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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no antecedent basis for “a deformation portion of the tubular wall”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0057 “spring member 19” should be --spring member 18--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 3 of claim 6, “a tubular wall delimiting” should likely be --a tubular wall of the coupling member that delimits the receiving opening-- to clarify that the tubular wall is a component of the coupling member and not a separate element
in line 14 of claim 10, “the coupling member has a” should likely be --the contour is a-- for clarity that lines 14-15 further limit the same contour previously recited in lines 6-7 (Spec. ¶¶0023, 0052).
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 1-13 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 1 recites “the worm shaft is idling when the spring member that is compressed or extended into a bias position reaches one of the two end positions of the locking cylinder in the coupled or decoupled state.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the two end positions” and “the locking cylinder” recited in line 9 of claim 1.
There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the coupled or decoupled state” in the claim. The claim previously recites a contour of the worm shaft “configured to mechanically couple with a locking member.” For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the disclosure as: a coupled state being when the contour is coupled with the locking member and a decoupled state being when the contour is uncoupled with the locking member.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on claim 1 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the interior space" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 requires “a deformation portion of the tubular wall is warped into the interior space of the coupling member.” It is unclear if Applicant intends to claim a portion on the wall that is configured to be actively warped, or deformed, into the interior space upon application of a force, or if the wall is structured with an uneven portion that protrudes into the interior space. As best understood, the figures depict a protrusion on the tubular wall that extends into the receiving opening for securing the distal end portion of the spring member (Figs. 16-17) but it is not clear how a deformation portion is warped into the interior of the coupling member by securing the spring. The specification describes a deformation region (34) and blind hole (35) but does not refer to “a deformation portion” so it remains unclear what structure is being required in claim 6. For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted broadly as the coupling member comprises a tubular wall and the spring member is form-fittingly connected to the interior space of the coupling member by deforming a deformation region of the tubular wall that protrudes into the interior space.
Claim 7 is rejected for depending on claim 6 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the end face" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "one of the two end positions" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the coupled or decoupled state" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-13 are rejected for depending on claim 10 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, claim 10 recites “a cuboid protrusion arranged at the outer circumference” and claim 11 goes on to recite “a pair of cuboid protrusions at the outer circumference.” It is unclear if the pair of cuboid protrusions are intended to be in addition to the cuboid protrusion or an alternative to a cuboid protrusion. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the disclosure as the same structure, so that claim 10 requires at least one cuboid protrusion and claim 11 requires the at least one cuboid protrusion is a pair of cuboid protrusions.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong et al., US 2018/0258666 A1.
Claim 1: Wong discloses an electric locking unit comprising a coupling device (Fig. 3),
the coupling device comprising an electric motor (40), a spring member (60), and a coupling member (30),
the electric motor having a worm shaft (50) with a helical winding (54),
wherein the coupling member is mounted axially slidably in the direction of extension of the worm shaft (¶0037) and has a contour (34) configured to mechanically couple with a locking member (27; ¶0039), and
wherein the spring member is connected, at a distal end portion (68a), to the coupling member (¶0042) and, at an opposite proximal end portion (62), is axially slidably coupled with the worm shaft of the electric motor to convert a rotation of the worm shaft into a linear motion of the proximal end portion of the spring member (¶0042),
wherein the worm shaft is idling when the spring member that is compressed or extended into a bias position reaches one of the two end positions of the locking cylinder in the coupled or decoupled state (the worm shaft is idling when the spring member is compressed to a bias position, because the smaller diameter reaches the end of the helical winding, in this position the contour is coupled with the locking member (¶0045)),
wherein the proximal end portion of the spring member has a reduced diameter over at least one winding wrap over the worm shaft, such that the spring member is able to engage with the worm shaft via this at least one winding wrap (¶0042).
Claim 2: Wong discloses the electric locking unit according to claim 1, wherein the coupling member has a polygonal outer contour (depicted in Fig. 13).
Claim 3: Wong discloses the electric locking unit according to claim 1, wherein the coupling member has a cylindrical outer contour (depicted in Fig. 11), wherein a cuboid protrusion is arranged at the outer circumference (depicted in Fig. 11).
Claim 4: Wong discloses the electric locking unit according to claim 3, wherein a pair of cuboid protrusions at the outer circumference of the cylindrical outer contour of the coupling member protrude in opposite directions from one another from the outer circumference (depicted in Fig. 11).
Claim 8: Wong discloses the electric locking unit according to claim 1, wherein the spring member comprises a compression spring (Fig. 11 depicts a compression spring).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lien, US 2013/0305792 A1.
Claim 1: Lien discloses an electric locking unit comprising a coupling device (Fig. 3),
the coupling device comprising an electric motor (92), a spring member (94a), and a coupling member (97),
the electric motor having a worm shaft (931a) with a helical winding (9311),
wherein the coupling member is mounted axially slidably in the direction of extension of the worm shaft (Figs. 12-13) and has a contour (9721) configured to mechanically couple with a locking member (982; ¶0046), and
wherein the spring member is connected, at a distal end portion (942a), to the coupling member (¶0039) and, at an opposite proximal end portion (941a), is axially slidably coupled with the worm shaft of the electric motor to convert a rotation of the worm shaft into a linear motion of the proximal end portion of the spring member (¶0038; Figs. 12-13),
wherein the worm shaft is idling when the spring member that is compressed or extended into a bias position reaches one of the two end positions of the locking cylinder in the coupled or decoupled state (Claim 1; the worm shaft is idling when the spring member is not engaged with the helical winding, which is when the spring member reaches the end positions to couple or uncouple the locking member (¶0034)),
wherein the proximal end portion of the spring member has a reduced diameter over at least one winding wrap over the worm shaft, such that the spring member is able to engage with the worm shaft via this at least one winding wrap (¶0039 (“can be formed as a spiral configuration, where the diameter gradually increases from the end of the engagement part 941 to the abutment part 942a”)).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erpenbeck, GB 1559486 A.
Claim 5: Lien discloses the electric locking unit according to claim 1, wherein the coupling member comprises a spring retaining core (971) and a coupling element (973), wherein the coupling element comprises a receiving opening for receiving a spring retaining core that is installed in the receiving opening in a rotationally fixed manner (depicted in Figs. 11-12).
However, Lien is silent to wherein the spring retaining core comprises a support portion protruding towards the worm shaft and the distal end portion of the spring member encloses the support portion with at least two winding wraps and is frictionally connected to the support portion.
Erpenbeck teaches a spring retaining core (20) that comprises a support portion (21) protruding and a distal end portion of a spring member (41) encloses the support portion with at least two winding wraps (Fig. 4) and is frictionally connected to the support portion (p. 1 ln. 60-64; p. 3 ln. 80-104).
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 spring retaining core disclosed by Lien to include a spring retaining core comprises a support portion protruding and the distal end portion of the spring member encloses the support portion with at least two winding wraps and is frictionally connected to the support portion as taught by Erpenbeck, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce manufacturing time and labor by securing the spring member with a simple thrusting insertion (Erpenbeck p. 3 ln. 67-79). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the resulting support portion protrudes towards the worm shaft to attach the spring member on the wall of the spring retaining core (Lien Fig. 12).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mebius et al., DE 102009026176 A1.
Claim 9: Lien discloses the electric locking unit according to claim 1, wherein the electric locking unit is configured as a locking cylinder (¶0003, Fig. 1 illustrates a locking cylinder), comprising a cylinder cam (98; ¶0046), and wherein drive electronics (96) is connected to the coupling device or electronically coupling and decoupling the cylinder cam (¶0040).
Lien is silent to the locking cylinder comprising in particular a cylinder housing, a cylinder cam rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing, and a knob shaft rotatably mounted din the cylinder housing, wherein the coupling device is configured within the knob shaft for mechanically coupling the knob shaft with the cylinder cam.
Mebius teaches an electric locking unit configured as a locking cylinder (¶0001) comprising a cylinder housing (1), a cylinder cam (3) rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing (¶0016), and a knob shaft (5) rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing (¶0016),
wherein a coupling device is configured within the knob shaft (Fig. 5) for mechanically coupling the knob shaft with the cylinder cam (¶0029).
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 electric locking unit disclosed by Lien as a locking cylinder comprising a cylinder housing, a cylinder cam rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing, and a knob shaft rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing, wherein a coupling device is configured within the knob shaft for mechanically coupling the knob shaft with the cylinder cam as taught by Mebius, with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and expect, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, US 2013/0305792 A1, in view of Mebius et al., DE 102009026176 A1.
Claim 10: Lien discloses an electric locking unit embodied as a locking cylinder ((¶0003, Fig. 1 illustrates a locking cylinder) comprising and a coupling device (Fig. 10),
wherein the coupling device is configured to mechanically couple the cylinder cam (¶0046) and comprises an electric motor (92) having a worm shaft (931a) with a helical winding (9311), a spring member (94a), and a coupling member (97),
wherein the coupling member is mounted axially slidably in the direction of extension of the worm shaft (Figs. 12-13) and has a contour (9721) configured to mechanically couple with a locking member (982; ¶0046), and
wherein the spring member is connected, at a distal end portion (942a), to the coupling member (¶0039) and, at an opposite proximal end portion (941a), is axially slidably coupled with the worm shaft of the electric motor to convert a rotation of the worm shaft into a linear motion of the proximal end portion of the spring member (¶0038; Figs. 12-13),
wherein the worm shaft is idling when the spring member that is compressed or extended into a bias position reaches one of the two end positions of the locking cylinder in the coupled or decoupled state (Claim 1; the worm shaft is idling when the spring member is not engaged with the helical winding, which is when the spring member reaches the end positions putting the locking cylinder in a coupled or uncoupled state (¶0034)),
wherein the coupling member has a polygonal outer contour (9721) or a cylindrical outer contour with a cuboid protrusion arranged at the outer circumference (Fig. 11, annotated below).
However, Lien is silent to the locking cylinder comprising in particular a cylinder housing, a cylinder cam rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing, and a knob shaft rotatably mounted din the cylinder housing, wherein the coupling device is disposed within the knob shaft and configured to mechanically couple the knob shaft with the cylinder cam.
Mebius teaches a locking cylinder (¶0001) comprising a cylinder housing (1), a cylinder cam (3) rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing (¶0016), and a knob shaft (5) rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing (¶0016),
wherein a coupling device is disposed within the knob shaft (Fig. 5) for mechanically coupling the knob shaft with the cylinder cam (¶0029).
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 electric locking unit disclosed by Lien as a locking cylinder comprising a cylinder housing, a cylinder cam rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing, and a knob shaft rotatably mounted in the cylinder housing, wherein a coupling device is disposed within the knob shaft for mechanically coupling the knob shaft with the cylinder cam as taught by Mebius, with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and expect, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Lien, in view of Mebius, teaches the electronic locking unit according to claim 10, wherein a pair of cuboid protrusions at the outer circumference of the cylinder outer contour of the coupling member protrude in opposite directions from one another from the outer circumference (depicted by Lien Fig. 11, annotated above).
Claim 13: Lien, in view of Mebius, teaches the electric locking unit according to claim 10, wherein drive electronics (Lien 96) is connected to the electric motor and configured to electronically couple and decouple the coupling member (Lien ¶0040; Lien ¶0046).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, in view of Mebius, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Padilla et al., US 2008/0072636 A1.
Claim 12: Lien, in view of Mebius, teaches the electric locking unit according to claim 10, but is silent to a drilling protection member disposed in the knob shaft on the side of the electric motor opposing the shaft.
Padilla teaches a drilling protection member (12) disposed in a knob shaft (1) on a side of an electric motor opposing the shaft (Fig. 1). 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 electronic locking unit taught by Lien, in view of Mebius, to further include a drilling protection member disposed in the knob shaft on the side of the electric motor opposing the shaft, as taught by Padilla, to improve security by preventing drilling and tampering of the locking unit (Padilla ¶0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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 6-7.
In regards to claim 6, as interpreted under 112(b) above, Lien teaches the coupling member comprises a receiving opening for receiving the distal end portion of the spring member, and a tubular wall delimits the receiving opening, but fails to disclose the coupling member comprises at least one deformation region, where a deformation portion of a tubular wall is warped into the interior space of the coupling member and the distal end portion of the spring member received in the receiving opening is form-fittingly connected to the coupling member by means of the deformation region protruding into the interior space of the coupling member. The examiner can find no motivation to modify coupling member disclosed by Lien to have at least one deformation region, where a deformation portion of a tubular wall warped into the interior space of the coupling member and the distal end portion of the spring member received in the receiving opening is form-fittingly connected to the coupling member without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
In regards to claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 6 from which the claim depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0218704 A1 is related to an electric locking unit comprising a motor, a spring, and a coupling member to couple a knob
US 2023/0332433 A1 is related to an electric locking unit comprising a motor, a spring, and a coupling member that moves along the worm shaft axis to move a clutch that engages a cam.
US 2016/0251876 A1 is related to an electric lock cylinder comprising a motor, a spring, and a coupling member in a knob shaft.
US 2012/0198897 A1 is related to an electric locking unit comprising a spring with a reduced diameter to engage a worm shaft threads and an end connected to a coupling member.
US 2010/0122561 A1 is related to an electric locking unit comprising a motor, a spring with a reduced diameter to engage the worm shaft, and a coupling member for coupling a knob shaft and latch.
US 2014/0041422 A1 is related to a spring engaged with a helical winding and an end engaged with an opening in a coupling member.
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