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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 403 and 1628.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0047], “faster 511” should likely be --fastener 511--. Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Automatic lock with clutch mechanism powered by dynamo.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 of claim 5, “the rotating the cog” should likely be --the rotating cog--
in line 1 of claim 19, “housing the” should likely be --housing, the--
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.
Claims 11-20 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 11 recites “A door lock using a motor and blocking system,” and claim 11 later recites “the motor.” It is unclear if the preamble is intended to recite a motor and a blocking system, because “the motor” is later recited but the “blocking system” is not in the body of the claim. If “a motor and blocking system” is merely descriptive of the claimed system, then the limitation of “the motor” recited in line 5 should be --a motor-- because it is not previously recited.
Claim 11 recites “when engaged,” the exterior knob can turn the spindle without actuating the latch assembly and “when disengaged” the exterior knob can turn the spindle and actuate the latch assembly. However, it is unclear what is intended to be engaged and disengaged. As best understood, the specification describes the key arm is engaged by the motor and the pin is engaged with the spindle when the exterior knob can actuate the latch assembly, and conversely the key arm is disengaged and the pin is disengaged with the spindle so the exterior knob cannot actuate the latch assembly. In paragraph 0050, the specification describes that the key arm (605) is configured to move towards the internal knob in order to actuate the pin to couple the spindle and hollow shaft so they can rotate together but does not explain how the key arm is configured to allow the spindle to be turned by the exterior knob and actuate the latch assembly when disengaged.
Additionally, it remains unclear in claim 15 what element is intended to be disengaged and whether claim 15 refers to the same disengaged state as in claim 11. The present specification does not clarify if the key arm is disengaged, or if the pin is disengaged from something. The disclosure does not clearly explain how the key arm is configured in order to release a pin to “drop” towards and couple the spindle and hollow shaft together as required by claim 15. Furthermore, the drawings also do not clarify because Figures 18A-B illustrates an embodiment of a pin 1810, but shows the pin being pushed by hook 1804 (Spec. [0072]) and does not illustrate the pin configured to “drop” as recited in claim 15. Applicant can act as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, but the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin, US 4,820,330 A.
Claim 1: Lin discloses a door lock for locking biased latch bolts, comprising:
an exterior portion (1 and 11 are an exterior portion);
a latch assembly (5) coupled to the exterior portion (col. 5 ln. 1-5); and
an interior portion (2, 3, and 23 are an interior portion) coupled to the latch assembly, the interior portion comprising a constant power spring (30) configured to actuate the latch assembly (col. 5 ln. 51-59; claim 15).
Claim 2: Lin discloses the door lock of claim 1, wherein:
the exterior portion comprises an exterior knob (11);
the interior portion comprises an interior knob (23);
the door lock further comprises a spindle (13) extending from the exterior knob, through the latch assembly, and to the interior knob and mechanically linked to the constant power spring (Figs. 1-2), and
turning the exterior knob or the interior knob rotates the spindle and charges the constant power spring to actuate the latch assembly (col. 5 ln. 40-59).
Claim 3: Lin discloses the door lock of claim 2, wherein the interior portion further comprises a cog (38) mechanically linked to the interior knob or the exterior knob (Fig. 3), wherein rotating the cog charges the constant power spring (col. 2 ln. 50-54).
Claim 4: Lin discloses the door lock of claim 3, wherein the cog comprises a tooth (382) configured to couple a hooked end of the constant power spring (Fig. 2) and rotating the cog causes the tooth to couple the hooked end of the constant power spring, thereby coiling the constant power spring (col. 2 ln. 50-54).
Claim 5: Lin discloses the door lock of claim 4, wherein the coiling of the constant power spring produces a force in an opposite direction of the rotating cog (col. 2 ln. 50-57).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon, US 10,260,253 B2,
Claim 11: Moon discloses a door lock using a motor and blocking system, comprising:
an exterior portion (8 and 14 form an exterior portion) comprising an exterior knob (18);
a latch assembly (col. 4 ln. 60 (“a latch assembly”)) coupled to the exterior portion;
an interior portion (shown in Figs. 4-7) coupled to the latch assembly and comprising:
the motor (11); and
a key arm (85) mechanically linked to the motor (col. 5 ln. 58-59); and
a spindle (36) extending from the exterior portion to the interior portion (Figs. 10-11) and mechanically linked to the key arm and the latch assembly (col. 4 ln. 40-56), wherein:
when engaged, the key arm allows the spindle to be turned by the exterior knob without actuating the latch assembly (col. 5 ln 58-col. 6 ln. 4); and
when disengaged, the key arm allows the spindle to be turned by the exterior knob and actuate the latch assembly (col. 4 ln. 57-63).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uyeda et al., US 2024/0046725 A1.
Claim 11: Uyeda discloses a door lock using a motor and blocking system, comprising:
an exterior portion (142, 230, 112 form an exterior portion) comprising an exterior knob (142-3);
a latch assembly (160) coupled to the exterior portion ([0045]);
an interior portion (shown in Figs. 2C and 7) coupled to the latch assembly and comprising:
the motor (116); and
a key arm (702) mechanically linked to the motor (Fig. 7B); and
a spindle (162) extending from the exterior portion (Fig. 8B; Fig. 13) to the interior portion (Fig. 2C) and mechanically linked to the key arm and the latch assembly ([0042]), wherein:
when engaged, the key arm allows the spindle to be turned by the exterior knob without actuating the latch assembly (Fig. 10; [0052] (rotating the exterior knob does not actuate the latch assembly unless coupling is engaged)); and
when disengaged, the key arm allows the spindle to be turned by the exterior knob and actuate the latch assembly ([0067]; Fig. 11).
Claim 12: Uyeda discloses the door lock of claim 11, wherein:
the door lock further comprises a hollow shaft (156) disposed over the spindle and mechanically linked to the latch assembly ([0045]);
the interior portion further comprises an interior knob (132);
the spindle extends from the exterior knob, through the latch assembly, through the hollow shaft, and to the interior knob (Fig. 2C); and
turning the interior knob rotates the hollow shaft and actuates the latch assembly regardless of whether the key arm is engaged or the key arm is disengaged ([0044]; [0054]).
Claim 15: Uyeda discloses the door lock of claim 12, wherein, when disengaged, the key arm releases a pin (152) that drops towards and couples the spindle and the hollow shaft together (Fig. 11; [0067]).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, US 4,820,330 A, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rais, US 2018/0298639 A1.
Claim 6: Lin discloses the door lock of claim 2. However, Lin is silent to the exterior portion further comprising a gear assembly mechanically linked to the exterior knob; and a dynamo mechanically linked to the gear assembly.
Rais teaches a door lock comprising an exterior portion (Fig. 1), the exterior portion comprising:
a gear assembly (24, 25) mechanically linked to an exterior knob (Fig. 3A); and
a dynamo (40) mechanically linked to the gear assembly (Fig. 3B; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door lock disclosed by Lin to further include a gear assembly mechanically linked to the exterior knob and a dynamo mechanically linked to the gear assembly as taught by Rais, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide back-up emergency power and prevent lockout (Rais [0010], [0024]).
Claim 7: Lin, in view of Rais, teaches the door lock of claim 6, wherein the dynamo comprises an electromagnetic motor configured to convert rotational movement into energy (Rais [0007], [0024]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, US 4,820,330 A, and Rais, US 2018/0298639 A1, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Buckingham et al., US 2006/0164206 A1.
Claim 8: Lin, in view of Rais, teaches the door lock of claim 7. Lin, as modified by Rais, does not explicitly disclose the energy created by the dynamo is stored in a capacitor.
Buckingham teaches the energy created by a dynamo is stored in a capacitor ([0023], [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door lock taught by Lin, as modified by Rais, to include a capacitor such that energy created by the dynamo is stored in the capacitor, as taught by Buckingham, in order to store energy for multiple operations and not require a wake-up signal process (Buckingham [0045-47]).
Claim 9: Lin, in view of Rais and Buckingham, teaches the door lock of claim 8. Lin teaches the exterior portion comprising a sensor that authenticates a coded number card (col. 2 ln. 12-14), but Lin, as modified by Rais and Buckingham, does not explicitly teach at least one of the exterior portion and the interior portion comprise at least one of a circuit board, a motor, a biometric authenticator, an indicator light, and a keypad.
Rais further teaches the exterior portion comprises at least one of a circuit board ([0021]), a motor, a biometric authenticator, an indicator light, and a keypad (11b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door lock taught by Lin, as modified by Rais and Buckingham, such that the exterior portion comprises at least one of a circuit board and a keypad, as taught by Rais, with a reasonable expectation of success to connect electric circuits, and increase convenience with keyless entry (Rais [0003]).
Claim 10: Lin, in view of Rais and Buckingham, teaches the door lock of claim 9, wherein the capacitor provides electrical power to at least one of the circuit board, the motor, the biometric authenticator, the indicator light, and the keypad (as modified, Buckingham [0048]).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, 10,260,253 B2, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Imedio Ocana et al., US 8,001,818 B2.
Claim 12: Moon discloses the door lock of claim 11, wherein: the door lock further comprises a hollow shaft (30) disposed over the spindle (Fig. 15) and mechanically linked to the latch assembly (claim 1).
Moon is silent to an interior knob, the spindle extends from the exterior knob, through the latch assembly, through the hollow shaft, and to the interior knob; and turning the interior knob rotates the hollow shaft and actuates the latch assembly regardless of whether the key arm is engaged or the key arm is disengaged.
Imedio Ocana teaches a door lock comprising an exterior portion comprising an exterior knob (5), and an interior portion comprising an interior knob (10);
a spindle extends from the exterior knob, through a latch assembly, through a hollow shaft, and to the interior knob (Fig. 1; col. 2 ln. 16-23; col. 3 ln. 56-61); and
turning the interior knob rotates the hollow shaft and actuates the latch assembly regardless of whether the key arm is engaged or the key arm is disengaged (col. 4 ln. 7-19 (the hollow shaft rotates directly with the interior knob)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door lock disclosed by Moon such that the interior portion further comprises an interior knob, as taught by Imedio Ocana, so the latch can be actuated from the other side of the door. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door lock disclosed by Moon to include a spindle extending from the exterior knob, through a latch assembly, through a hollow shaft, and to the interior knob and turning the interior knob rotates the hollow shaft and actuates the latch assembly regardless of whether the key arm is engaged or the key arm is disengaged, as taught by Imedio Ocana, to increase convenience by permitting the interior knob to release the latch without it being necessary to unlock the exterior knob.
Claim 13: Moon, in view of Imedio Ocana, teaches the door lock of claim 11, wherein the key arm is engaged and disengaged by the motor (Moon col. 4 ln. 57-63).
Claim 14: Moon, in view of Imedio Ocana, teaches the door lock of claim 12, wherein, when disengaged, the key arm moves away from the interior knob (Moon movement from Fig. 15 to Fig. 16).
Claim 16: Moon, in view of Imedio Ocana, teaches the door lock of claim 14, the interior portion further comprising a gear assembly (Moon col. 7 ln. 59-60 (the interior portion comprising a gear motor includes a gear assembly)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 17-20.
Regarding claim 17, in particular Moon, in view of Imedio Ocana, teaches the door lock of claim 16, but fails to disclose the gear assembly comprises: a partial gear coupled to the interior knob, a gear mechanically linked to the partial gear and configured to rotate upon rotating of the interior knob, and a spring housing coupled to the gear and configured to rotate upon rotating of the gear. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the gear assembly taught by Moon, in view of Imedio Ocana, to include a partial gear coupled to the interior knob, a gear mechanically linked to the partial gear and rotated upon rotating of the interior knob, and a spring housing coupled to the gear and rotated upon rotating of the gear without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
In regards to claims 18-20, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 17 from which the claims depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frolov et al. (US 8555685 B2) is related to a door lock device comprising a motor actuating a key arm and releasing a bin that drops towards a spindle and couples the exterior and interior handles.
Dalsing (US 6869116 B2) is related to a door lock clutch assembly comprising a spindle and a hallow shaft disposed over the spindle, and a spring charged by rotating the handle.
Yao et al. (CN 107130850 A) is related to a door lock comprising a partial gear coupled to a knob and a gear mechanically linked to the partial gear, and springs coupled to the gear, but does not show a spring housing configured to be rotated upon rotating the gear.
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0348422 A1) is related to an axial clutch mechanism comprising a motor coupled to a gear assembly and a spring housing that moves to and from the interior knob for uncoupling and coupling the exterior knob.
Huang (US 2023/0265683 A1) is related to a door lock comprising a motor actuating a pin downward to engage a spindle and hollow shaft to couple the exterior knob with the locking device and a gear assembly coupled to the interior knob to trigger a sensor.
Li (CN 108286370 A) is related to a door lock comprising an exterior knob coupled to a gear assembly for rotating a spindle extending through a hollow shaft and a spring with a spring housing coupled to the gear assembly and interior knob, but does not teach a key arm linked to the motor.
Lien (US 2019/0119962 A1) is related to a door lock comprising a motor rotating an arm to push a pin for coupling a spindle with a hollow shaft or release the pin for uncoupling the spindle and hollow shaft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675