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:
The claim 1 limitation body is not assigned a reference character.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 29, line 10, “the one or more arms of the shackle” is recited. The “the one or more arms” and “the shackle” should likely be an “one or more arms” and “a shackle” because the arms and shackle limitations were previously recited in claim 2 but claim 29 does not pend from claim 2. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a back side”.
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 14 and 32 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.
Regarding claim 14, line 2, it is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. The structure performing the claimed resilient retraction of the lock bars is essential and has been omitted from the specification and figures. Instant specification [0010] states the locking bars may be configured to resiliently retract and this structure is not discussed further in the specification whereas the structure to resiliently extend the locking bars is discussed in detail in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 32, line 3, “the body” is recited. It is unclear which body is being referred to. Claim 29 recites the body of the locking system before the initial recitation of the extension module. Claim 32 appears to be reciting a body of the extension module based on the claim language but it is unclear. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a body of the extension module”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., CN 111425077 A (hereinafter Wang; paragraph references are from the Espacenet machine translation of CN 111425077 A) in view of Augustyn et al., US 20250118120 A1 (hereinafter Augustyn).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a locking system (lock 1) having a body (lock shell 10; lock cylinder 11) comprising a control system ([0017] discusses a control motherboard which controls the power module) and an electronic power receiver ([0057] discusses an NFC antenna but does not assign a reference character, hereinafter antenna housing 101 will be used to reference the electronic power receiver), the electronic power receiver being activated to operate the control system by a wireless transmission of electrical power from an external power source [0043; 0062], wherein the electronic power receiver utilizes the NFC charging standard..
Wang does not teach wherein the electronic power receiver utilizes the Qi charging standard.
Augustyn teaches it is known in the art there are multiple wireless transmission of electrical power systems and standards with NFC and Qi being two such systems such that Augustyn teaches wherein the electronic power receiver utilizes the Qi charging standard.
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 “‘[R]ejections 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, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. 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 E, to modify Wang’s electrical power receiver NFC structure with the electrical power receiver Qi structure as taught by Augustyn. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to wirelessly power electronic components. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to wirelessly power electronic components (e.g. NFC, Qi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign Wang in order to provide multiple wireless power structures for the locking system resulting in more secure supply chain support. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Augustyn, and redesigned Wang in view of Augustyn with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of wireless electronic power charging structure and standards.
PNG
media_image1.png
763
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wang
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 1, wherein the body (10; 11) comprises a first surface and a second surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wang), and opposing sidewalls that extend therebetween (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wang), the first surface comprising one or more apertures (lock hook hole 102; limiting groove 103), and wherein the locking system further comprises a shackle (locking hook 20), the body being adapted to receive at least a portion of one or more arms of the shackle (hinged end 21; movable end 22) therein through the one or more apertures of the first surface (Fig 3 depicts 10 receiving 21;22 in 102;103).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 2, further comprising a locking mechanism that is at least partially contained within the body (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wang depicts the locking mechanism contained within 10;11), the locking mechanism being configurable by the control system between a locked configuration, in which the locking mechanism engages with the portion of the one or more arms of the shackle received within the body, in use, so as to prevent relative movement of the shackle relative to the body, and an unlocked configuration in which the shackle is allowed to move relative to the body [0043].
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 10, wherein at least of the following is true when the locking mechanism is in the unlock configuration: (i) the one or more arms of the shackle can be removed from the body (movement from Fig 3 to Fig 5 depicts 22 removed from 10;11); and (ii) the locking mechanism allows the shackle to move relative to the body and prevents removal of the entirety of the shackle outside of the body (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 10, wherein the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wang) comprises one or more locking bars (first lock tongue 31; second lock tongue 32), each of the one or more locking bars being arranged to project towards, and engage with, a groove provided in an adjacent one of the arms of the shackle when in the locked configuration (first locking groove 211; second locking groove 221; [0050]), and each of the one or more locking bars being arranged to retract away from the adjacent one of the arms of the shackle by a movement of the shackle relative to the one or more locking bars when in the unlocked configuration (movement between Fig 3 and Fig 4 depicts the retraction of 31;32 from 211;221).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 13, wherein, in the unlocked configuration, the one or more locking bars are configured to resiliently retract (instant specification [0056] discusses resilient return being performed by motor; using this definition of resilient return, Wang [0053] discusses 31;32 being resiliently retracted by motor 61) .
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 13, wherein the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wang) further comprises a rotatable drum (cam 60; Fig 6) that is controlled to rotate by the control system [0046; 0053], the drum having a locking wall (convex part 603) that, when in the locked configuration (Fig 3), is controlled by the control system to be rotated so as to locate adjacent to a first end of the one or more locking bars so as to prevent a retraction of the opposing second end of the one or more locking bars from the groove (Fig 3 depicts 60 rotated such that 603 prevents the retraction of 31;32), and the drum having a hole provided in a portion thereof (first curved groove 601; second curved groove 602), the hole having a depth sufficient that, when in the unlocked configuration, the drum is controlled by the control system to be rotated such that the hole locates adjacent to, and is adapted to receive therein, the first end of the one or more locking bars therein so as to allow the one or more locking bars to slide laterally toward the drum such that the opposing second end of the one or more locking bars is retracted from the groove (Fig 4 depicts 60 rotated such that the first end of 31;32 are allowed to slide laterally toward the centerline of 60 thereby allowing 31; 32 to retract from 211;221).
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 1, wherein the electronic power receiver (Wang, 101) does not store electrical power and/or does not receive electrical power from a battery and/or a surge capacitor except via the wireless transmission (Wang, [0043] discusses the electronic power receiver only receiving electrical energy from the external NFC enabled unlocking key, the electronic power receiver not storing any energy, and sending the energy into the locking system for use).
Regarding claim 23, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 1, wherein the control system ([0017] discusses a control motherboard which controls the power module), when activated to operate, can communicate with and/or be controlled by the external power source ([0043] discusses the NFC-enabled locking key initiating lock operation) and/or a remotely located server (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required) to implement one or more configuration changes and/or actions ([0043] discusses the NFC-enabled locking key initiating lock operation).
Regarding claim 38, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 1, wherein the locking system (Wang, 1) is, or is integrated with , a bicycle lock, a security door, a gate, a safe, a storage unit, a window lock, a suitcase lock, a motor vehicle lock ,a cabinet lock (Augustyn [0001] discusses padlocks being used to secure containers), a mono-block lock, a container lock (Wang 1 is a padlock structurally capable without modification of locking a container), a musical instrument case, and/or a steering wheel lock (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, CN 111425077 A1, in view of Augustyn, US 20250118120 A1, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Penaloza, US 12247418 B2.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 2.
Wang in view of Augustyn does not teach wherein the one or more apertures extend through the body and the second surface on an opposing side of the body to the first surface, the one or more apertures through the second surface being aligned with the one or more apertures through the first surface.
Penaloza teaches it is known in the art for a locking system (apparatus 100; Fig 3) to comprise a body, wherein the body comprises a first surface and a second surface, and opposing sidewalls that extend therebetween (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Penaloza), the first surface comprising one or more apertures therethrough (openings 118), and a shackle (shackle 102) further comprising one or more arms (arms 112); wherein the one or more apertures extend through the body and the second surface on an opposing side of the body to the first surface, the one or more apertures through the second surface being aligned with the one or more apertures through the first surface (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Penaloza and Fig 1 depicts 118 aligned and extending through the first and second surfaces).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Penaloza
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 E, to modify Wang’s lock body with the aligned apertures on the first and second surfaces structure as taught my Penaloza. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to structure a lock body to engage a shackle. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized design need to structure the lock body to shackle engagement (e.g. shackle goes in one side and does not through the body; shackle goes in one side and extends through the other side). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to redesign their lock body to shackle engagement in order to provide lock where the shackle can be tightened around component being locked resulting in less lock movement. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Penaloza; Lillo, US 5163308 A; Troast, US 1525340 A; and Fraim, US 1635711 A; and redesigned Wang in view of Augustyn with Penaloza with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of lock body to shackle engagement.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Augustyn and Penaloza teaches the locking system of claim 3, wherein the one or more arms of the shackle (Penaloza, 112) extend through, and protrude beyond, the body (See Fig 1 and Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Penaloza).
Claims 27, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, CN 111425077 A1, in view of Augustyn, US 20250118120 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim, KR 940001254 Y1.
Regarding claim 27, Wang in view of Augustyn teaches the locking system of claim 1.
Wang in view of Augustyn doesn’t teach comprising an extension module, the extension module being adapted to be removably coupled to, or secured in adjacency to, the body.
Kim teaches it is known in the art for a locking system (Fig 1) having a body (2), further comprising an extension module (1), the extension module being adapted to be removably coupled to, or secured in adjacency to, the body (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kim depicts 1 secured adjacent to 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
311
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kim
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, to modify locking system of Wang in view of Augustyn to have the extension module of Kim. 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 would have been motivated to add a similarly dimensioned extension module in order to expand the functionality of the locking system. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success 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 locking system with a body and an extension module.
Regarding claim 28, Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim teaches the locking system of claim 27, wherein the extension module (Kim, 2) has a cross-sectional shape that substantially conforms to a cross-sectional shape of the body (Kim, 1; Fig 1 depicts 1 and 2 to have substantially conforming cross-section shapes).
Regarding claim 29, Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim teaches the locking system of claim 27, wherein the body (Kim, 2) comprises a first surface, a second surface, and opposing sidewalls extending therebetween (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kim), the first surface comprising one or more apertures therethrough (Kim, 1.sup.2), and wherein the extension module (Kim, 1) comprises a first and a second surface, and opposing sidewalls that extend therebetween (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kim), the first surface comprising one or more apertures that extend through the extension module and the second surface on an opposing side of the extension module, the one or more apertures being arranged to align with, and extend collinearly with an axis through the centre of the one or more apertures through the first surface of the body, and wherein the one or more apertures through the extension module are adapted to receive one or more arms (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kim) of a shackle (see claim interpretation under claim 29 Claim Objection; lock ring 3) therethrough (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kim depicts the apertures of 1;2 are aligned such that they receive the arms of 3).
Regarding claim 32, Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim teaches the locking system of claim 29, wherein a relative position of the extension module (Kim, 1) along the one or more arms of the shackle (Kim, 3) can be fixed by a fixed engagement of a body of the extension module (see claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejection of claim 32) with the shackle (Fig 3 depicts indentions 3.sup.1 which are used to fix the engagement of 1 to 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33, 34, 35, and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 33, while Kim teaches it is known in the art for a locking system to comprise an extension module, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim as claimed in the instant application wherein the extension module derives electrical power from the body or provides electrical power to the body when the electronic power receiver has been activated in use; without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 34, while Wang teaches it is known in the art for a locking system to comprise a control system and Kim teaches it is known in the art for a locking system to comprise an extension module, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim as claimed in the instant application wherein the control system, when activated to operate, can communicate with and/or control or be controlled by the extension module to implement one or more configuration changes and/or actions; without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 35, while Kim teaches it is known in the art for a locking system to comprise an extension module, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim as claimed in the instant application wherein the extension module is configured to communicate with and/or control and/or be controlled by additional extension modules to implement one or more configuration changes and/or actions; without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 36, while Kim teaches it is known in the art for a locking system to comprise an extension module configured to engaged and lock with the shackle, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Wang in view of Augustyn and Kim as claimed in the instant application wherein the extension module is configured to include one or more of a speaker, a microphone, a cellular and/or wireless connection module, a keypad or alternative user interface module, a GPS and/or location tracking module, an alarm module, a module capable of providing light, a line-of-sight communication module, a camera module, a battery module, a solar panel module, an AC powered module, a doorbell module, a key vault module, and/or a safe vault module; without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for locking systems.
Liu, US 20160002958 A1, teaches a water-fust-proof case for lock comprising an extension module.
Basilious, US 20230230431 A1, teaches an electronic lock configured to receive wireless power transmissions.
Ho, US 10030417 B1, teaches an induction type padlock with control system and electronic power receiver.
Bullard et al., US 11773626 B2, teaches systems and methods for facilitating logistic comprising a locking system with extension module.
Hsieh, US 5920254 A, teaches a steering wheel lock with vibration initiated alarm circuit with control system and extension module.
Stephens et al., US 10438431 B2, teaches a wireless powered digital lock.
Liu et al., CN 113202359 A, teaches an NFC padlock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
