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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12196002 B2 (hereinafter US12196002). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent, US12196002, are compared in the table below and the write-up following the table. The table is structured with instant application and US12196002 claim limitations matched across the table columns. The differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ and italicizing additional limitations.
19/016,897
US12196002
Claim 1. Apparatus comprising:
a latch including:
a housing,
a jaw, wherein the jaw
includes a notch configured to engage a striker,
is movably mounted in operative connection with the housing,
and is movable between
a latched position in which the jaw is operative to hold the striker in engagement with the latch, and
an unlatched position in which the striker is disengageable from the latch,
a pawl, wherein the pawl
is rotatably movably mounted in operative connection with the housing,
is rotatable about a pawl pivot,
includes a first arm portion and a second arm portion, wherein each of the first arm portion and the second arm portion extend radially outward away from the pawl pivot,
wherein the first arm portion terminates away from the pawl pivot at a radially outward end, and wherein the first arm portion is angularly disposed from the second arm portion,
wherein the second arm portion includes an actuating end, wherein the actuating end is radially disposed from the pawl pivot and is accessible from outside the housing,
wherein the pawl is rotatably movable between
an engaged position in which the radially outward end of the first arm portion is in operatively engaged relation with the jaw, and
is operative to hold the jaw in the latched position,
a disengaged position in which the radially outward end of the first arm portion enables the jaw to move from the latched position to the unlatched position,
an electrically operated actuator, wherein the actuator
extends in the housing,
includes a motor, wherein the motor
is in operative engagement with the first arm portion radially intermediate of the pawl pivot and the radially outward end, and
is selectively operative to cause the pawl to move from the engaged position to the disengaged position, whereby the jaw is enabled to move from the latched position to the unlatched position,
wherein the actuating end is selectively movable to cause the pawl to move from the engaged position to the disengaged position independent of operation of the motor, whereby the jaw is enabled to move from the latched position to the unlatched position responsive to actuating end movement.
Claim 1. Apparatus comprising:
a latch including:
a housing,
a jaw, wherein the jaw
includes a notch configured to engage a striker,
is movably mounted in operative connection with the housing,
and is movable between
a latched position in which the jaw is operative to hold the striker in engagement with the latch, and
an unlatched position in which the striker is disengageable from the latch,
a pawl, wherein the pawl
is rotatably movably mounted in operative connection with the housing,
is rotatable about a pawl pivot,
includes a first arm portion and a second arm portion, wherein each of the first arm portion and the second arm portion extend radially away from the pawl pivot,
wherein radially furthest away from the pawl pivot the first arm portion includes a distal end, and wherein the first arm portion is angularly disposed from the second arm portion,
wherein the second arm portion includes an actuating end, wherein the actuating end is radially disposed from the pawl pivot and is accessible from outside the housing,
wherein the pawl is rotatably movable between
an engaged position in which the distal end of the first arm portion is in operatively engaged relation with the jaw, and
is operative to hold the jaw in the latched position,
a disengaged position in which the distal end of the first arm portion enables the jaw to move from the latched position to the unlatched position,
an electrically operated actuator, wherein the actuator
extends in the housing,
is in operative engagement with the first arm portion radially intermediate of the pawl pivot and the distal end,
wherein the actuator is selectively operative to cause the pawl to move from the engaged position to the disengaged position, whereby the jaw is enabled to move from the latched position to the unlatched position responsive to the actuator,
wherein the actuating end is selectively movable to cause the pawl to move from the engaged position to the disengaged position independent of operation of the actuator, whereby the jaw is enabled to move from the latched position to the unlatched position responsive to actuating end movement.
Regarding claim 1, US12196002 recites all the limitations:
The first arm portion of the pawl of 19/016,897 terminates away from the pawl pivot at a radially outward end which is descriptive of the distal end of the first arm portion of US12196002 recites which is located radially furthest away from the pawl pivot.
The electric actuator of 19/016,897 includes a motor engaged with the pawl whereas it is the electric actuator of US12196002 which is engaged with the pawl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a motor and an electric actuator are not patentably distinct from each other because a motor is equivalent to an electric actuator.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiner et al., US 8516864 B2 (hereinafter Greiner), in view of Lanigan et al., US 20040155477 A1 (hereinafter Lanigan), Liu et al., CN 109441253 A (hereinafter Liu), and Horgan et al., US 10629038 B2 (hereinafter Horgan).
Regarding claim 21, Greiner teaches an apparatus (Fig 5) comprising:
a latch controller (circuit board 435; col 10, lines 1-25 discusses 435 controlling the latch), wherein the latch controller includes circuitry (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that 435 would include circuitry), wherein the circuitry includes at least one data store, wherein the at least one data store includes circuit executable instructions and stored identifying data (col 10, lines 1-25 discusses 435 connected to a database of access codes to operate the apparatus), at least one wireless receiver (col 3, line 57-col 4, lines 6 discusses the latch containing a RF receiver) ,
wherein the latch controller is configured to be in operative connection with a latch (latch 110), a mobile wireless device (remote device 200; col 3, line 57-col 4, lines 6 discusses user-controlled RF remote control signal device), wherein the latch includes a housing (latch housing 400),
a jaw (latch hook 115), wherein the jaw is movably mounted in operative connection with the housing (movement between Fig 8 and Fig 9 depicts 115 movably mounted on 400),wherein the jaw is movable between a latched position (Fig 9) and an unlatched position (Fig 8), wherein in the latched position the jaw is configured to hold a striker (strike 120) in engagement with the jaw (Fig 9), wherein the striker is configured to be in operative connection with a closure member (col 1, lines 22-28 and col 3, lines 3-7 discuss latches being used to secure cabinets and drawers such that 120 would be mounted on a drawer closure member being secured to a cabinet housing) which is held in a closed position with the jaw in the latched position, and wherein in the unlatched position the striker is disengageable from the jaw (Fig 8), whereby the striker is movable away from the housing and the closure member is released to move from the closed position (Fig 8 depicts 120 moved away from 400 and the closure member moved from the closed position),
a motor (solenoid 440) with shaft (plunger 445), wherein the motor is in operative connection with the jaw (col 10, lines 26-43 discusses 440 operating latch 110), wherein the motor shaft is movable in a first direction and in a second direction to operatively enable the jaw to be movable from the latched position to the unlatched position(col 10, lines 26-43),
wherein the mobile wireless device is selectively operative to provide at least one wireless unlatch signal (col 4, lines 33-59), wherein the at least one wireless unlatch signal is receivable by the at least one wireless receiver ,wherein the at least one wireless unlatch signal includes identifying data, and at least one unlock instruction (col 3, line 57-col 4, line 6 discusses the identifying data to be authorizing via access codes in order to send operating control signals),
wherein the latch controller is operative to cause a) a determination that the jaw is in the latched position (col 3, lines 18-38, col 4, lines 33-59 discuss 110 being placed in either the locked or unlocked position; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that 435 was able to determine what state 110 was in so that it could perform the opposite operation), b) a determination that the identifying data included in the at least one wireless unlatch signal received through operation of the at least one wireless transceiver and the stored identifying data have a predetermined relationship (col 10, line 1-25), c) responsive at least in part to the determination in (a), the determination in (b) and the at least one unlock instruction included in the at least one wireless unlatch signal, the motor to extend in the first direction, wherein the jaw is movable from the latched position to the unlatched position (col 10, line 1-25), d) subsequent to (c), responsive at least in part to the circuit executable instructions, the motor to cease movement in the first direction (col 10, line 26-42).
Greiner does not teach at least one wireless transceiver; at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor is in operative connection with at least one of the jaw and the closure member, wherein the at least one sensor is operative to detect at least one condition indicative that the jaw is in the latched position; a motor, wherein the motor is rotatable in a first rotational direction, and in a second rotational direction opposed of the first rotational direction ,wherein rotation of the motor in the first rotational direction is operative to enable the jaw to be movable from the latched position to the unlatched position
Horgan teaches it is known in the art for access control systems to comprise communication interfaces conducting data communications where transmitters, receivers and transceivers are considered equivalent wireless communication interfaces such that Horgan teaches wherein the at least one wireless unlatch signal is receivable by the at least one wireless transceiver.
Liu teaches it is known in the art for an electronic cabinet lock (Fig 1) to comprise a jaw (lock body 2) which engages a strike on a closure member (opening/closing member of the cabinet [0002]) further comprising main control board [0034] electrically connected with at least one sensor (first micro switch 9 which is a device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impulse thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 for sensor and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), the sensor in operative connection with the jaw (Fig 1) and is activated when the jaw is rotated to the locked position [0034] such that Liu teaches wherein the at least one sensor is in operative connection with at least one of the jaw and the closure member, wherein the at least one sensor is operative to detect at least one condition indicative that the jaw is in the latched position; wherein the latch controller is operative to cause a) responsive at least in part to the at least one sensor, a determination that the jaw is in the latched position.
Lanigan teaches it is known in the art for security locking systems to comprise a jaw (latch 30), movably mounted in operative connection to a housing (housing 32) between a latched position (Fig 1) and an unlatched position (Fig 7), the jaw engages with a striker (latch receiving device 22), a motor (motor 47) controlled by a latch controller (ECU 100; [0068]) comprising circuitry ([0065-0066] discusses wiring and controllers which constitute circuitry) with jaw position sensors (optical sensor 64, [0070]) and mobile wireless communications capability [0071], wherein the motor is rotatable in a first rotational direction, and in a second rotational direction opposed of the first rotational direction [0042],wherein rotation of the motor in the first rotational direction is operative to enable the jaw to be movable from the latched position to the unlatched position [0054-0055]; and in response to at least one unlock instruction included in the at least one wireless unlatch signal, the motor rotates in the first rotational direction, wherein the jaw is movable from the latched position to the unlatched position [0071]; responsive at least in part to the circuit executable instructions, the motor to cease rotation in the first rotational direction ([0069] discusses 100 starting and stopping motor operation0.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(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 (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Greiner’s communications receiver structure with the communications transceiver structure of Horgan. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to communicate. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to communicate (e.g. transmitter, receiver, transceiver). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace a receiver with a transceiver in order to expand communication capabilities to support further automation and access control functionality to support customer demands. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Horgan, and redesigned Greiner with the transceiver of Horgan with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of communication structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Greiner’s latch apparatus with the sensor of Liu. 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 would have been motivated to add a sensor to the latch apparatus in order to expand automation and access control functionality to support customer demands. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch apparatus with sensing capabilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute Greiner’s solenoid with linear output movement with rotating motor with linear output movement of Lanigan. The prior art contains a latch apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of components (the solenoid and jaw extending and retracting plunger of Greiner) with other components (the rotating motor with latch extending and retracting structure of Lanigan). It is known in the art to use both solenoids and motors to move latch jaws and bolts. Lanigan teaches are motors are known in the art to be more efficient that solenoids [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace a solenoid with a motor in order to optimize apparatus performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a latch apparatus with a rotating motor moving a latch jaw that is configured to function in the same manner as the la tch apparatus with a solenoid moving a latch jaw disclosed by Greiner.
Regarding claim 22, Greiner in view of Horgan, Liu, and Lanigan teaches the apparatus according to claim 21 wherein
the circuitry (Greiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that 435 would include circuitry), further includes a wired connector interface (Greiner, col 4, lines 7-32 discuss hardwired connections which would constitute a wired connector interface),
wherein the latch controller (Greiner, 435) is configured to be in operative connection with at least one switch (Greiner, lock button 210; unlock button 220), wherein the at least one switch is operable responsive to a manual actuation of an input device (Greiner, keypad 230), wherein the at least one switch is selectively operative to provide a wire delivered electrical unlatch signal responsive at least in part to actuation of the input device, wherein the wire delivered electrical unlatch signal is receivable by the wired connector interface (Greiner, col 10, lines 1-25 discusses 435 receiving a control signal from 200 and operating the Lanigan, 47 to unlock Greiner, 110 via control wire 442) ,
wherein the latch controller is further operative to cause e) responsive at least in part to the determination in (a) (Liu, 9 determination of latched jaw; [0034]) and receipt through the wired connector interface of the wire delivered electrical unlatch signal (Greiner, col 10, lines 26-42), the motor to rotate in the first rotational direction (Lanigan, 47; [0042]), wherein the jaw (Greiner, 115) is movable from the latched position to the unlatched position (Greiner, see movement between Fig 9 to Fig 8), wherein in (d), the circuit executable instructions are operative to cause the motor to cease rotation in the first rotational direction subsequent to either (b) or (c) (Greiner, col 10, lines 26-42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection of claim 1 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, while Garneau teaches a latch apparatus with a housing, a jaw with a notch, a pawl with two arm portions extending radially from a pivot, the first arm engaged with an actuator and the second arm extending outside the housing, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Garneau as claimed in the instant application wherein the to have the pawl first arm portion terminates away from the pawl pivot at a radially outward end, wherein the engaged pawl position, the radially outward end of the first arm portion is in operatively engaged relation with the jaw, and is operative to hold in the jaw in the latch position; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the reference.
Regarding claims 2-20, they would be allowable because they pend from claim 1.
Claims 23 and 24 are 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.
Regarding claim 23, while Garneau teaches a latch apparatus with a housing, a jaw with a notch, a pawl with two arm portions extending radially from a pivot, the first arm engaged with an actuator and the second arm extending outside the housing, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Garneau as claimed in the instant application wherein the first arm portion terminates radially away from the pawl pivot at an outward end, and wherein the first arm portion is angularly disposed from the second arm portion, wherein the pawl is rotatable between an engaged position in which the outward end of the first arm portion is in operatively engaged relation with the jaw, and is operative to hold the jaw in the latched position; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the reference.
Regarding claim 24, it would be allowable because it pends from claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for latch apparatus.
Schupp et al., US 20050218663 A1, teaches side door latch pawl function augmentation with a latch, a pawl, and a latch controller engaged with a motor and sensors.
Garneau et al., US 20090235767 A1, teaches a rotary pawl latch with a latch controller engaged with a motor and sensor.
Bliding et al., US 8222993 B2, teaches a lock actuating device for a lock mechanism of a lock and a method of providing wireless control of a lock.
Kaczmarz et al., US 8742889 B2, teaches an apparatus and method for electronic access control with a latch and a latch controller engaged with a motor and sensors.
Cafferty, US 5613716 A, teaches an electronic vehicle door unlatch control with a latch, a pawl, and a latch controller engaged with a motor and switch.3
Kanteti et al, US 11250654 B2, teaches an access control system with sensor.
KR 970001810 A teaches a hood lock device of a car with a rotating motor driving a cam that linearly moves a locking bar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 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 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675