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 § 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) 1-2, 4-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark US 0805411 A (hereinafter Clark).
In regards to claim 1, Clark teaches a dogging mechanism for an exit device, the dogging mechanism comprising: a camming element (H; at least as it coverts pivotal motion to the linear motion of C) configured to move between a dogged state (when pressed in and held) and an undogged state (see fig 1); at least one slot (L) in the camming element to permit movement of the camming element between the dogged state and the undogged state (see fig 1); a first linkage (F) operatively coupled to a latch (c) of the exit device, wherein the first linkage is fixed to the camming element such that movement of the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state moves the latch between a latched position and an unlatched position (see fig 1), respectively; and a second linkage (at least K) operatively coupled to the camming element, wherein at least one pin (K) of the second linkage is received within the at least one slot (see fig 1), wherein at least a portion of the at least one slot is curved to permit rotation of the camming element (see fig 1), and wherein the camming element is configured to move between the undogged state and the dogged state by moving the at least one slot relative to the second linkage (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 2, Clark teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 1, wherein the dogging mechanism is configured to receive an input from a user (via P) to move the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 4, Clark teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 1, wherein the latch is configured to engage a corresponding door strike (A) when in the latched position (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 5, Clark teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 4, wherein the exit device includes a push bar (P), wherein the push bar is moveable between and extended position (see fig 1) and a depressed position (when pressed from fig 1).
In regards to claim 10, Clark teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a housing (E, I and J) configured to contain the camming element (at least in the sense of restraining such as the pin of E).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a separate interpretation of Clark in view of Rasmussen US 20110174025 A1 (hereinafter Rasmussen).
In regards to claim 1, Clark teaches a dogging mechanism for an exit device, the dogging mechanism comprising: a camming element (H; at least as it coverts pivotal motion to the linear motion of C) configured to move between a dogged state (when pressed in and held) and an undogged state (see fig 1); a first linkage (F) operatively coupled to a latch (c) of the exit device, wherein the first linkage is fixed to the camming element such that movement of the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state moves the latch between a latched position and an unlatched position (see fig 1), respectively.
However for the purposes of this interpretation Clark does not teach at least one slot in the camming element to permit movement of the camming element between the dogged state and the undogged state a second linkage operatively coupled to the camming element, wherein at least one pin of the second linkage is received within the at least one slot, wherein at least a portion of the at least one slot is curved to permit rotation of the camming element, and wherein the camming element is configured to move between the undogged state and the dogged state by moving the at least one slot relative to the second linkage.
Rasmussen teaches a similar camming element (40) with at least one slot (54) in the camming element to permit movement of the camming element between the dogged state and the undogged state (at least since if 54 was not curved 40 would not be able to rotate) a second linkage (18) operatively coupled to the camming element (as it is operative to guide the camming element), wherein at least one pin (18) of the second linkage is received within the at least one slot, wherein at least a portion of the at least one slot is curved to permit rotation of the camming element (see fig 8-9), and wherein the camming element is configured to move between the undogged state and the dogged state by moving the at least one slot relative to the second linkage (see figs 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Clark with a slot and linkage such as in Rasmussen in order to guide the rotation of the camming element and to prevent over rotation (Rasmussen para 40).
In regards to claim 2, Clark in view of Rasmussen teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 1, wherein the dogging mechanism is configured to receive an input (Clark; via P) from a user to move the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state (Clark see fig 1).
In regards to claim 3, Clark in view of Rasmussen teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 2, wherein the user input is a key (Clark: K) that is configured to engage a key slot (Clark: L) of the camming element, and wherein the camming element is configured to move between the undogged state and the dogged state in response to the user turning the key in the key slot (Clark: via pushing P).
In regards to claim 4, Clark in view of Rasmussen teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 1, wherein the latch is configured to engage a corresponding door strike (Clark: A) when in the latched position (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 8, Clark in view of Rasmussen teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 4, wherein in the dogged state the camming element is configured to move the latch to the unlatched position by moving the first linkage vertically downwards (in the case of upper C wrt Clark fig 1) while the second linkage remains stationary (since Rasmussen’s second linkage is always stationary).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first interpretation of Clark as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10 above, and further in view of himself.
In regards to claim 9, Clark teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 1.
However, Clark is silent on angles and therefore does not teach wherein the camming element is configured to rotate approximately 90 degrees between the dogged state and the undogged state.
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 camming element configured to rotate approximately 90 degrees between the dogged state and the undogged state, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first interpretation of Clark as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10 above, and further in view of Rasmussen.
In regards to claim 11, Clark teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 10.
However, Clark does not teach wherein the camming element includes a stopping surface configured to limit an amount of rotation of the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state.
Rasmussen teaches a similar device where a camming element (40) includes a stopping surface (surface of 40) configured to limit an amount of rotation of the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state (para 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Clark with a stopping surface configured to limit an amount of rotation of the camming element between the undogged state and the dogged state in order guide and prevent over rotation of the camming element (Rasmussen para 40).
In regards to claim 12, Clark in view of Rasmussen teaches the dogging mechanism of claim 11, wherein the stopping surface is configured to engage a protuberance (Rasmussen 18) on the housing to limit the amount of rotation of the camming element (Rasmussen see figs 8-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hester US 3881330 A – teaches a similar cam with a similar curved slot.
Morstatt et al. US 20140109479 A1 – teaches a similar curved slot.
Le US 20150108768 A1 – teaches a similar device.
Lin US 20080106104 A1 – teaches a dogging mechanism using a tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights