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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/25/2025, and 6/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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) 9, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chai (CN116599198A).
Chai discloses:
In regard to claim 9:
A method of operation of an electronic lock (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12), the method comprising: determining, at the electronic lock (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12), a chemistry of a battery pack of the electronic lock (Figs. 1-4 and Par. [0030-0031] i.e. “detecting battery state information and electric quantity) based on a sensed signal associated with the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Par. [0030-0031]); and selecting an operating mode of the electronic lock from among a plurality of operating modes based on the chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0032-0039] i.e. a plurality of power supply modes), wherein each of the plurality of operating modes is associated with a battery pack chemistry (Figs. 1-4 and Par. [0039] i.e. corresponding to different battery electric quantity values).
In regard to claim 13:
The method of claim 9, further comprising: entering a low-power mode in response to a remaining power of the battery pack falling below a threshold, wherein operation of the electronic lock in the low-power mode is based on the chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0054-0056] i.e. when the power supply of the first battery and the second battery is insufficient, a low battery warning message is actively sent to a user, to prompt the user to supply emergency power or replace the battery).
In regard to claim 16:
The method of claim 9, wherein determining the chemistry of the battery pack includes: measuring a voltage of the battery pack; and comparing the measured voltage to one or more thresholds (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0033-0034] i.e. determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information)
.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (CN116599198A) in view of Learmonth et al. (US 2021/0193979).
In regard to claim 1:
Chai discloses an electronic lock (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12) comprising: at least one processor (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12); and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12), the memory storing instructions (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12) which, when executed, cause the electronic lock to: determine a chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Par. [0030-0031] i.e. “detecting battery state information and electric quantity); and select an operating mode from among a plurality of operating modes based on the chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0032-0039] i.e. a plurality of power supply modes), wherein each of the plurality of operating modes is associated with a battery pack chemistry (Figs. 1-4 and Par. [0039] i.e. corresponding to different battery electric quantity values).
However Chai does not explicitly disclose an interior assembly including: one or more electrical pins configured to electrically connect the electronic lock to a battery pack.
Learmonth teaches an electronic lock (Figs. 1C-1E Item 100) with a retrofit battery module (Figs. 1C-1E Item 120) including a first side of a door (Figs. 1C-1E Items 122 and 120) including a connection port (Figs. 1C-1E Item 146) that is installed in an interior cavity (Figs. 1C-1E Item 140) located on the first side (Figs. 1C-1E Item 122) and connected electronically to a connector (Figs. 1C-1E Item 230) of a battery module (Figs. 1C-1E Item 250) as well as electronic battery contacts (Figs. 1C-1E and 3B Item 254 & Par. [0055] i.e. contact pins).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the known battery module of Learmonth with the known intelligent door lock system of Chai as doing so would have yielded the obvious result of improving the ease of installation (Learmonth: Par. [0027]).
In regard to claim 2:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 1, further comprising: a latch assembly including a bolt movable between an extended position and a retracted position (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 114 i.e. latch); and a motor configured to move the bolt between the extended position and the retracted position, wherein operation of the motor is based on the selected operating mode (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 114 and Pars. [0003], and [0025] i.e. actuators, motors and solenoids used to move lock).
In regard to claim 3:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 2, wherein an amount of power supplied to the motor to move the bolt between the extended position and the retracted position (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 114 and Pars. [0003], and [0025] i.e. actuators, motors and solenoids used to move lock) is based on the selected operating mode (Chai Pars. [0031], and [0038-0039]) .
In regard to claim 4:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 2, wherein a pulse-width modulation of the motor is based on the selected operating mode, and wherein a first operating mode from among the plurality of operating modes uses a different pulse width as compared to a second operating mode from among the plurality of operating modes (Chai: Pars. [0031-0040] i.e. the first battery and the second battery may have identical or different specifications and capacities, wherein a method for operating the door lock includes: determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information; determining the target power supply mode matched with the battery power information; and controlling the target battery or the standby battery to supply power to the door lock according to the target power mode).
In regard to claim 5:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 1, wherein the memory (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12) further stores instructions which, when executed, cause the electronic lock to: enter a low-power mode in response to a remaining power of the battery pack falling below a threshold, wherein operation of the electronic lock in the low-power mode is based on the chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0054-0056] i.e. when the power supply of the first battery and the second battery is insufficient, a low battery warning message is actively sent to a user, to prompt the user to supply emergency power or replace the battery).
In regard to claim 6:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 1, wherein to determine the chemistry of the battery pack (Chai: Pars. [0033] i.e. determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information) includes to: send a signal from the processor to the battery pack through at least one of the one or more electrical pins (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 146); and determine the chemistry of the battery pack based on whether a response is received at the processor through the at least one of the one or more electrical pins (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Items 146, 230, and 250 and Pars. [0037], [0039] and [0044]).
In regard to claim 8:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 1, wherein to determine the chemistry of the battery pack includes to: measure a voltage of the battery pack; and compare the measured voltage to one or more thresholds (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0033-0034] i.e. determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (CN116599198A) in view of Learmonth et al. (US 2021/0193979).
In regard to claim 10:
Chai discloses the method of claim 9 of operating an electronic lock.
However, Chai does not explicitly disclose operating a motor of the electronic lock to move a bolt between an extended position and a retracted position based on the selected operating mode.
Learmonth teaches an electronic lock (Figs. 1C-1E Item 100) and a motor configured to move the bolt between the extended position and the retracted position, wherein operation of the motor is based on the selected operating mode (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 114 and Pars. [0003], and [0025] i.e. actuators, motors and solenoids used to move lock).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the known battery module of Learmonth with the known intelligent door lock system of Chai as doing so would have yielded the obvious result of improving the ease of use (Learmonth: ABS and Par. [0027]).
In regard to claim 11:
Modified Chai further teaches the method of claim 10, wherein an amount of power supplied to the motor to move the bolt between the extended position and the retracted position (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 114 and Pars. [0003], and [0025] i.e. actuators, motors and solenoids used to move lock)
is selected based on the selected operating mode (Chai Pars. [0031], and [0038-0039]), and wherein a first operating mode from among the plurality of 2 operating modes uses a first amount of power and a second operating mode from among the plurality of operating modes uses a second amount of power different from the first amount of power (Chai: Pars. [0031-0040] i.e. the first battery and the second battery may have identical or different specifications and capacities, wherein a method for operating the door lock includes: determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information; determining the target power supply mode matched with the battery power information; and controlling the target battery or the standby battery to supply power to the door lock according to the target power mode), the first operating mode and the second operating mode being selected based on detection of different chemistries of a battery pack (Chai: Pars. [0033] i.e. determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information).
In regard to claim 12:
Modified Chai further teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: based on one or more historical operation events at the electronic lock, generating an alert recommending to switch to a different battery pack having a different chemistry, the different battery pack having a higher energy capacity than the battery pack used at the electronic lock during at least some of the historical operation events (Chai: Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0054-0056] i.e. when the power supply of the first battery and the second battery is insufficient, a low battery warning message is actively sent to a user, to prompt the user to supply emergency power or replace the battery).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (CN116599198A) in view of Learmonth et al. (US 2021/0193979).
In regard to claim 14:
Chai discloses the method of claim 9, including determining the chemistry of the battery pack.
However, Chai does not explicitly disclose sending a signal from the electronic lock to the battery pack through at least one electrical pin of the electronic lock, the at least one electrical pin electrically connecting the electronic lock to the battery pack; and determining the chemistry of the battery pack based on whether a response is received at the electronic through the at least one electrical pin.
Learmonth teaches sending a signal from the electronic lock to the battery pack through at least one electrical pin of the electronic lock (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Items 100, 146), the at least one electrical pin electrically connecting the electronic lock to the battery pack; and determining the chemistry of the battery pack based on whether a response is received at the electronic through the at least one electrical pin (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Items 146, 230, and 250 and Pars. [0037], [0039] and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the known battery module of Learmonth with the known intelligent door lock system of Chai as doing so would have yielded the obvious result of improving communication capabilities (Learmonth: Pars. [0026-0027]).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth et al. (US 2021/0193979) in view of Chai (CN116599198A).
In regard to claim 17:
Learmonth discloses a removable battery pack (Figs. 1C-1E Item 200) for an electronic lock (Figs. 1C-1E Item 100), the battery pack (Figs. 1C-1E Item 200) comprising: one or more batteries (Figs. 1C-1E Item 250, 251a, 251b); a connector (Figs. 1C-1E Item 230) configured to removably attach the battery pack (Figs. 1C-1E Item 200) to the electronic lock (Figs. 1C-1E Item 100); and one or more contacts electrically connectable to one or more pins on the electronic lock (Figs. 1C-1E and 3B Items 100, 254 & Par. [0055] i.e. contact pins).
However, Learmonth does not explicitly disclose wherein a chemistry of the battery is used to determine an operating mode of the electronic lock.
Chai teaches an electronic lock (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12) comprising: at least one processor (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12); and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12), the memory storing instructions (Figs. 1-4 and claim 12) which, when executed, cause the electronic lock to: determine a chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Par. [0030-0031] i.e. “detecting battery state information and electric quantity); and select an operating mode from among a plurality of operating modes based on the chemistry of the battery pack (Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0032-0039] i.e. a plurality of power supply modes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the known intelligent door lock system of Chai with the known battery module of Learmonth as doing so would have yielded the obvious result of improving the users experience (Chai: ABS i.e. preventing lock outs).
In regard to claim 18:
Modified Chai further teaches the battery pack of claim 17, the battery pack further comprising: one or more controllers (Chai: Figs. 1-4 and claim 12 i.e. processor), wherein the one or more controllers (Chai: Figs. 1-4 and claim 12 i.e. processor) are configured to transmit a response to a signal received from the electronic lock through the one or more contacts (Learmonth: Figs. 1C-1E Item 146), the response used by the electronic lock to determine the chemistry of the battery pack (Chai: Pars. [0033] i.e. determining the target battery or the standby battery for supplying power in the first battery for supplying power in the first battery and the second battery according to the battery state information).
In regard to claim 19:
Modified Chai further teaches the battery pack (Figs. 1C-1E, & 3A Items 200, 250, 251a, 251b) of claim 18, wherein the one or more controllers (Chai: Figs. 1-4 and claim 12) are further configured to measure a power into and out of the battery pack (Chai: Figs. 1-4 and Pars. [0031], and [0038-0039]).
In regard to claim 20:
Modified Chai further teaches the battery pack of claim 17, wherein the one or more batteries (Figs. 1C-1E, & 3A Items 200, 250, 251a, 251b) are lithium batteries (Figs. 1C-1E, & 3A Items 200, 250, 251a, 251b and Par. [0054] i.e. lithium batteries).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (CN116599198A) in view of Learmonth et al. (US 2021/0193979) and further in view of Liu (CN110176564A).
In regard to claim 7:
Modified Chai further teaches the electronic lock of claim 1.
However modified Chai does not explicitly disclose wherein the interior assembly further includes: a button, wherein the chemistry of the battery pack is determined based on whether the button is pressed or not pressed.
Liu teaches a battery case (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 3) having a contact block (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 10), wherein the contact block (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 10) presses a push switch (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 9) of an electronic lock battery case (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the known battery module of Learmonth with the known intelligent door lock system of Chai and further combined with the known push button of Liu as doing so would have yielded the obvious result of ease of use and battery replacement (Liu: ABS i.e. battery can be replaced more conveniently).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (CN116599198A) in view of Learmonth et al. (US 2021/0193979) and further in view of Liu (CN110176564A).
In regard to claim 15:
Modified Chai further teaches the method of claim 9.
However modified Chai does not explicitly disclose determining the chemistry of the battery pack includes: determining whether a button in the electronic lock is pressed.
Liu teaches a battery case (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 3) having a contact block (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 10), wherein the contact block (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 10) presses a push switch (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 9) of an electronic lock battery case (Figs. 1 and 2 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the known battery module of Learmonth with the known intelligent door lock system of Chai and further combined with the known push button of Liu as doing so would have yielded the obvious result of ease of use and battery replacement (Liu: ABS i.e. battery can be replaced more conveniently).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. *Please see attached form PTO-892*.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARMFLASH whose telephone number is (571)270-1434. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM EST M-Th.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at (571)2703684. 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.
MW
7/28/2026
/Menatoallah Youssef/ SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights