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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein operating the electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position also causes the pushbar to move from an extended position to a retracted position” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7 all instances of “the driver” should read “the electronic driver”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12241280. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In regards to claim 1, claim 1 of US ‘280 teaches an exit device system, comprising: a pushbar assembly configured for installation to a first side of a door, the pushbar assembly comprising: a latch having an extended position and a retracted position (Col 11 lines 6-14); a blocking member having a blocking position in which the blocking member retains the latch in the extended position and an unblocking position in which the blocking member permits the latch to move to the retracted position (Col 11 lines 14-20); a pushbar operable to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position (Col 11 line 21-23); and an electronic driver operable to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position (Col 11 lines 24-28); and a control system in communication with the electronic driver, the control system configured to operate the electronic driver to electrically move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position based upon information received from a credential reader (Col 11 lines 29-36).
In regards to claim 2, claims 1- 2 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 1, further comprising a trim assembly configured for installation to a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including an escutcheon, a handle mounted to the escutcheon, and the credential reader (Col 11 37-41).
In regards to claim 3, claim 1-3 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 2, wherein the handle has a fixed rotational orientation relative to the escutcheon (Col 11 line 42-43).
In regards to claim 4, claim 1 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 1, wherein the control system is positioned within the pushbar assembly (Col 11 line 36, as the housing is a part of the push bar assembly).
In regards to claim 5, claims 1 and 4 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 1, wherein actuation of the driver to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position does not cause movement of the pushbar (Col 11 lines 44-47).
In regards to claim 6, claim 1 and 5 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 1, wherein actuation of the driver to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position does not drive the latchbolt to the retracted position (Col 11 lines 48-51).
In regards to claim 7, claims 1 and 6 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 1, further comprising a cam operably coupled with the driver such that the driver is operable to move the cam between a locking position and an unlocking position; and wherein the cam is configured to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position as the cam moves between the locking position and the unlocking position (Col 11 lines 52-59).
In regards to claim 8, claims 1 and 8 of US ‘280 teaches the exit device system of claim 7, further comprising a position sensor in communication with the control system, the position sensor configured to sense at least one of the locking position or the unlocking position (Col 11 lines 64-67).
In regards to claim 9, claim 10 of US ‘280 teaches a method of operating an exit device system mounted to a door, wherein the exit device system includes a trim assembly mounted to a first side of the door and a pushbar assembly mounted to an opposite second side of the door (Col 12 lines 5-9), the method comprising: selectively maintaining a latchbolt mechanism of the pushbar assembly in a secured state in which a blocking member retains a latchbolt in an extended position (Col 12 lines 10-12), wherein the latchbolt mechanism is operable in an unsecured state in which the blocking member permits the latchbolt to move from the extended position to a retracted position (Col 12 lines 15-17), and wherein the pushbar assembly includes a pushbar operable to transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (Col 12 lines 18-20); in response to presentation of a credential at a credential reader of the trim assembly, transmitting from the credential reader to a control assembly credential information related to the presented credential (Col 11 lines 25-30); validating the credential information via the control assembly; and in response to validating the credential, transitioning the latchbolt mechanism from the secured state to the unsecured state, wherein the transitioning comprises operating an electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position (Col 12 lines 29-36).
In regards to claim 10, claims 10-11 of US ‘280 teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising maintaining the pushbar in an extended position while transitioning the latchbolt mechanism from the secured state to the unsecured state (Col 12 lines 37-40).
In regards to claim 12, claims 10 and 12 of US ‘280 teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising securing a handle of the trim assembly in a fixed orientation such that the handle is not operable to rotate relative to the trim assembly (Col 12 lines 41-44).
In regards to claim 13, claims 10 and 13 of US ‘280 teaches the method of claim 9, wherein operating the electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position comprises operating the electronic driver to move a cam from a locking position to an unlocking position, thereby causing the cam to drive the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position (Col 12 lines 45-51).
In regards to claim 14, claims 10 and 13-14 of US ‘280 teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: sensing a position of the cam; and determining a state of the latchbolt mechanism based upon the sensed position of the cam (Col 12 lines 52-55).
In regards to claim 15, claims 1 and 6 of US ‘280 teaches the system, comprising: a mounting assembly configured for mounting to a first side of a door (Col 11 lines 6-8); a drive assembly (the push bar) movably mounted to the mounting assembly (Col 11 line 24, as the header case is the mounting assembly); a latchbolt mechanism operably coupled with the drive assembly (Col 11 line 12 and Col 11 lines 24-28, as the blocking member is operably coupled to the drive assembly), the latchbolt mechanism comprising: a latchbolt having an extended position and a retracted position (Col 11 lines 12-13); and a blocking member having a blocking position and an unblocking position (Col 11 lines 14-20); wherein the latchbolt mechanism has a secured state in which the blocking member is in the blocking position and retains the latchbolt in the extended position (Col 11 lines 14-20, corresponding to the blocking position); wherein the latchbolt mechanism has an unsecured state in which the blocking member is in the unblocking position and permits retraction of the latchbolt Col 11 lines 14-20, (corresponding to the unblocking position); and wherein the drive assembly is operable to move the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (Col 11 lines 29-36); a cam having a locking position and an unlocking position, wherein movement of the cam between the locking position and the unlocking position causes a corresponding movement of the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position (Col 11 lines 52-59); an electronic driver operable to move the cam between the locking position and the unlocking position to thereby transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (Col 11 line 24-28 and Col 11 lines 52-59); and a control assembly operable to cause the driver to move the cam between the locking position and the unlocking position such that the control assembly is operable to electronically transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (Col 11 lines 29-36).
In regards to claim 16, claims 1-2 and 6 of US ‘280 teaches the system of claim 15, further comprising a trim assembly configured for installation to a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including a handle and a credential reader; and wherein the control assembly is in communication with the credential reader and is configured to cause the driver to move the cam from the locking position to the unlocking position based upon information received from the credential reader (Col 11 lines 37-41).
In regards to claim 17, claim 1-3 and 6 of US ‘280 teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the trim assembly is a fixed trim assembly in which the handle is secured in a single rotational orientation (Col 11 lines 42-43).
In regards to claim 19, claims 1, 4, and 6 of US ‘280 teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the driver is operable to transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state without actuating the drive assembly (Col 11 lines 44-47).
In regards to claim 20, claims 1 and 5-6 of US ‘280 teaches the system of claim 15, wherein actuation of the drive assembly moves the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position without retracting the latchbolt (Col 11 lines 48-51 and Col 11 lines 15-18; note “permit”).
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12241280 in view of Chang US 20170051536 A1 (hereinafter Chang).
In regards to claim 18, claim 1 and 6 of US ‘280 teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pushbar (claim 1 describes the drive assembly as a push bar).
However, US ‘280 is silent on wherein the drive assembly is biased toward a deactuated state in which the pushbar is extended; and wherein the drive assembly is movable to an actuated state in which the pushbar is depressed. This is very common for pushbars.
Chang teaches a pushbar (see fig 11); wherein the drive assembly is biased (via 24) toward a deactuated state in which the pushbar is extended (see fig 5); and wherein the drive assembly is movable to an actuated state in which the pushbar is depressed (see fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have US ‘280’s push bar be biased toward a deactuated state in which the pushbar is extended; and wherein the drive assembly is movable to an actuated state in which the pushbar is depressed such as in Chang in order to provide for a well-known and conventional exit device pushbar.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang US 20170051536 A1 (hereinafter Chang).
In regards to claim 1, Chang teaches an exit device system, comprising: a pushbar assembly configured for installation to a first side of a door (see fig 3), the pushbar assembly comprising: a latch (41)having an extended position (see fig 8) and a retracted position (see fig 9); a blocking member (46) having a blocking position in which the blocking member retains the latch in the extended position (see fig 2 and para 39) and an unblocking position in which the blocking member permits the latch to move to the retracted position (see fig 1); a pushbar (11) operable to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position (at least via 30, see para40); and an electronic driver (45) operable to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position (see figs 1 and 2); and a control system (31) in communication with the electronic driver, the control system configured to operate the electronic driver to electrically move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position based upon information received from a credential reader (34; see para 40).
In regards to claim 4, Chang teaches the exit device system of claim 1, wherein the control system is positioned within the pushbar assembly (described in para 33).
In regards to claim 5, Chang teaches the exit device system of claim 1, wherein actuation of the driver to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position does not cause movement of the pushbar (as movement of 45 would not affect 11).
In regards to claim 6, Chang teaches the exit device system of claim 1, wherein actuation of the driver to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position does not drive the latchbolt to the retracted position (not directly as 41 is biased outward and 46 merely blocks retraction of 41 see figs 1 -2).
In regards to claim 7, Chang teaches the exit device system of claim 1, further comprising a cam (50; at least as it transfers linear motion of 45 to rotary motion) operably coupled with the driver such that the driver is operable to move the cam between a locking position (see fig 2) and an unlocking position (see fig 1); and wherein the cam is configured to move the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position as the cam moves between the locking position and the unlocking position (see fig 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 15, Chang teaches a system, comprising: a mounting assembly (at least 10 see fig 3); see configured for mounting to a first side of a door (para 40); a drive assembly (at least 11) movably mounted to the mounting assembly; a latchbolt mechanism (at least 40 and 41) operably coupled with the drive assembly, the latchbolt mechanism comprising: a latchbolt (41) having an extended position (see fig 8) and a retracted position (see fig 9); and a blocking member (46) having a blocking position (see fig 2) and an unblocking position (see fig 1); wherein the latchbolt mechanism has a secured state in which the blocking member is in the blocking position and retains the latchbolt in the extended position (see fig 2);wherein the latchbolt mechanism has an unsecured state in which the blocking member is in the unblocking position and permits retraction of the latchbolt (see fig 1); and wherein the drive assembly is operable to move the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (at least via 30; para 40); a cam (50) having a locking position (see fig 2) and an unlocking position (see fi 1), wherein movement of the cam between the locking position and the unlocking position causes a corresponding movement of the blocking member between the blocking position and the unblocking position (see figs 1-2); an electronic driver (45) operable to move the cam between the locking position and the unlocking position to thereby transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (see figs 1 and 2); and a control assembly (at least 31) operable to cause the driver to move the cam between the locking position and the unlocking position such that the control assembly is operable to electronically transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (para 38).
In regards to claim 18, Chang teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pushbar (see fig 11); wherein the drive assembly is biased (via 24) toward a deactuated state in which the pushbar is extended (see fig 5); and wherein the drive assembly is movable to an actuated state in which the pushbar is depressed (see fig 6).
In regards to claim 19, Chang teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the driver is operable to transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state without actuating the drive assembly (as movement of 45 would not affect 11).
In regards to claim 20, Chang teaches the system of claim 15, wherein actuation of the drive assembly moves the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position without retracting the latchbolt (as 41 is biased outward and 46 merely blocks movement of 41).
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) 2-3 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 15, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Evans US 4961330 A (hereinafter Evans) and Hickman US 20140165677 A1 (hereinafter Hickman).
In regards to claim 2, Chang teaches the exit device system of claim 1.
However, Chang is silent on a trim assembly configured for installation to a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including an escutcheon, a handle mounted to the escutcheon.
Evans teaches a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including an escutcheon (20), a handle mounted to the escutcheon (20h).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a trim assembly configured for installation to a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including an escutcheon, a handle mounted to the escutcheon such as in Evans in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of opening a door from an exterior of the door.
Additionally, Chang does not teach a trim associated with his credential reader and therefore the examiner does not consider it a part of a trim assembly. This is very common however.
Hickman teaches a similar credential reader 24 with a trim (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the credential reader comprise a trim such as in Hickman in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of attaching a credential reader to a door.
In regards to claim 3, Chang in view of Evans and Hickman teaches the exit device system of claim 2, wherein the handle has a fixed rotational orientation relative to the escutcheon (see Evans fig 4).
In regards to claim 16, Chang in view of Evans and Hickman teaches the system of claim 15, further comprising a credential reader (34); and wherein the control assembly is in communication with the credential reader and is configured to cause the driver to move the cam from the locking position to the unlocking position based upon information received from the credential reader (para 40).
However, Chang is silent on a trim assembly configured for installation to a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including a handle.
Evans teaches a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including a handle (20h).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a trim assembly configured for installation to a second side of the door opposite the first side, the trim assembly including a handle such as in Evans in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of opening a door from an exterior of the door.
Additionally, Chang does not teach a trim associated with his credential reader and therefore the examiner does not consider it a part of a trim assembly. This is very common however.
Hickman teaches a similar credential reader 24 with a trim (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the credential reader comprise a trim such as in Hickman in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of attaching a credential reader to a door.
In regards to claim 17, Chang in view of Evans and Hickman teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the trim assembly is a fixed trim assembly in which the handle is secured in a single rotational orientation (see Evans fig 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claims 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Arlinghaus et al. US 20180245375 A1 (hereinafter US ‘375).
In regards to claim 8, Chang teaches the exit device system of claim 7.
However, Chang does not teach a position sensor in communication with the control system, the position sensor configured to sense at least one of the locking position or the unlocking position.
US ‘375 teaches a position sensor (330) in communication with the control system (300 para 72), the position sensor configured to sense at least one of the locking position (see fig 12) or the unlocking position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Chang with a position sensor in communication with the control system, the position sensor configured to sense at least one of the locking position or the unlocking position in order to evaluate and communicate the security state of the exit device (US ‘375: para 52)
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Hickman.
In regards to claim 9, Chang teaches a method of operating an exit device system mounted to a door, wherein the exit device system includes an assembly (34) mounted to a first side of the door (para 40) and a pushbar assembly mounted to an opposite second side of the door (see fig 1), the method comprising: selectively maintaining a latchbolt mechanism (41) of the pushbar assembly in a secured state in which a blocking member (46) retains a latchbolt (41) in an extended position (see fig 2), wherein the latchbolt mechanism is operable in an unsecured state in which the blocking member permits the latchbolt to move from the extended position to a retracted position (see fig 1), and wherein the pushbar assembly includes a pushbar (11) operable to transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (at least via 30, see para 40); in response to presentation of a credential (card) at a credential reader (either a portion of 34 that reads the card) of the assembly (see para 33), transmitting from the credential reader to a control assembly (31; see para 33) and in response to a read signal, transitioning the latchbolt mechanism from the secured state to the unsecured state (para 33), wherein the transitioning comprises operating an electronic driver (45) to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position (see figs 2-1).
However, Chang is silent on if the assembly is a trim assembly since Chang does not teach a trim associated with the credential reader.
Hickman teaches a similar credential reader 24 with a trim (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the credential reader comprise a trim such as in Hickman in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of attaching a credential reader to a door.
Additionally, Chang fails to teach transmitting from the credential reader to a control assembly credential information related to the presented credential; validating the credential information via the control assembly. Chang teaches a card reader is silent on the validation of the card. This is extremely common in the art however.
Hickman teaches transmitting from a credential reader (24) to a control assembly (32) credential information related to the presented credential; validating the credential information via the control assembly (see para 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have teach transmitting from the credential reader to a control assembly credential information related to the presented credential; validating the credential information via the control assembly in Chang in order to provide a conventional and well known card reader operation.
In regards to claim 10, Chang in view of Hickman teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising maintaining the pushbar in an extended position (Chang: such as in fig 5) while transitioning the latchbolt mechanism from the secured state to the unsecured state (Chang: as movement of 45 would not affect 11).
In regards to claim 13, Chang in view of Hickman teaches the method of claim 9, wherein operating the electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position comprises operating the electronic driver to move a cam (Chang: 50) from a locking position (Chang: see fig 2) to an unlocking position (Chang: see fig 1), thereby causing the cam to drive the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position (Chang: see figs 1-2).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Hickman as applied to claims 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Evans.
In regards to claim 12, Chang in view of Hickman teaches the method of claim 9.
However, Chang does not teach further comprising securing a handle of the trim assembly in a fixed orientation such that the handle is not operable to rotate relative to the trim assembly.
Evans teaches a handle (20h) of the trim assembly (considering all trims on the same side of the door as the trim assembly) in a fixed orientation such that the handle is not operable to rotate relative to the trim assembly (see fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have securing a handle of the trim assembly in a fixed orientation such that the handle is not operable to rotate relative to the trim assembly such as in Evans in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of opening a door from an exterior of the door.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Hickman as applied to claims 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of US ‘375.
In regards to claim 14, Chang in view of Hickman teaches the method of claim 13.
However, Chang does not teach further comprising: sensing a position of the cam; and determining a state of the latchbolt mechanism based upon the sensed position of the cam.
US ‘375 teaches sensing a position (via 330) of a similar cam (230); and determining a state of the latchbolt mechanism based upon the sensed position of the cam (para 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Chang with sensing a position of the cam; and determining a state of the latchbolt mechanism based upon the sensed position of the cam in order to evaluate and communicate the security state of the exit device (US ‘375: para 52).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinghaus US 20070246946 A1 (US ‘946) in view of Ross et al. US 7536885 B1 (hereinafter Ross) and Hickman.
In regards to claim 9, US ‘946 teaches a method of operating an exit device system mounted to a door, wherein the exit device system includes a trim assembly (assembly with 26, see fig 3) mounted to a first side of the door (see fig 3) and a pushbar assembly (13) mounted to an opposite second side of the door, the method comprising: selectively maintaining a latchbolt (36) mechanism of the pushbar assembly in a secured state in which a blocking member (32) retains a latchbolt in an extended position (see fig 9), wherein the latchbolt mechanism is operable in an unsecured state (see fig 8) in which the blocking member permits the latchbolt to move from the extended position to a retracted position (see fig 8), and wherein the pushbar assembly includes a pushbar (24) operable to transition the latchbolt mechanism between the secured state and the unsecured state (para 31).
However US ‘946 does not teach in response to presentation of a credential at a credential reader of the trim assembly, transmitting from the credential reader to a control assembly credential information related to the presented credential; validating the credential information via the control assembly; and in response to validating the credential, transitioning the latchbolt mechanism from the secured state to the unsecured state, wherein the transitioning comprises operating an electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position.
Ross teaches in response to presentation of a credential (such as a card, see Col 8 lines 27-48) at a credential reader (64), transmitting from the credential reader to a control assembly (at least 56) credential information related to the presented credential (Col 8 lines 48-59); validating the credential information via the control assembly; and in response to validating the credential, transitioning the latchbolt mechanism from the secured state to the unsecured state (Col 8 line 60-67), wherein the transitioning comprises operating an electronic driver (68).
Additionally, US ‘946 does not teach the credential reader is “of the trim assembly”.
Hickman teaches a similar credential reader 24 with a trim (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the credential reader comprise a trim such as in Hickman in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of attaching a credential reader to a door.
In regards to claim 11, US ‘946 in view of Ross and Hickman teaches method of claim 9.
However, US ‘946 does not teach wherein operating the electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position also causes the pushbar to move from an extended position to a retracted position. This is because US ‘946 is silent on the connection between 24 and 34.
Ross teaches wherein operating the electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position also causes the pushbar to move from an extended position to a retracted position (as the electronic driver of Ross retracts the action rod in order to unlatch, which would retract the push bar see fig 2; the action rod of Ross is equivalent to 34 of US ‘946).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have connected US ‘946 34 and push bar similar to Ross, such that the electronic driver to move the blocking member from the blocking position to the unblocking position also causes the pushbar to move from an extended position to a retracted position, in order to provide a conventional and well known connection with a pushbar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shen US 20180106077 A1 – teaches a device similar to change using a rotary motor.
Allen US 3504511 A – teaches sensor arrangements for detecting a blocking lever.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights