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 17 “override comprises a mechanical tumbler”
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 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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dost et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2014-0167425).
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].)
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) 1-14 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 Ayrest (U.S. Pub. App. 2015-0240520).
For claim 1, Dost et al. discloses, in Figures 1-5, a lock system comprising:
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.);
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 (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.
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 Dost 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.
Dost et al. modified with features of Ayrest teaches the claimed limitations.
For claim 2, the combination teaches the lock system 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 Dost et al. modified with features of Ayrest, override actuator will be connected to the lever.)
For claim 3, Dost et al. discloses the lock system of claim 2, wherein the override actuator comprises a cable (320) connected to the lever (330, para. [0027].)
For claim 4, Dost et al. discloses the lock system 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 3.)
For claim 5, the combination teaches the lock system 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 (When Dost et al. modified with features of Ayrest as in claim 1, and in the event of power failure [Para. 007 of Dost et al.], the override actuator is activated to move the body to from the fourth position to the third position.)
For claim 6, the combination teaches the lock system 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, Dost et al. modified with Ayrest teaches the claimed limitation.)
For claim 7, Dost et al. discloses the lock system of claim 6, wherein the retainer (111) is biased toward the first position (Para. [0026].)
For claim 8, Dost et al. discloses the lock system 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.)
For claim 9, Dost et al. discloses the lock system of claim 8, comprising a spring (311), wherein the override actuator comprises a cable (320), and a bias on the override actuator is provided by the spring acting on the cable (Para. [0028], Figures 3-4.)
For claim 10, Dost et al. discloses a unit comprising: the lock system of claim 1; an anchor (120); a first portion (Side wall of the tray compartment. Para. [0025]); and a second portion (Lid, para. [0024]); wherein: the retainer (111) is configured to engage the anchor (120) 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.)
For claim 11, the combination teaches the unit of claim 10, wherein the unit is a cooler comprising: a merchandise storage space; a payment interface; a frame comprising the first portion of the unit; and a door comprising the second portion of the unit, 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 (Dost 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 with a merchandise storage space and a payment interface.)
For claim 12, Dost et al. discloses the 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] and the side wall comprises the anchor 120 [0025].)
For claim 13, the combination teaches the 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 (Dost 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.)
For claim 14, Dost et al. discloses the 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] and the anchor 120 is mounted to the frame [0025]. The retainer 111 is biased to the locked state, para. [0026].)
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 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).
For claim 16, Dost et al. discloses the assembly of claim 15, but does not disclose 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.
For claim 17, the combination teaches the assembly of claim 16, 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.)
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].)
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.)
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].)
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. 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).
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