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 Status
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (Fig. 4) in the reply filed on 05-12-2026 is acknowledged. Species B, is directed to the embodiment having a shielding module including a slidably disposed cover plate as recited in claims 6-12. Claims 1 and 6-12 are directed to the elected species and remain under examination. Claims 13-15 are also retained for examination because they correspond to the elected species and are not drawn solely to the non-elected embodiment.
Accordingly, claims 3-5 are withdrawn as being drawn to the non-elected species.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” or “module” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” or “module” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” or “module” are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” or “module” are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation of claims 1-15, in particular that recitation of a “shielding module” is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claimed function is modified by a word that is merely a generic placeholder (i.e., the claim uses a term that is a substitute for “means”) without specific structure that performs the function.
Claim element, “a shielding module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description, in particular paragraphs [0010] and [0013] disclose that the “shielding module” includes a cover plate. This constitutes an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, thus the claim limitation shall be this structure and/or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by MEGANCK (US Pub. 2017/0243425).
Regarding claim 1,
MEGANCK teaches an invisible E-lock door, comprising:
a door panel body(322), arranged on an opening of a cabinet ([0056]) and configured to close or open the opening of the cabinet (door 322 on which the smart lock is mounted to secure access through the door opening; see at least paragraphs [0056] for discussion of cabinet door; see [0089], [0094], [0095], and [0106]);
an electronic lock (smart lock 204 including cylinder 304, button 305, storage medium 301, power source 302, hardware processor 303, and wireless transceiver 306; paragraphs [0019]-[0021], [0080]-[0082]), installed on the door panel body and comprising a controller (hardware processor 303; paragraphs [0080]-[0081]) and a signal receiver (wireless transceiver 306; paragraph [0082]), wherein the signal receiver is connected to the controller and configured to receive an operation instruction sent via wireless transmission and transmit the operation instruction to the controller (wireless transceiver 306 receives tokens and authentication information transmitted wirelessly from a mobile device through RFID, NFC, Bluetooth, and other wireless communications and provides such information for processing by hardware processor 303; paragraphs [0020], [0058]-[0059], [0082]), and the controller controls the electronic lock to turn on or turn off according to the operation instruction (hardware processor 303 validates the received token/authentication information and, upon successful validation, enables button 305 to engage cam 309 and actuate the locking mechanism to unlock the bolt; paragraphs [0059], [0081]-[0084]); and
a shielding module spatially corresponding to the electronic lock (in at least fig. 3E and 3G - rose protector 317 and rose knob 318 protect and conceal the hardware processor, power source, and cylinder and encase the lock components; paragraphs [0031], [0088]-[0090]), and configured to selectively shield or expose the electronic lock (cap 310 conceals keypad 307 and biometric scanner 308 when in a closed position and exposes those lock-access components when opened for use; paragraph [0086]; see also paragraphs [0031] and [0088] describing concealment of lock components).
Regarding claim 2,
Meganck teaches that the operation instruction is issued by a mobile application, a user web page or a radio frequency identification system (see the mobile application used by users, masters, and administrators to communicate with and control the smart lock, including transmitting authentication information and access requests; see paragraphs [0022], [0068], [0130], [0153]; further taught by RFID-enabled smart cards, RFID-enabled smartphones, RFID readers, RFID button readers, and wireless reader systems used to transmit authentication information and access instructions; see paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0008], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 6,
Meganck teaches the shielding module comprises a cover plate(taught by cap 310 which conceals lock-access components; paragraph [0086]), which is slidably disposed on the door panel body(taught by cap 310 shown in FIG. 3B movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the figure illustrates lateral displacement of the cap relative to keypad 307 and biometric scanner 308; paragraph [0086] and FIG. 3B), spatially corresponding to the electronic lock (cap 310 positioned directly over keypad 307 and biometric scanner 308 of smart lock 204; paragraph [0086]), and configured to form a shielding space in the door panel body (cap 310 covers and conceals keypad 307 and biometric scanner 308, thereby defining a protected space beneath the cap; paragraph [0086]), wherein the electronic lock is in communication with an exterior through the shielding space (keypad 307, biometric scanner 308, and wireless transceiver 306 provide user and wireless communication interfaces through the covered area beneath cap 310; paragraphs [0080], [0082], [0086]).
Regarding claim 10,
Meganck teaches that the cover plate is arranged at an inclination relative to a front plane of the door panel body (see rose protector 317 having outer wall 319 formed with a conical configuration relative to door 322, such that the protective cover structure is arranged at an angle relative to the door surface; paragraphs [0031], [0089], and FIGS. 3E-3F).
Regarding claim 13,
Meganck teaches an electronic device, comprising a cloud-controlled door lock switch, configured to send an operation instruction through a wireless transmission manner (taught by central access server 205, master device 201, administrator device 202, and user device 203 configured to communicate instructions, permissions, tokens, and access-control information to the smart lock through wireless communications; paragraphs [0022]-[0028], [0046]-[0055], [0075]); and
an invisible E-lock door, configured to be controlled by the cloud-controlled door lock switch (smart lock 204 configured to receive wireless communications and access instructions from mobile devices, administrator devices, network devices, and central access servers; paragraphs [0026]-[0028], [0058]-[0059], [0071]-[0075]), and comprising:
a door panel body, arranged on an opening of a cabinet and configured to close or open the opening of the cabinet (door 322 on which the smart lock is mounted; paragraphs [0089], [0094], [0095], [0106]);
an electronic lock (smart lock 204 including cylinder 304, button 305, storage medium 301, power source 302, hardware processor 303, and wireless transceiver 306; paragraphs [0019]-[0021], [0080]-[0082]), installed on the door panel body and comprising a controller (hardware processor 303; paragraphs [0080]-[0081]) and a signal receiver (wireless transceiver 306; paragraph [0082]), wherein the signal receiver is connected to the controller and configured to receive the operation instruction sent by the cloud-controlled door lock switch and transmit the operation instruction to the controller (wireless transceiver 306 receives wireless tokens, commands, and authentication information transmitted from mobile devices and receives communications associated with administrator devices, network devices, and central access servers; paragraphs [0026]-[0028], [0058]-[0059], [0071]-[0075], [0082]), and the controller controls the electronic lock to turn on or turn off according to the operation instruction (hardware processor 303 validates received authentication information and controls unlocking through button 305 and cam 309; paragraphs [0059], [0081]-[0084]); and
a shielding module spatially corresponding to the electronic lock (rose protector 317 and rose knob 318 protect and conceal the hardware processor, power source, and cylinder; paragraphs [0031], [0088]-[0090]),
and configured to selectively shield or expose the electronic lock (cap 310 conceals keypad 307 and biometric scanner 308 when closed and exposes those components when opened; paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 14,
Meganck teaches that the cloud-controlled door lock switch comprises a mobile application, a user web page or a radio frequency identification system (the disclosed access control system includes mobile applications executed on user devices, master devices, and administrator devices for controlling access rights, transmitting authentication information, requesting access, and controlling operation of smart locks; see paragraphs [0022], [0046]-[0055], [0068], [0130]-[0147], and [0153]; further taught by RFID-enabled smart cards, RFID-enabled smartphones, RFID readers, RFID button readers, and RFID communication systems used as access-control mechanisms for the smart lock; see paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0008], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 15,
Meganck teaches that the shielding module further comprises an installation housing, which is detachably embedded in the door panel body and configured to form a shielding space, and the electronic lock is accommodated in the shielding space (fig. 3B).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGANCK (US Pub. 2017/0243425) in view of MA (US. Pub. 2025/0354407).
Regarding claim 11,
Meganck teaches the invisible E-lock door according to claim 6, but fails to expressly teach that the cover plate is L-shaped and corresponding to a front plane and a lateral plane of the door panel body.
MA teaches an L-shaped protective cover structure (cover 29 in Fig. 6) positioned relative to the protected lock assembly ([0073]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the protective cover of Meganck to utilize the L-shaped configuration taught by MA because MA teaches the use of the L-shaped structure to improve protection of the lock from vandalism, accidental damage, and unauthorized access. This modification would merely represent the predictable use of a known protective configuration to improve physical protection of Meganck's concealed lock components.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEGANCK (US Pub. 2017/0243425).
Regarding claim 12,
Meganck teaches an electronic lock having hardware processor 303, wireless transceiver 306, keypad 307, biometric scanner 308, and multiple authentication interfaces arranged within the button assembly adjacent the lock electronics and electrically connected to hardware processor 303 (paragraphs [0020], [0080]-[0082], [0086]; Meganck teaches RFID-enabled cards, RFID readers, RFID-enabled smartphones, and RFID authentication systems for providing credentials to the lock (paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0008], [0018], [0082]), but fails to expressly teach a card swipe machine, wherein the card swipe machine is arranged adjacent to the electronic lock, accommodated in the sheltered space, and electrically connected to the controller.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the authentication assembly of Meganck with a card-reading/card-swipe interface adjacent the electronic lock because Meganck expressly teaches RFID card-based authentication and multiple redundant authentication channels. Incorporating a card swipe reader would have represented a predictable variation of the disclosed credential-reading interfaces for obtaining user authentication information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights