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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 31, 34-37, and 39-45, the cancellation of claims 1-30, 32, 33, 38, and 46-54, and the addition of new claims 55-61 filed August 6, 2026. Per applicant’s election of Invention II covering the spindle kit and method of using the spindle kit on June 11, 2026 and not the election of the Invention I related to the lock cylinder retention mechanism, claim 55 is withdrawn since the claim is drawn to the non-elected lock cylinder retention mechanism. The examination of claims 31, 34-37, 39-45, and 56-61 is set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 31, 40, 57, 60, and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 31, line 3, the phrase “the lengths” should be changed to “the corresponding and respective lengths,” and in line 11, the phrase “the length” should be changed to “the corresponding and respective length.”
In regards to claim 40, line 8, the phrase “wherein each of the spindles” should be changed to “wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles,” and in line 12, the phrase “the lengths” should be changed to “the corresponding and respective lengths.”
In regards to claim 57, line 1, the phrase “of claim 38” should be changed to “of claim 40.”
In regards to claim 60, line 2, the phrase “upon installation of the spindle to the lockset” should be changed to “upon installation of a selected spindle from the plurality of spindles to the lockset,” in line 3, the phrase “to depress the two flexible arms toward one another” should be inserted after the phrase “between the two flexible arms,” and in line 6, the phrase “the spindle” should be changed to “the selected spindle.”
In regards to claim 61, line 2, the phrase “the spindle” should be changed to “each spindle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 39-45, 57, and 60 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 regards to claim 40, based on claim 44, it appears that claim 40 does not require the trim, the cam, the chassis, and the rotatable component, and therefore, it is unclear to what structure the first portion is “sized and shaped to engage” and what structure the second portion is “sized and shaped to engage.” For examination purposes, claim 40 will be examined as requiring the trim, the chassis, the cam, and the rotatable component.
In regards to claim 57, the claim depends from canceled claim 38. Furthermore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear since claim 40, in light of claim 44, does not include the cam and the engagement of the first portion of each spindle with the cam, but claim 57 positively recites the cam and the engagement of the first portion with the cam. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as depending from claim 40, and as set forth above, claim 40 and its dependent claims will be examined as requiring the trim, the chassis, the cam, and the rotatable component.
In regards to claim 60, lines 2 and 6, it is unclear to which spindle the phrase “the spindle” refers. It is understood from the specification that the “spindle” is the selected spindle of the plurality of spindles to be installed to the lockset, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 60, it is unclear how further depressing of the two flexible arms toward one another can be prevented, when the claim does not recite the initial intent of the insertion of the tampering tool to be an intent to depress the two flexible arms. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claims 34-37, 39, and 41-45, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 40.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossall (GB 2616059 A) in view of Bousso (US Pub. No. 2017/0335600). In regards to claim 31, Rossall discloses a method comprising: selecting a spindle 4 from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30), and wherein the lengths of at least two spindles of the plurality of spindles are different from one another (since Rossall discloses that all the lengths are different, then at least two of the lengths are different, Page 5, lines 27-30); installing the selected spindle to a lockset (Figure 1a) comprising a trim 7 and a chassis 916; wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a cam 918 of the trim (Page 18, lines 29 and 30, and considered as “of the trim” because the cam is associated with and coupled to the trim); a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component (handle 12 or 13) of the chassis (considered as “of the chassis” because the rotatable component is associated with and coupled to the chassis); wherein selecting the spindle from the plurality of spindles comprises selecting the spindle from the plurality of spindles based at least in part upon a thickness of a door to which the lockset is to be installed (the length of the spindle spans the thickness of the door when installed, and therefore, the spindle is selected based on its length, which is directly related to the thickness of the door); and wherein installing the selected spindle to the lockset comprises: engaging the first portion of the selected spindle with the cam (Page 18, lines 29 and 30); and engaging the second portion of the selected spindle with the rotatable component (Figure 1a). Rossall fails to disclose that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a corresponding and respective indicium relating to the corresponding and respective length of each spindle, and wherein selecting the spindle from the plurality of spindles based at least in part upon the corresponding and respective indicium. Bousso teaches a plurality of components 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, each including a corresponding and respective indicium (Figures 2A-2E), indicative of their differing characteristics, such that a user can easily distinguish the components from one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include corresponding and respective indicium on the plurality of spindles, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid a user in distinguishing the spindles from one another, such that the user can select the desired spindle for its length and use in the door.
Claim(s) 31 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitte (DE 1257035 B) in view of Rossall (GB 2616059 A), and further in view of Bousso (US Pub. No. 2017/0335600).
In regards to claim 31, Rokitte discloses a method comprising: selecting a spindle 2, wherein the spindle has a corresponding and respective length (Figure 1); and installing the spindle to a lockset (lock, Paragraph 2 of the Computer Generated Translation), wherein the spindle comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion (portion located within the opening of the cam 1, Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage a cam 1; and a corresponding and respective second portion (portion engaged with the handle 11, Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component 11, wherein the spindle is selected based at least in part upon a thickness of a door to which the lockset is to be installed (inherent that the length of the spindle is directly related to the thickness of the door into which the spindle extends); wherein installing the spindle to the lockset comprises: engaging the first portion of the spindle with the cam (Figure 1); and engaging the second portion of the spindle with the rotatable component (Figure 1).
Rokitte fails to specify that the lockset includes a trim and a chassis, with the cam being of the trim or associated or coupled with the trim and the rotatable component being of the chassis or associated or coupled with the chassis. Rokitte further fails to disclose that the spindle was selected from a plurality of spindles of a spindle selection kit, with the corresponding and respective lengths of at least two of the spindles of the plurality of spindles being different from one another. Rossall teaches a method comprising: selecting a spindle 4 from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30), and wherein the lengths of at least two spindles of the plurality of spindles are different from one another (since Rossall teaches that all the lengths are different, then at least two of the lengths are different, Page 5, lines 27-30). Rossall further teaches a lockset (Figure 1a) including a trim 7 and a chassis 916, with each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprising: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a cam 918 of the trim (Page 18, lines 29 and 30, and considered as “of the trim” because the cam is associated with and coupled to the trim); and a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component (handle 12 or 13) of the chassis (considered as “of the chassis” because the rotatable component is associated with and coupled to the chassis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit from which the spindle is selected and to specify that the lockset includes a trim and a chassis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the adaptability of the device to doors of different thicknesses and to provide structure to house the cam and the rotatable component.
Rokitte in view of Rossall fails to teach that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a corresponding and respective indicium relating to the corresponding and respective length of each spindle, and wherein selecting the spindle from the plurality of spindles based at least in part upon the corresponding and respective indicium. Bousso teaches a plurality of components 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, each including a corresponding and respective indicium (Figures 2A-2E), indicative of their differing characteristics, such that a user can easily distinguish the components from one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include corresponding and respective indicium on the plurality of spindles, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid a user in distinguishing the spindles from one another, such that the user can select the desired spindle for its length and use in the door.
In regards to claim 34, Rokitte in view of Rossall teaches that the first portion of each spindle comprises a fork (fork at end 3, Figure 1 of Rokitte) including two flexible arms (see Figure 1 below) that are biased away from one another (biased or urged by component 5, Figure 1 of Rokitte).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 35, Rokitte discloses that each flexible arm comprises an inner ridge facing toward the other flexible arm (see Figure 1 above).
In regards to claim 36, Rokitte discloses that each flexible arm comprises an outer ridge facing away from the other flexible arm (see Figure 1 above).
Claim(s) 37, 58, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitte (DE 1257035 B) in view of Rossall (GB 2616059 A), and further in view of Bousso (US Pub. No. 2017/0335600) as applied to claims 31 and 34-36 above, and further in view of Kato (GB 2103274).
In regards to claim 37, Rokitte in view of Rossall fails to teach that the spindle selection kit includes a base portion to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled; and wherein the method further comprises breaking the selected spindle from the base portion. Kato teaches a plurality of objects frangibly coupled to a based portion 48 or 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
In regards to claim 58, Rokitte discloses a lockset kit, comprising: a first rotatable component 1 and a second rotatable component 11; and a spindle 2 comprising: a corresponding and respective first portion (portion located within the opening of the first rotatable component 1, Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage the first rotatable component; and a corresponding and respective second portion (portion engaged with the second rotatable component 11, Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage the second rotatable component.
Rokitte fails to specify that the lockset kit includes a trim and a chassis, with the first rotatable component being of the trim or associated or coupled with the trim and the second rotatable component being of the chassis or associated or coupled with the chassis. Rokitte further fails to disclose that the spindle was selected from a plurality of spindles of a spindle selection kit. Rossall teaches a lockset kit, comprising: a spindle 4 selected from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30). Rossall further teaches that the lockset kit includes a trim 7 and a chassis 916, with each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprising: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a first rotatable component 918 of the trim (Page 18, lines 29 and 30, and considered as “of the trim” because the component 918 is associated with and coupled to the trim); and a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a second rotatable component (handle 12 or 13) of the chassis (considered as “of the chassis” because the second rotatable component is associated with and coupled to the chassis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit from which the spindle is selected and to specify that the lockset includes a trim and a chassis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the adaptability of the device to doors of different thicknesses and to provide structure to house the cam and the rotatable component.
Rokitte in view of Rossall fails to teach that the spindle selection kit includes a base portion to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled; and wherein the method further comprises breaking the selected spindle from the base portion. Kato teaches a plurality of objects frangibly coupled to a based portion 48 or 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
Rokitte in view of Rossall fails to teach that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a corresponding and respective indicium relating to a length of each spindle of the plurality of spindles. Bousso teaches a plurality of components 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, each including a corresponding and respective indicium (Figures 2A-2E), indicative of their differing characteristics, such that a user can easily distinguish the components from one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include corresponding and respective indicium on the plurality of spindles, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid a user in distinguishing the spindles from one another, such that the user can select the desired spindle for its length and use in the door.
In regards to claim 59, Rokitte in view of Rossall teaches that the first portion of each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises two flexible arms (see Figure 1 of Rokitte on Page 9 of the current Office Action) that are biased away from one another (biased or urged by component 5, Figure 1 of Rokitte), each flexible arm comprising an inner ridge facing toward the other flexible arm and an outer ridge facing away from the other flexible arm (see Figure 1 of Rokitte on Page 9 of the current Office Action).
Claim(s) 39, 40, 44, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossall (GB 2616059 A) in view of Kato (GB 2103274).
In regards to claim 39, Rossall discloses that the first portions of the plurality of spindles differ in lengths (differ in length because the overall length of the spindles are different, and the first portion is part of each spindle); and wherein the second portions of the plurality of spindles are of a single configuration (single configuration being the configuration that allows each spindle to cooperate with handle 12 or 13).
In regards to claim 40, Rossall discloses a spindle kit (Page 5, lines 27-30) in combination with a lockset (Figure 1a) comprising a trim 7 and a chassis 916, the spindle kit comprising: a plurality of spindles (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a cam 918 of the trim (Page 18, lines 29 and 30, and considered as “of the trim” because the cam is associated with and coupled to the trim); and a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component (handle 12 or 13) of the chassis (considered as “of the chassis” because the rotatable component is associated with and coupled to the chassis); wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30); and wherein the corresponding and respective lengths of at least two spindles of the plurality of spindles are different from one another (since Rossall discloses that all the lengths are different, then at least two of the lengths are different, Page 5, lines 27-30). Rossall fails to disclose a base portion, wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled to the base portion. Kato teaches a plurality of objects frangibly coupled to a based portion 48 or 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
In regards to claim 44, Rossall discloses a lockset kit comprising the spindle kit of claim 40, the lockset kit comprising the trim and the chassis (Figure 1a).
In regards to claim 45, Rossall discloses that the cam is operable to be coupled with the rotatable component via each individual spindle of the plurality of spindles (Figure 1a and Page 18, lines 29 and 30).
Claim(s) 39-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitte (DE 1257035 B) in view of Rossall (GB 2616059 A), and further in view of Kato (GB 2103274).
In regards to claim 39, Rokitte in view of Rossall teaches that the first portions of the plurality of spindles differ in lengths (differ in length because the overall length of the spindles are different, and the first portion is part of each spindle); and wherein the second portions of the plurality of spindles are of a single configuration (single configuration being the configuration that allows each spindle to cooperate with handle 12 or 13 of Rossall).
In regards to claim 40, Rokitte discloses a spindle kit (Figure 1) in combination with a lockset (lock, Paragraph 2 of the Computer Generated Translation), the spindle kit comprising: a spindle 2 that comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion (portion located within the opening of the cam 1, Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage a cam 1; and a corresponding and respective second portion (portion engaged with the handle 11, Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component 11; wherein the spindle has a corresponding and respective length (Figure 1).
Rokitte fails to specify that the lockset includes a trim and a chassis, with the cam being of the trim or associated or coupled with the trim and the rotatable component being of the chassis or associated or coupled with the chassis. Rokitte further fails to disclose that the spindle was selected from a plurality of spindles of a spindle selection kit, with the corresponding and respective lengths of at least two of the spindles of the plurality of spindles being different from one another. Rossall teaches a spindle kit in combination with a lockset (Figure 1a) including a trim 7 and a chassis 916, with a spindle 4 selected from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30), and wherein the lengths of at least two spindles of the plurality of spindles are different from one another (since Rossall teaches that all the lengths are different, then at least two of the lengths are different, Page 5, lines 27-30). Rossall further teaches that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a cam 918 of the trim (Page 18, lines 29 and 30, and considered as “of the trim” because the cam is associated with and coupled to the trim); and a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component (handle 12 or 13) of the chassis (considered as “of the chassis” because the rotatable component is associated with and coupled to the chassis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit from which the spindle is selected and to specify that the lockset includes a trim and a chassis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the adaptability of the device to doors of different thicknesses and to provide structure to house the cam and the rotatable component.
Rokitte in view of Rossall fails to teach a base portion, wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled to the base portion. Kato teaches a plurality of objects frangibly coupled to a based portion 48 or 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
In regards to claim 41, Rokitte in view of Rossall teaches that the first portion of each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a fork (fork at end 3, Figure 1 of Rokitte) including two flexible arms (see Figure 1 below) that are biased away from one another (biased or urged by component 5, Figure 1 of Rokitte).
In regards to claim 42, Rokitte discloses that each flexible arm comprises an inner ridge facing toward the other flexible arm (see Figure 1 of Rokitte on Page 9 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 43, Rokitte discloses that each flexible arm comprises an outer ridge facing away from the other flexible arm (see Figure 1 of Rokitte on Page 9 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 44, Rokitte in view of Rossall in further view of Kato teaches a lockset kit comprising the spindle kit of claim 40, with the lockset kit comprising the trim and the chassis (Figure 1a of Rossall).
In regards to claim 45, Rokitte in view of Rossall teaches that the cam is operable to be coupled with the rotatable component via each individual spindle of the plurality of spindles (Figure 1 of Rokitte).
Claim(s) 37 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossall (GB 2616059 A) in view of Bousso (US Pub. No. 2017/0335600) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Kato (GB 2103274).
In regards to claim 37, Rossall fails to disclose that the spindle selection kit includes a base portion to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled; and wherein the method further comprises breaking the selected spindle from the base portion. Kato teaches a plurality of objects 1 frangibly coupled to a base portion 48 and 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
In regards to claim 58, Rossall discloses a lockset kit, comprising: a trim 7 comprising a first rotatable component 21; a chassis 916 comprising a second rotatable component 918; and a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30) comprising a plurality of spindles, wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises: a corresponding and respective fit end portion sized and shaped to engage the first rotatable component (Figures 3-5c); and a corresponding and respective second end portion sized and shaped to engage the second rotatable component (Page 18, lines 29 and 30).
Rossall fails to disclose that the spindle selection kit includes a base to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled. Kato teaches a plurality of objects 1 frangibly coupled to a base portion 48 and 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to air in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
Rossall fails to disclose that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a corresponding and respective indicium relating to a length of each spindle. Bousso teaches a plurality of components 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, each including a corresponding and respective indicium (Figures 2A-2E), indicative of their differing characteristics, such that a user can easily distinguish the components from one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include corresponding and respective indicium on the plurality of spindles, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid a user in distinguishing the spindles from one another, such that the user can select the desired spindle for its length and use in the door.
Claim(s) 31 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muellerbader (DE 19521456 A1) in view of Rossall (GB 2616059 A), and further in view of Bousso (US Pub. No. 2017/0335600).
In regards to claim 31, Muellerbader discloses a method, comprising: selecting a spindle 4, 5 (as a unit), wherein the spindle has a corresponding and respective length (Figure 1); and installing the spindle to a lockset (Figure 1) comprising a trim 14 and a chassis 15; wherein the spindle comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a cam 3 of the trim (the first portion being the end portion of the spindle that is located within an opening of the cam in Figure 1 and the cam being “of the trim” because the cam is associated with or coupled to the trim); and a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component 1 of the chassis (the second portion being the end portion of the spindle that is located within an opening of the rotatable component in Figure 1 and the rotatable component being “of the chassis” because the rotatable component has a least a portion located within the confines of the chassis in Figure 1); wherein selecting the spindle is based at least in part upon a thickness of a door to which the lockset is to be installed (door having trim 14 in Figure 1, with the corresponding and respective length of the spindle being directly related to a thickness of the door, Figure 1); and wherein installing the spindle to the lockset comprises: engaging the first portion of the spindle with the cam (Figure 1); and engaging the second portion of the spindle with the rotatable component (Figure 1).
Muellerbader fails to disclose that the spindle was selected from a plurality of spindles of a spindle selection kit, with the corresponding and respective lengths of at least two of the spindles of the plurality of spindles being different from one another. Rossall teaches a method comprising: selecting a spindle 4 from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30), and wherein the lengths of at least two spindles of the plurality of spindles are different from one another (since Rossall teaches that all the lengths are different, then at least two of the lengths are different, Page 5, lines 27-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit from which the spindle is selected, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the adaptability of the device to doors of different thicknesses.
Muellerbader in view of Rossall fails to teach that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a corresponding and respective indicium relating to the corresponding and respective length of each spindle, and wherein selecting the spindle from the plurality of spindles based at least in part upon the corresponding and respective indicium. Bousso teaches a plurality of components 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, each including a corresponding and respective indicium (Figures 2A-2E), indicative of their differing characteristics, such that a user can easily distinguish the components from one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include corresponding and respective indicium on the plurality of spindles, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid a user in distinguishing the spindles from one another, such that the user can select the desired spindle for its length and use in the door.
In regards to claim 56, Muellerbader in view of Rossall teaches that each spindle of the plurality of spindles further comprises a corresponding and respective lip 11, 12 (as a unit) separating the first portion from the second portion (Figure 1); and wherein installing the selected spindle to the lockset further comprises engaging the lip of the selected spindle with the cam to thereby block further movement of the selective spindle relative to the cam (the lip engages the cam, such that the spindle cannot move in the downward direction relative to cam in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 39, 40, 44, 45, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muellerbader (DE 19521456 A1) in view of Rossall (GB 2616059 A), and further in view of Kato (GB 2103274).
In regards to claim 39, Muellerbader in view of Rossall teaches that the first portions of the plurality of spindles differ in lengths (differ in length because the overall length of the spindles are different, and the first portion is part of each spindle); and wherein the second portions of the plurality of spindles are of a single configuration (single configuration being the configuration that allows each spindle to cooperate with handle 12 or 13 of Rossall).
In regards to claim 40, Muellerbader discloses a spindle kit (Figure 1) in combination with a lockset (Figure 1) comprising a trim 14 and a chassis 15, the spindle kit comprising: a spindle 4, 5 (as a unit), wherein the spindle comprises: a corresponding and respective first portion sized and shaped to engage a cam 3 of the trim (the first portion being the end portion of the spindle that is located within an opening of the cam in Figure 1 and the cam being “of the trim” because the cam is associated with or coupled to the trim); and a corresponding and respective second portion sized and shaped to engage a rotatable component 1 of the chassis (the second portion being the end portion of the spindle that is located within an opening of the rotatable component in Figure 1 and the rotatable component being “of the chassis” because the rotatable component has a least a portion located within the confines of the chassis in Figure 1); wherein the spindle has a corresponding and respective length (Figure 1).
Muellerbader fails to disclose that that the spindle was selected from a plurality of spindles of a spindle selection kit, with the corresponding and respective lengths of at least two of the spindles of the plurality of spindles being different from one another. Rossall teaches a method comprising: selecting a spindle 4 from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30), and wherein the lengths of at least two spindles of the plurality of spindles are different from one another (since Rossall teaches that all the lengths are different, then at least two of the lengths are different, Page 5, lines 27-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit from which the spindle is selected, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the adaptability of the device to doors of different thicknesses.
Muellerbader in view of Rossall fails to teach that the spindle selection kit includes a base portion to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled. Kato teaches a plurality of objects 1 frangibly coupled to a base portion 48 and 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
In regards to claim 44, Muellerbader in view of Rossall in further view of Kato teaches a lockset kit comprising the spindle kit of claim 40, with the lockset kit comprising the trim and the chassis (Figure 1a of Rossall).
In regards to claim 45, Muellerbader in view of Rossall teaches that the cam is operable to be coupled with the rotatable component via each individual spindle of the plurality of spindles (Figure 1 of Muellerbader).
In regards to claim 57, Muellerbader in view of Rossall teaches that each spindle of the plurality of spindles further comprises a corresponding and respective lip 11, 12 (as a unit of Muellerbader) separating the first portion from the second portion (Figure 1 of Muellerbader), the lip configured to engage the cam to thereby block forward movement of the spindle when the spindle is installed (the lip engages the cam to block forward movement or movement in a downward direction in Figure 1 of Muellerbader).
Claim(s) 37, 58, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muellerbader (DE 19521456 A1) in view of Rossall (GB 2616059 A), and further in view of Kato (GB 2103274), and further in view of Bousso (US Pub. No. 2017/0335600).
In regards to claim 37, Muellerbader in view of Rossall fails to teach that the spindle selection kit includes a base portion to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled; and wherein the method further comprises breaking the selected spindle from the base portion. Kato teaches a plurality of objects 1 frangibly coupled to a base portion 48 and 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base portion, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
In regards to claim 58, Muellerbader discloses a lockset kit, comprising: a trim (component in which component 3 is located, Figure 1) comprising a first rotatable component 3; a chassis 15 comprising a second rotatable component 1 (the chassis comprising at least a portion of the second rotatable component within its confines, Figure 1); and a spindle 4, 5 (as a unit) comprising: a corresponding and respective first end portion sized and shaped to engage the first rotatable component (end portion engaging with the first rotatable component 3, Figure 1); and a corresponding and respective second end portion sized and shaped to engage the second rotatable component (end portion located within the second rotatable component, Figure 1).
Muellerbader fails to disclose that the spindle is selected from a spindle selection kit comprising a plurality of spindles. Rossall teaches a lockset kit, comprising: a spindle 4 selected from a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit (Page 5, lines 27-30), wherein each spindle of the plurality of spindles has a corresponding and respective length (different or respective lengths for each spindle of the plurality of spindles, Page 5, lines 27-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a plurality of spindles within a spindle selection kit from which the spindle is selected, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the adaptability of the device to doors of different thicknesses.
Muellerbader in view of Rossall fails to teach that the spindle selection kit includes a base to which each of the spindles of the plurality of spindles is frangibly coupled. Kato teaches a plurality of objects 1 frangibly coupled to a base 48 and 49, such that one of the objects can be selected and then broken from the base portion for use (Page 6, lines 94-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to frangibly couple the plurality of spindles to a base, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in manufacturing and in order to keep the plurality of spindles together until use.
Muellerbader in view of Rossall fails to teach that each spindle of the plurality of spindles comprises a corresponding and respective indicium relating to a length of each spindle. Bousso teaches a plurality of components 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, each including a corresponding and respective indicium (Figures 2A-2E), indicative of their differing characteristics, such that a user can easily distinguish the components from one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include corresponding and respective indicium on the plurality of spindles, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid a user in distinguishing the spindles from one another, such that the user can select the desired spindle for its length and use in the door.
In regards to claim 61, Muellerbader in view of Rossall teaches that each spindle of the plurality of spindles further comprises a lip 11, 12 (as a unit of Muellerbader) separating the first portion from the second portion (Figure 1 of Muellerbader), the lip configured to engage the cam and prevent further advancement of each spindle relative to the cam (the lip engages the cam and prevents advancement or movement of the spindle in a downward direction relative to the cam in Figure 1 of Muellerbader).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 60 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 claim 60.
In regards to claim 60, Rokitte (DE 1257035 B) fails to disclose that each spindle of the plurality of spindles is configured such that upon installation of a selected spindle of the plurality of spindles to the lockset and insertion of a tampering tool between the two flexible arms to depress the two flexible arms toward one another, the inner ridges engage the tampering tool such that the tapering tool becomes clamped between the two flexible arms and is thereby prevented from further depressing the two flexible arms toward one another, and the outer ridges engage the cam to thereby prevent inward movement of the selected spindle relative to the cam. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Rokitte without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, applicant is referred to the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning the Bousso reference on Page 13 of the response, the indicium taught by Bousso provides a distinction between the elements, with each of the elements having differing shapes and characteristics, and therefore, Bousso teaches that the indicium can be used to provide a distinction between various elements, such as indicium that might be related to a characteristic, such as length.
In response to applicant's argument that Kato is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kato teaches the use of a base or base portion to provide a means by which components are kept together until it is determined that one or more of the elements is to be used and removed from the base or base portion. The spindles of the spindle selection kit taught by Rossall are capable of being connected in this manner, so as to provide a compact and organized kit.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims and applicant’s remarks, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 October 13, 2026
