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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,110,710. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,110,710. In other words, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,110,710 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20 and therefore anticipates claims 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20.
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) 1-4, 8, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 4,579,376 to Charlton.
Charlton discloses an electric lock, comprising: a housing (14); a latch bolt (18) within said housing; a retraction lever (12, 70) configured to interact with said latch bolt such that movement of said at least one retraction lever causes said latch bolt to move in a first direction; an electrically controllable actuator (48) configured to cause rotational movement of said retraction lever in response to an electrical signal to in turn cause movement of said latch bolt in said first direction, as in claim 1.
Charlton also discloses a bias mechanism (58) configured to bias said latch bolt in a position at least partially extended from said housing, wherein said first direction is against said bias (biasing shown in figures 1 and 2), as in claim 2, wherein said rotation movement of said lever causes said latch bolt to retract into said housing against said bias (figures 1 and 2), as in claim 4, as well as said retraction lever interacts with an interaction portion (rear portion thereof) of said latch bolt, as in claim 3.
Charlton further discloses said retraction lever is pivotally mounted within said housing by at least one pin (pin shown in figures 1-4), as in claim 8, and said electrically controllable actuator comprises a motor (48), as in claim 8, as well as a key cylinder (66) and bolt lever (68), said key cylinder configured such that operation of said key cylinder causes rotational movement of said bolt lever, which in turn causes movement of said latch bolt (via 70), as in claim 12.
Charlton additionally discloses an electric lock, comprising: a housing (14); a latch bolt (18) substantially within said housing; a first retraction lever (70) within said housing and cooperating with said latch bolt such that movement of said first retraction lever causes movement of said latch bolt in a first direction; a second retraction lever (12) within said housing and cooperating with said latch bolt such that movement of said second retraction lever causes movement of said latch bolt in said first direction; a manually operable opening lever (68) connected to said first retraction lever such that movement of said manually operable opening lever causes said first retraction lever to move said latch bolt in said first direction; and an electrically controllable actuator (48) substantially within said housing, said electrically controllable actuator configured to move said second retraction lever in response to an electrical signal (electrical energizing the actuator), said movement of said second retraction lever causing movement of said latch bolt in said first direction (figures 1 and 2), as in claim 13.
Charlton also discloses a bias mechanism (58) to bias said latch bolt in a position at least partially extended from said housing, wherein said first direction is against said bias and causes said latch bolt to retract into said housing against said bias (figures 1 and 2), as in claim 14, and a key cylinder (66) and a bolt lever (68), said key cylinder configured such that operation of said key cylinder causes movement of said second retraction lever, which in turn causes movement of said latch bolt (via 70), as in claim 15, as well as said manually operable opening lever comprises a doorknob (64), as in claim 16.
Charlton further discloses a door system, comprising: a door; and an electric lock mounted substantially within said door and at an edge of said door, said electric lock comprising: a housing (14); a latch bolt (18) substantially within said housing; a first retraction lever (70) within said housing and cooperating with said latch bolt such that movement of said first retraction lever causes movement of said latch bolt in a first direction; a second retraction lever (12) within said housing and cooperating with said latch bolt such that movement of said second retraction lever causes movement of said latch bolt in said first direction; a manually operable opening lever connected to said first retraction lever such that movement of said manually operable opening lever causes said first retraction lever to move said latch bolt in said first direction; and an electrically controllable actuator (48) substantially within said housing, said electrically controllable actuator configured to move said second retraction lever in response to an electrical signal (electrical energizing the actuator), said movement of said second retraction lever causing movement of said latch bolt in said first direction (figures 1 and 2), as in claim 18.
Charlton additionally discloses said manually operated lever comprises a doorknob (64) structure, as in claim 19, and a bias mechanism (58) to bias said latch bolt in a position at least partially extended from said housing at the edge of said door, wherein said first direction is against said bias and causes said latch bolt to retract into said housing against said bias (figures 1 and 2), as in claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton, as applied above, in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,032,500 to Collard, Jr. et al.
Charlton discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Charlton does not disclose said electrically controllable actuator is wirelessly controlled. Collard, Jr. et al. teach of an electric lock (10), comprising: a housing (16); a latch bolt (14) within said housing; a retraction lever (24, 38, 44) configured to interact with said latch bolt such that movement of said at least one retraction lever causes said latch bolt to move in a first direction; an electrically controllable actuator (18, 20) configured to cause rotational movement of said retraction lever in response to an electrical signal to in turn cause movement of said latch bolt in said first direction, wherein said electrically controllable actuator is wirelessly controlled (via 100 and 102; figure 5). All of the component parts are known in Charlton and Collard, Jr. et al. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrically controllable actuator being wirelessly controlled as taught by Collard, Jr. et al. onto the electric lock in Charlton, since the manner the electrically controllable actuator is actuated is in no way dependent on the manner the levers actuate the latch bolt, and the wireless control could be used in combination with the electric lock to achieve the predictable results of remote operation of the lock.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not teach or render obvious the combination set forth, including that of a lead screw, wherein said electrically controllable actuator is connected to said lead screw and said electrically controllable actuator is configured to move said lead screw towards or away from said electrically controllable actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to electric door locks:
U.S. Patent Number 12,398,581 to Liao; U.S. Patent Number 12,264,505 to Lunday; U.S. Patent Number 7,698918 to Geringer et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,237,412 to Huang; U.S. Patent Number 4,429,556 to Kambic; U.S. Patent Number 4,021,065 to Geringer; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0211239 to Keller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
January 27, 2026