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 § 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.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschoff et al., EP 3045622 A1, in view of Talpe, EP 4159962 A1.
Claim 15: Hirschoff discloses a morticed bolt keep configured to cooperate with a lock having a latch bolt (21) which is slidable between a retracted position and an extended position (Figs. 1-2), the morticed bolt keep comprising:
an elongated body (16) extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1); and
a cavity inside the elongated body and configured to receive the latch bolt in its extended position (depicted in Fig. 1; ¶ 0054),
wherein the morticed bolt keep further comprises:
a latch bolt engager (12) mounted inside the elongated body which is displaceable between a rest state (Fig. 1) and an actuated state (Fig. 2);
a magnetic actuator (13 and 17 form a magnetic actuator; “electric linear motor” is a kind of magnetic actuator) mounted inside the elongated body (Fig. 1 depicts the cam slide 17 and spindle 133 of the magnetic actuator are mounted inside the elongated body) and configured to displace the latch bolt engager from its rest state to its actuated state upon activation (¶ 0057); and
an electromagnet (141) mounted inside the elongated body (Fig. 1) and a magnetic catch (142) fixed to the magnetic actuator (¶ 0056), the electromagnet being configured to temporarily attract the magnetic catch to maintain the latch bolt engager in its actuated state (¶¶ 0056, 0059).
Hirschoff is silent to the elongated body being configured, in particular, to be positioned inside a hollow tubular member which extends in the longitudinal direction. However, it is well known in the art to provide a morticed bolt keep inside a hollow tubular member which extends in the longitudinal direction, as described in the present application (Spec. ¶ 0003). Talpe teaches it is known in the art to provide a hollow tubular member (9) which extends in a longitudinal direction (¶ 0035; Figs. 8A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the elongated body to be positioned inside a hollow tubular member which extends in the longitudinal direction to utilize the morticed bolt keep in outdoor applications such as with a double wing gate, as suggested by Talpe. The present application acknowledges that such hollow tubular members are common in outdoor applications (Spec. ¶ 0007).
Claim 18: Hirschoff, in view of Talpe, teaches a morticed bolt keep according to claim 15 (see above).
Talpe further discloses a closure system comprising a closure wing (wing 2 corresponds to a closure wing) and a support (wing 3 corresponds to a support; wing 3 is structured to support wing 2), the closure wing being provided with a lock having a latch bolt which is slidable between a retracted position and an extended position (Fig. 3), the support extending in a longitudinal direction and comprising a hollow tubular member (Figs. 8A-B), wherein the closure system further comprises a morticed bolt keep mounted in the hollow tubular member (Figs. 8A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the morticed bolt keep taught by Hirschoff, as modified by Talpe, with a closure system comprising a closure wing and a support, as taught by Talpe, with a reasonable expectation of success. The present application acknowledges that such hollow tubular members are common in outdoor applications (Spec. ¶ 0007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the morticed bolt keep taught by Hirschoff, as modified by Talpe, and corresponding lock, to provide remote access control by automatically locking or unlocking of the closure wing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 17 allowed.
Claim 16 is 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: 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 1-14 and 16-17.
In regards to claim 1, Hirschoff fails to disclose a magnetic actuator comprising a frame with a first mounting space and a second mounting space, and a core that comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet, oriented to repel one another. The examiner can find no motivation to modify morticed bolt keep disclosed by Hirschoff to include a frame with a first mounting space and a second mounting space, and a core that comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet, oriented to repel one another as claimed without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
In regards to claims 2-3, 7-14, and 17, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 1 from which the claims depend.
Regarding claim 4, Hirschoff fails to disclose a magnetic actuator comprising a frame with a first mounting space and a second mounting space, and a core that comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet, oriented with their magnetic axis perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and to attract one another. The examiner can find no motivation to modify morticed bolt keep disclosed by Hirschoff to include a frame with a first mounting space and a second mounting space, and a core that comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet, oriented to attract one another as claimed without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
In regards to claim 5, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 4 from which the claim depends.
Regarding claim 6, Hirschoff fails to disclose a coil assembly comprising a core which extends in the longitudinal direction and comprises a permanent magnet which has a north pole and a south pole with a magnetic axis parallel to the longitudinal direction; and a coil assembly which extends in the longitudinal direction and comprises a first coil and a second coil separated from one another in the longitudinal direction, the first coil being disposed at least around the north pole and the second coil being disposed at least around the south pole, the coils having an opposite magnetic polarity. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the morticed bolt keep disclosed by Hirschoff to include a coil assembly comprising a first coil disposed around a north pole of a magnet and a second coil disposed around the south pole, the coils having an opposite magnetic polarity without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Regarding claim 16, Hirschoff, in view of Talpe, discloses the morticed bolt keep according to claim 15, but is silent to the magnetic actuator being configured to be turned off once the electromagnet has been activated. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the magnetic actuator to be turned off as soon as the electromagnet has been activated without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson (US 508518 A) is related to a bolt keep comprising two coils coupled to a latch bolt engager.
Gell (US 2021/0388640 A1) is related to a bolt keep comprising a permanent magnet connected to a latch bolt engager that is moved by a coil assembly generating a magnetic field, but does not disclose a coil disposed around a frame or a permanent magnet.
Sagaert (BE 1025390 A1) is related to a bolt keep comprising a permanent magnet for moving a latch bolt.
Geringer (US 3751086 A) is related to a device configured to cooperate with a lock tongue and comprising two permanent magnets arranged to repel each other, and a solenoid assembly, but does not disclose a frame or a second coil.
Millar (US 4132439 A) is related to an assembly comprising two coils around a core having a permanent magnet, but discloses the magnetic actuator for moving a bolt and does not disclose a latch bolt engager.
Odabas (WO 2021/211071 A1) is related to a morticed bolt keep comprising a coil disposed around a core with a magnet but does not disclose a frame comprising a first mounting space with a first permanent magnet and a second mounting space with a second permanent magnet.
Baechle (DE 102004030362 A1) is related to a bolt keep comprising a coil around a magnetic sleeve, but does not disclose a latch bolt engager and a cavity inside an elongated body to receive a latch bolt.
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