DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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) 1-6, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji, KR 20190018384A, refer to attached translation.
Claim 1: Ji discloses a locking device for operating a first bolt, the locking device comprising:
a housing having an upper end and a lower end (shown in Fig. 2), and also having a bolt opening in a first side extending from the upper end to the lower end (Figs. 2-3 depicts the bolt extending through a bolt opening),
a first bolt (100) comprising a pivotable bolt head (100; ¶ 0027) connected to a bolt head operator (120 with 130 and 160 form a bolt head operator) and configured to move linearly from an extended state where it protrudes through the bolt opening (position in Fig. 8A) to a retracted state (position in Fig. 8D), the pivotable bolt head being pivotable around an axis (¶ 0048) extending from the upper end to the lower end (depicted in Figs. 2-3),
a catch (135) for blocking pivoting of the bolt head in a blocked state of the locking device (¶ 0045), and
a catch receiver for receiving the catch in an unblocked state of the locking device (Figs. 6a-b illustrate at least a portion of the guide slot 126 is structured to function as a catch receiver; ¶ 0027),
and further comprising
an activation mechanism (handle, 190 and 255 form an activation mechanism) for operating the locking device, the activation mechanism comprising an activation unit (handle) and a transfer mechanism (245, 225 and 255 form a transfer mechanism) for transferring a movement from the activation unit to the bolt head operator (¶ 0046 (“thereby disengaging from the latch bolt groove portion … becomes capable of rotation”)),
wherein the bolt head operator comprises a control member (160) configured to be rotated by the transfer mechanism for controlling the state of the catch (¶ 0046), wherein rotation of the control member causes the catch receiver to become available to the catch for forming the unblocked state (¶ 0046; Figs. 8a-b).
Claim 2: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the catch receiver is inside the bolt head operator (Fig. 5) and wherein rotation of the control member enables the catch to at least partially enter an opening of the catch receiver (¶ 0046; movement from Fig. 8a to Fig. 8b).
Claim 3: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 2, wherein the transfer mechanism comprises a transfer element (255) and a coupler (260), said transfer element being connected to the activation unit (¶ 0029) and said coupler being configured to couple a movement from the transfer element to the bolt head operator (¶ 0031; ¶ 0046 (“projection (260) formed on the latch engaging means (255) rotates together and comes into contact with the latch link (160))).
Claim 4: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 3, wherein the transfer element is configured to move along a transfer element path and to contact the coupler at an end of the transfer element path (movement between Figs. 8a and 8b depicts the transfer element moving along a transfer element path and contacting the coupler).
Claim 5: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 4, further comprising a coupler biasing device configured to bias the coupler towards the blocked state (¶ 0047).
Claim 6: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 5, wherein the activation unit is configured to act with a transfer force on the transfer element for moving the transfer element along the transfer element path (¶¶ 0028, 0046), and wherein the coupler biasing device has a bias that is smaller than the transfer force but larger than a back force required to force the transfer element back to a neutral position when the activation unit is not active (¶ 0046-47 (the bias has to be smaller than the transfer force in order to actuate the transfer element)).
Claim 8: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 1, further comprising a bolt head biasing device (180) configured to bias the bolt head towards a non-pivoted position (¶ 0048).
Claim 11: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 4, further comprising a second bolt (310) that is operated by the activation mechanism via the transfer mechanism (operated by the rotation of the second handle block 205 on the panic catch means 245), wherein the second bolt is configured to be retracted from an extended state (movement from Fig. 7 to Fig. 8; ¶ 0053) during a first part (P1) of the transfer element path (P) along which the transfer element is configured to move (the transfer element 255 and the second handle block 205 rotate together and actuate the panic catch means 245 (¶¶ 0051-53), corresponding to a first part of the path of the transfer element).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji, KR 20190018384 A, in view of Berkseth et al. (US 2007/0007773 A1).
Claim 10: Ji discloses the locking device according to claim 1, further comprising a handle connector (230) that is connected to the bolt head operator (operatively connected via the latch locking means 255) for retracting the bolt head to the retracted state (¶¶ 0031, 0033).
However, Ji is silent to a rotation of a handle mounted in the handle connector.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, modify the locking device disclosed by Ji to include a handle and handle connector that is configured to retract the bolt in response to a rotation of the handle mounted in the handle connector in order to simplify construction by alternatively using a standard handle and spindle arrangement. Berkseth teaches a known handle (¶ 0046) and handle connector (248), wherein the handle connector is connected to a bolt head operator for retracting the bolt head to the retracted state in response to a rotation of a handle mounted in the handle connector (¶¶ 0008, 0053-54). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a handle connector that is connected to the bolt head operator for retracting the bolt in response to a rotation of a handle mounted in the handle connector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 7 and 9.
In regards to claim 7, Ji teaches the control member of the bolt head operator comprises a forward portion and a rear portion, wherein a rotation is transferred, but does not disclose the forward and rear portions are rotationally stable and telescopic such that a rotation is transferred from one portion to the other whereas a linear movement is not. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the control member disclosed by Ji to include forward and rear portions that are rotationally stable and telescopic such that a rotation is transferred from one portion to the other whereas a linear movement is not without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
In regards to claim 9, Ji teaches the locking device according to claim 1. Ji does not disclose the catch is a ball and wherein the catch receiver is a hollow in the bolt head operator for receiving the ball in the unblocked state. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the locking device disclosed by Ji to include the catch as a ball and the catch receiver as a hollow in the bolt head operator for receiving the ball in the unblocked state without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Jeon (KR 101765329 B1) also discloses a similar locking device. Jeon teaches a pivotable bolt head (20), a bolt head operator (90), a catch that is a ball (24), and a catch receiver (22). However, Jeon teaches the catch receiver is a hollow in the bolt head for receiving the ball in an unblocked position (Fig. 11) and Jeon does not disclose an activation mechanism wherein the bolt head operator comprises a control member configured to be rotated by a transfer mechanism as claimed. Jeon discloses an external tool is used to change the state of the catch. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the locking device disclosed by Jeon to include a control member configured to be rotated by the transfer mechanism for controlling the state of the catch and the catch receiver is a hallow in the bolt head operator for receiving the ball in the unblocked state without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brauning (US 2175791 A) is related to a handle of a locking device comprising a bolt head operator configured to receive at least one ball in an unblocked state and the ball configured to block rotation of the handle, but does not teach a pivotable bolt head or a transfer element moving along a path.
Hirvi (WO 2009/096892 A2) is related to a locking device comprising a ball that is received in a hollow of a bolt head operator, but the ball does not function to block rotation of the bolt head.
Kruger et al. (WO 2015/144792 A1) is related to a locking device comprising a pivotable bolt head and a catch receiver on a bolt head operator configured to receiver receive the catch in an unblocked state of the locking device, but does not teach an activation mechanism.
Ji (KR 20150001163 U) and Hwang (KR 101933839 B1) are related to a locking device comprising a pivotable bolt head connected to a bolt head operator and a catch receiver configured to receive a catch for blocking rotation of the bolt head.
Romero (US 11598131 B2) is related to a locking device comprising a pivotable bolt head and a catch configured to block rotation of the bolt head, but does not include a catch receiver for receiving the catch in an unblocked state.
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
