DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 15 June 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s argument regarding manually manipulating the apparatus lacks any structural recitation that would distinguish over the reference of Haarhuis. Any mechanical device with a series of interacting elements is able to be manually manipulated to operate the device at some point in use of the device. Where the device merely needs to be annually manipulated, functionally, the device of Haarhuis is able to be manually manipulated. The argument is unpersuasive.
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 “emergency release is a threaded fastener” “emergency release is a thumb screw”, “the emergency release is a vibration resistant feature”, “emergency release has a torque limiting feature” “housing using one or more permanent magnets” 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 § 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, 9-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarhuis (EP3231970)].
Regarding claim 1, Haarhuis discloses a vehicle security lock comprising:
a) a lock assembly adapted to mount to an interior surface of a vehicle including:
i. a lock assembly housing (15), and
ii. a lock cylinder (12) that moves relative to the lock assembly housing;
b) one or more bolt assemblies (35,37,36,43) adapted to mount to the interior surface of the vehicle where each bolt assembly includes:
i. a bolt assembly housing (23),
ii. a bolt (31) which moves relative to the bolt assembly housing,
iii. a bolt assembly housing cover (33 end portion) which is affixable to the bolt assembly housing, and
iv. a bolt receiver (33) mounted to a separate interior surface of the vehicle;
c) one or more force transfer assemblies (21) which mechanically transfer force between the lock assembly and each of the one or more bolt assemblies;
wherein insertion of the lock cylinder (12) into the lock assembly provides force through the one or more force transfer assemblies to each of the one or more bolt assemblies and moves the bolt of each of the one or more bolt assemblies into a locked position (Fig. 3B) ;
wherein withdrawl from the lock assembly (12) relieves the force through the one or more force transfer assemblies to each of the one or more bolt assemblies and allows the bolt of each of the one or more bolt assemblies to move into an unlocked position (Fig.3A)
wherein each bolt assembly further includes a manually actuated emergency release configured to selectively disengage the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies independently of the lock cylinder, without mechanical breakage or permanent deformation of the bolt or force transfer assemblies, such that the vehicle security lock remains operable after disengagement.
Haarhuis does not explicitly discuss: each bolt assembly further includes a manually actuated emergency release configured to selectively disengage the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies independently of the lock cylinder, without mechanical breakage or permanent deformation of the bolt or force transfer assemblies, such that the vehicle security lock remains operable after disengagement.
Haarhuis shows a mechanical system with individual elements capable of being manually manipulated as a manually actuated emergency release configured to selectively disengage the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies independently of the lock cylinder, without mechanical breakage or permanent deformation of the bolt or force transfer assemblies, such that the vehicle security lock remains operable after disengagement. for the purpose of opening by alternate means while maintaining the device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Haarhuis with shows a mechanical system with individual elements capable of being manually manipulated as a manually actuated emergency release configured to selectively disengage the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies independently of the lock cylinder, without mechanical breakage or permanent deformation of the bolt or force transfer assemblies, such that the vehicle security lock remains operable after disengagement for the purpose of opening by alternate means while maintaining the device as taught by Haarhuis for the expected benefit of opening by alternate means while maintaining the device.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Haarhuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 1, wherein the lock assembly has a lock (40) which is affixed to the lock assembly housing (15) or the lock cylinder (12).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Haarhuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 1, wherein the lock assembly includes a spring (28), wherein the one or more bolt assemblies include a spring (29), or both.
Regarding claims 11, Haarhuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 1, wherein the one or more bolt assemblies include an auxiliary spring (29) which biases the bolt in a direction normal to a direction of travel between the unlocked position and the locked position (Fig.3A).
Regarding claims 12, Haarhuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 11, wherein the auxiliary spring (29) is compressed when the bolt is in the locked position before the separate interior surface is secured to the interior surface (Fig.3A).
Regarding claim 13, Haarhuis a process for locking doors of a vehicle comprising the steps of:
1) inserting a lock cylinder(12) into a lock assembly housing;
2) transferring force from a lock assembly to one or more bolt assemblies through a force transfer assembly (top portion Fig.3A where lock cylinder is located); and
3) a force moving a bolt into a locked position (Fig.3B).
Regarding claim 14, Haarhuis a security lock comprising:
a) a lock assembly adapted to mount to an interior surface including:
i. a lock assembly housing (15), and
ii. a lock cylinder (12) that moves relative to the lock assembly housing;
b) one or more bolt assemblies adapted to mount to the interior surface where each bolt assembly includes:
i. a bolt assembly housing (23),
ii. a bolt (31) which moves relative to the bolt assembly housing,
iii. a bolt assembly housing cover (33 end portion) which is affixable to the bolt assembly housing, and
iv. a bolt receiver (33) mounted to a separate interior surface;
c) one or more force transfer assemblies (21) which mechanically transfer force between the lock assembly and each of the one or more bolt assemblies;
wherein insertion of the lock cylinder(12) into the lock assembly provides force through the one or more force transfer assemblies to each of the one or more bolt assemblies and moves the bolt of each of the one or more bolt assemblies into a locked position(Fig. 3B);
wherein withdrawal of the lock cylinder from the lock assembly relieves the force through the one or more force transfer assemblies to each of the one or more bolt assemblies and allows the bolt of each of the one or more bolt assemblies to move into an unlocked position(Fig. 3A).
Regarding claims 20, Haarhuis discloses the security lock of Claim 14, wherein the one or more bolt assemblies include an auxiliary spring (29) which biases the bolt in a direction normal to a direction of travel between the unlocked position and the locked position (Fig.3A), and wherein the auxiliary spring (29) is compressed when the bolt is in the locked position before the separate interior surface is secured to the interior surface (Fig.3A).
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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haarhuis EP3231970 in view of Svci et al. (US 4,630,396).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Haahuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 1, wherein the bolt assembly housing cover includes a coating.
Haarhuis does not disclose: a fluorescent coating.
Svci et al. teaches a fluorescent coating for the purpose of enhancing visibility by painting a particularly visible color, for example blaze fluorescent orange, which will clearly contrast with the dark grey color of the surrounding members.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haarhuis with a fluorescent coating\ as taught by Svci et al. for the expected benefit of enhancing visibility by painting a particularly visible color, for example blaze fluorescent orange, which will clearly contrast with the dark grey color of the surrounding members.
Claim 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haarhuis EP3231970 in view of Lagassey et al. (US. 9,028,162).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Haahuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 1, wherein the one or more bolt assemblies (35,37,36,43).
Haarhuis does not disclose: the one or more bolt assemblies further include an emergency release which disengages the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies
Lagassey et al. teaches an emergency release (1; Lagassey et al.) which disengages the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies for the purpose of providing an emergency disengagement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haarhuis with an emergency release which disengages the bolt from the one or more force transfer assemblies as taught by Lagassey et al. for the expected benefit of providing an emergency disengagement.
Claim 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haarhuis EP3231970 in view of Lahulek (2017/0009502).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Haarhuis discloses the vehicle security lock of Claim 1, wherein the bolt assembly housing cover is affixable to the bolt assembly housing using one or more permanent magnets.
Haarhuis does not disclose: housing cover is affixable to the bolt assembly housing using one or more permanent magnets
Lahulek teaches housing cover is affixable to the bolt assembly housing using one or more permanent magnets for the purpose of covers of inspection chambers that use systems of magnets fixed on an anchoring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haarhuis with housing cover is affixable to the bolt assembly housing using one or more permanent magnets as taught by Lahulek for the expected benefit of covers of inspection chambers that use systems of magnets fixed on an anchoring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights