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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0061, “lock receiver 42 of lock core 20” should likely be --lock receiver 42 of shell 22--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 core sleeve in a second rotatable position where the lock is prevented from being movable to a subset of the first locked position, the unlocked position, and the second locked position 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe the core sleeve moving between a first rotatable position relative to the shell and a second rotatable position relative to the shell, and does not describe the lock being prevented from being movable to the subset of the first locked position, the unlocked position, and the second locked position.
As best understood, the detailed description discloses the plug is prevented from being rotatable relative to the shell by the rocker/lock extending through a lock receiver of the core sleeve and a lock receiver of the shell ([0080]) and the plug is rotatable relative to the shell when the rocker does not extend through the lock receivers of the core sleeve and shell ([0077]). However, the specification does not disclose a condition where the lock is prevented from being movable to the first locked position, the unlocked position, and the second locked position making it unclear how the lock would be prevented from moving between positions.
Moreover, the specification does not explicitly describe the core sleeve being movable to another position relative to the shell and it is unclear what structure(s) are configured to move the core sleeve in order to position the core sleeve in the first and second rotatable positions relative to the shell. Paragraphs 0066-67 disclose the core sleeve lock receiver being aligned with the rocker passage and the core sleeve openings aligned with openings of the shell, but does not disclose the core sleeve rotating to misalign the rocker passage.
The disclosure notes pin tumblers are located in aligned openings of the core sleeve and the shell (paragraphs 0055, 0066) and describes the pin tumblers being configured to have a shear line allowing the plug to be rotated relative to the shell (paragraphs 0061, 0068), but the specification does not describe a shear line that allows the core sleeve to rotate relative to the shell. In particular, paragraph 0061 only describes the plug rotating relative to the shell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 14, it is unclear if recitation of “the subset” in line 15 is intended to refer to the same “subset” as in line 13. If the subset in lines 13 and 15 are the same, then the lock would be movable to the subset of positions when the core sleeve is in a first rotational position and prevented from being movable to the subset of positions when the core sleeve is in a second rotational position. The claim also does not positively recite the core sleeve moves between a first rotatable position and second rotatable position relative to the shell, so it is unclear whether the core sleeve is required to perform a rotation relative to the shell during use of the lock core. The disclosure does not clarify, because the drawings do not appear to illustrate the second position of the core sleeve and the specification does not describe the lock being moveable or prevented from being movable to a subset of positions.
Claims 15-18 are rejected for depending on claim 14 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 14
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim, US 6,981,396 B1.
Claim 14: Kim discloses a lock core (Fig. 1), comprising:
a shell (10) having an upper region having a first cylindrical portion with a first maximum lateral extent, a lower region having a second cylindrical portion with a second maximum lateral extent, and a waist having a third maximum lateral extent, the third maximum lateral extent being less than the first maximum lateral extent and being less than the second maximum lateral extent (depicted in Fig. 2);
a core sleeve (20) received by the shell and rotatable relative to the shell (col. 3 ln. 61-64);
a plug (30) positioned within and rotatable relative to the shell between a first position and a second position about a longitudinal axis of the plug (movement from Fig. 5a to Fig. 5b), the core sleeve surrounding the plug (Fig. 4a); and
a lock (33), the lock having a first locked position preventing rotation of the plug relative to the shell (Fig. 4a (the bar not engaged with a groove in pins 34)), an unlocked position allowing rotation of the plug relative to the shell (col, 4 ln. 43-49 (the bar 33 engaged in grooves 34a)) and a second locked position different from the first locked position preventing rotation of the plug relative to the shell (col. 5 ln. 38-42 (the bar engaged with auxiliary grooves 34b)),
the lock being movable to a subset of the first locked position, the unlocked position, and the second locked position when the core sleeve is in a first rotatable position relative to the shell (when the core sleeve is in a first position shown in Figs. 4a and 5a, the lock can move from the first locked position to the unlocked position and the second locked position) and prevented from being movable to the subset of the first locked position, the unlocked position, and the second locked position when the core sleeve is in a second rotatable position relative to the shell (when the core sleeve is in a second position shown in Fig. 4b, the lock is in an unlocked position and cannot move to the first or second locked positions).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claim 14 above, alone.
Claim 18: Kim discloses the lock core of claim 14 in combination with a key (4), wherein the plug comprises a keyway (31) for receiving the key 9), the key comprising a shank (depicted in Fig. 1) comprising a groove (4b) and a shoulder located at an end of the groove (Fig. 1 depicts the end of the groove near the bow is structured as a shoulder), and a cross-section configured for engagement with an actuator (34) of a lock actuator assembly (pins 34 form a lock actuator assembly).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the groove comprising a length that is less than a length of the shank. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the length of the groove to be less than a length of the shank to be aligned with the length of the desired slide pin configuration. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); see also Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (holding that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 allowed.
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 1-13 and 15-17.
Regarding claim 1, Shi (WO 96/41929A) discloses an embodiment of a lock core for use with a key having a shank comprising a shell, a plug, a lock having first, unlocked, and second positions, and a lock actuator comprising a block, an actuator, and a spring. However, Shi does not explicitly teach the lock actuator assembly is configured such that an actuation of the actuator by the shank of the key causes movement of the lock towards the unlocked position. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the lock actuator disclosed by Shi so an actuation of the actuator, which is biased by a spring, by the shank causes the lock to move toward the unlocked position without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Artsiely (US 2017/0081880 A1) discloses a lock core comprising a shell, a plug, a lock movable to a first locked position, an unlocked position, and a second locked position to prevent the plug from rotating relative to the shell, and a lock actuator assembly that includes an actuator engageable by the shank of the key and a spring. Artsiely does not explicitly disclose the lock actuator assembly comprising a block and a pin extending from the lock. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the lock actuator assembly to additionally include a block and a pin extending from the lock without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Kim (US 6981396 B1) discloses a lock core comprising a shell, a plug, and a lock, the lock having first and second locked positions and an unlocked position, and a lock actuator assembly comprising an actuator engageable by the shank of the key, a pin extending from the lock, and a spring, but Kim is silent to a block. Kim does not disclose the lock being movable from the first locked position to the unlocked position with a first movement of the lock wherein the first movement has a vector component along the longitudinal axis and a vector component along a transverse axis. Note that in light of the disclosure, the vector components are being interpreted as non-zero vector components. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the lock disclosed by Kim to have a movement with a vector component along the longitudinal axis of the plug and a vector component along an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis of the plug without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the lock core.
In regards to claims 2-13, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 1 from which the claims depend.
Regarding claim 15, Kim (US 6981396 B1) discloses the lock core of claim 14, but does not disclose the first locked position defining a proximalmost position within a range of motion of the lock relative to a front surface of the plug and the second locked position defines a distalmost position relative to the front surface of the plug within the range of motion of the lock. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the lock disclosed by Kim to be configured with a range of motion including a proximalmost position and a distalmost position relative to a front surface of the plug without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the lock core.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the lock core of claim 14, but Kim does not disclose the lock being movable from the first locked position to the unlocked position with a first movement of the lock wherein the first movement has a vector component along the longitudinal axis and a vector component along a transverse axis. Kim also does not disclose the lock is movable from the unlocked position to the second locked position with a second movement, wherein the second movement has a second vector component along the longitudinal axis and a second vector component along an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis. Note that in light of the disclosure, the vector components are being interpreted as non-zero vector components. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the lock disclosed by Kim to have a movement having a vector component along the longitudinal axis of the plug and a vector component along an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis of the plug without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the lock core.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bellamy et al. (US 7640773 B2) is related to a lock core comprising a lock configured to move with vector components in the direction of the longitudinal axis and the axis transverse to the longitudinal axis, but the lock actuator assembly does not include a pin extending from the lock. Ramblier (US 4841758 A) is related to a lock core comprising a lock with a pin configured to move with vector components in the direction of the longitudinal axis and the axis transverse to the longitudinal axis, but the lock actuator assembly does not include a block and does not teach the actuator biased by a spring to position the lock in the first locked position. Ramsay (US 2020/0378151 A1) is related to a lock core comprising a lock and a lock actuator with a spring, a pin, an actuator, and a block, but is silent to the lock configured to move with vector components in the direction of the longitudinal axis and the axis transverse to the longitudinal axis of the plug.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights