanical linkage (330, 320, 321, 310 and 130) connected to the electronic lock (Figures 3-4), wherein the override is manually operable to move the electronic lock from the first state to the second state by action of the mechanical linkage (Pulling the lever 330 releases the retainer 111. Para. [0028].)
wherein: the override is configured to be in an inoperable state when a security token is absent, the inoperable state preventing manual operation of the override to move the electronic lock from the first state to the second state, and the override is configured to move from the inoperable state to an operable state when the security token is presented to the override.
Larson teaches, in Figures 1-21, a tumbler lock with mechanical key and a locking member 29, which can be turned to locking and unlocking positions by the key (Col. 3, L25-29; Col.5, L29-32). Larson teaches a secured and safe locking system (corresponds to security token.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dost et al. with a mechanical tumbler lock that locks the movement of the striker 310 of the override actuator such that the override is configured to be in an inoperable state when a security token is absent, the inoperable state preventing manual operation of the override to move the electronic lock from the first state to the second state, and the override is configured to move from the inoperable state to an operable state when the security token is presented to the override, as taught by Larson with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a secured and safe operation of the lock with extra security.
Dost et al. modified with Larson teaches the claimed limitations.
30. For claim 17, the combination teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein: the security token is a mechanical key, the override comprises a mechanical tumbler configured complementarily to the mechanical key, and the override is configured to move from the inoperable state to the operable state when the mechanical key is presented to the override by being placed into engagement with the mechanical tumbler (Larson teaches, in Figures 1-21, a tumbler lock with mechanical key and a locking member 29, which can be turned to locking and unlocking positions by the key [Col. 3, L25-29; Col.5, L29-32]. Dost et al. modified with Larson teaches the claimed limitations.)
31. For claim 18, Dost et al. discloses the assembly of claim 15, wherein the override is operable to move the electronic lock from the first state to the second state without drawing from any electrical power source (Pulling the lever 330 releases the retainer 111. Para. [0028].)
32. For claim 19, Dost et al. discloses the assembly of claim 15, wherein the override comprises an override actuator that comprises the linkage (330, 230, 321, and 310. Figures 3-4.)
33. For claim 20, Dost et al. discloses the assembly of claim 15, comprising: a first portion of the assembly, wherein the first portion of the assembly comprises at least part of the electronic lock (Lock 100 is on the lid, which is the first portion [0024].); and a second portion of the assembly, wherein the second portion of the assembly comprises the anchor (Anchor 120 is on the side wall, which is the second portion [0025]); wherein the first portion of the system can be disengaged from the second portion of the system (Retainer 111 and anchor are disengaged, [0025-0026]), and the electronic lock prevents disengagement of the first portion of the system from the second portion of the system when the electronic lock engages the anchor (Retainer 111 and anchor are engaged, [0025-0026].)
34. For claim 21, the combination teaches the assembly of claim 15, a cooler comprising: a merchandise storage space; a payment interface; a door; and the assembly of claim 15, wherein the assembly of claim 15 is configured to control access to the merchandise storage space by selectively locking the door such that a user may unlock the door to gain access to the merchandise storage space by presenting payment to the payment interface and by presenting the security token to the override (The assembly of claim 15 is capable using with a cooler having a merchandise storage space; a payment interface; and a door. See MPEP 2114.)
Conclusion
35. 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. Prior art cited but not applied includes Compeau (U.S. Patent No. 7,823936); Fannon (U.S. Patent No. 8,317,237); and Lurie (U.S. Pub. App. 2009-0071209).
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.
36. 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, 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, 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
Prosecution Insights