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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (Hudspeth; US 6,035,676).
For claim 1, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-5, a lock assembly for enabling a smart locking engagement between a barrier (14) and an associated barrier frame (12) at any point along the barrier frame, the locking assembly comprising:
a moving receiver (26) configured to attached to said barrier (14) at an attachment point; and
a barrier interface (includes the structure that carries the system 10 and the bolt 22) configured to attach to the barrier frame (12) to removably retain a smart lock that operatively associates with a lock mechanism (components of system 10) moveable between the barrier interface and the moving receiver (26) forming a locked engagement (Engagement of 22 and 26 defines a locked engagement.)
For claim 2, D1 discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, further comprising wherein the barrier interface is a mounting plate (Boundary of 10 defines mounting plate, Figure 1. 70 in Figure 3.)
For claim 4, D1 discloses the lock assembly of claim 3, wherein the barrier is a commercial door (D1 discloses lock assembly for a door 14 and the lock assembly can be used with a commercial door. It is an intended use. MPEP 2114.)
For claim 5, D1 discloses the lock assembly of claim 3, wherein the barrier is a window (D1 discloses a lock assembly for a door 14 and the lock assembly can be used with a window. It is an intended use. MPEP 2114.)
9. For claim 6, D1 discloses the lock assembly of claim 3, wherein the barrier is a drawer (D1 discloses a lock assembly for a door 14 and the lock assembly can be used with a drawer. It is an intended use. MPEP 2114.)
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(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Hudspeth; US 6,035,676) alone.
For claim 3, D1 discloses the lock assembly of claim 1, wherein the attachment point is at least one foot from a handle of the barrier (D1 shows a distance between the knob 16 and attachment point of 26.)
D1 discloses the claimed invention except for the attachment point is at least one foot from a handle of the barrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the attachment point is at least one foot from a handle of the barrier, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One skill in the art would realize that having at least one foot distance between the attachment point and the handle (knob) would facilitate ease of operation for the intended environment.
For claim 7, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-5, a method of locating a locking mechanism from a barrier away from a handle of the barrier, the method comprising:
attaching a barrier interface (includes the structure that carries the system 10 and the bolt 22) of the lock assembly of claim 1 to a barrier frame (12) of the barrier (14) at an attachment point at least one foot away from the handle of the barrier (D1 shows a distance between the knob 16 and attachment point of 26, except for the attachment point is at least one foot from a handle of the barrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the attachment point is at least one foot from a handle of the barrier, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One skill in the art would realize that having at least one foot distance between the attachment point and the handle (knob) would facilitate ease of operation for the intended environment.);
attaching the lock moving receiver (26) to the barrier (14) adjacent to the barrier interface (Figure 1); and
moving a lock mechanism of the lock assembly of claim 1 to the locked engagement (Engagement of 22 and 26 defines a locked engagement. Figure 1.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Hudspeth; US 6,035,676) in view of D2 (King et al., US Pub. App. 2022-0403680).
For claim 8, D1 discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising removably attaching a smart lock to the barrier interface (Figure 1) so that the locked engagement is formed via activation of the smart lock by a registered smart device.
D2 teaches a smart lock that can be operated by a smart phone (Para. [0007, 0051]) providing a user friendly and easy access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 so that the locked engagement is formed via activation of the smart lock by a registered smart device, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a user friendly and easy method of operating the lock system.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Varney (US 8,397,546); Duffy (US 6,629,713); and Bills (US 4,254,582).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675