DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Because claim 23 was mistaken drafted with a combination of claim 23 and the insertion of “24.”, misnumbered claims 25-45 been renumbered as 24-44, removing the improper insertion of “24.” in claim 23.
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 23 – 38 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.
In claim 23, in “a first handle from a first side”, it is unclear in the context of the claim language what “side” is being referred to. Said of what element?
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.
Claims 23-29, 32, 33, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al., US Patent 8,141,400.
Regarding claim 23, Sorensen discloses essentially all of the invention as claimed, including a bolting mechanism comprising a bolt (see moveable latch bolt in the assembly of 168 as shown in the figures) movable between a thrown position and a retracted position (as conventional); a drive mechanism configured for retracting the bolt, the drive mechanism configured to be driven by what might broadly be considered a first handle 48 from a, as best understood, first side; a mechanical code lock having a key pad (including 62) for receiving an entry code (as conventional); and a first key actuated controller (including 42) configured to enable and disable the mechanical code lock such that when the mechanical code lock is enabled the mechanical code lock, on entry of a matching code to the key pad, enables actuation of the drive mechanism by the first handle (as conventional); a deadbolt mechanism comprising, at least broadly, a deadbolt (including element 112) arranged to prevent the bolt from being driven by the first handle when the deadbolt is in the locked state, the deadbolt mechanism comprising: an electrical actuator (including 74) configured to release the deadbolt from the locked state when a release signal is received from an electrical access control unit; wherein the drive mechanism is configured such that, when enabled by the mechanical code lock, and the deadbolt is released by the deadbolt mechanism, the first handle is released for driving the bolt to the retracted position.
Regarding claim 23, Sorensen doesn’t explicitly show “and a second key actuated controller configured to release the deadbolt from the locked state on actuation by a matching key”, but Sorensen does strongly suggest the concept of including a second key actuated controller in some form (see column 6, lines 20 – 24). Such an arrangement would have allowed for providing means for authorizing two sets of key holders through the entry way, such as personnel having different levels or time ranges of access privileges. It would have been obvious to have modified the design of Sorensen in the manner claimed and suggested within Sorensen, for the purpose of providing means for authorizing two sets of key holders through the entry way.
Regarding claims 24-29, 32, 33, and 38, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30, 31, and 35-37, as best understood, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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 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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675