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.
Claim(s) 21-27, 29-30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Capozziello (US 20190211583 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Capozziello teaches an access control device, comprising:
a housing assembly (10);
a bolt (23) mounted for movement relative to the housing assembly between an extended position and a retracted position (para. 00135), wherein a portion of the bolt projects from the housing assembly when the bolt is in the extended position (fig. 3), and wherein the portion of the bolt comprises an indicator that is visible when the bolt is in the extended position (annotated fig. 1); and
an actuator (push bar cited in para. 0142) operably connected with the bolt and configured to drive the bolt in a retracting direction when the actuator is moved in an actuating direction different from the retracting direction (a push bar is operable to include an actuating direction towards the flat surface of the door, while the retracting direction of the latch is towards the edge of the door, or perpendicular to the actuating direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 22, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 21, wherein the bolt is biased toward the extended position (spring visible in annotated fig. 1 biases bolt to extended position).
Regarding claim 23, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 21, wherein the actuator is operable to move in the actuating direction from a deactivated position toward an actuated position (push bar); and wherein the actuator is biased toward the deactivated position (push bars are biased toward the deactuated position in order to be pushed).
Regarding claim 24, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 23, further comprising a dogging mechanism operable to retain the actuator in the actuated position (para. 0181).
Regarding claim 25, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 21, wherein the actuator comprises a push bar (para. 0142); and wherein the actuating direction is an egress direction (push bar towards direction of travel).
Regarding claim 26, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 21, wherein the portion of the bolt comprises a recess (angled portion set back from the rest of the latch bolt is being interpreted as a recess); and wherein the indicator is positioned in the recess.
Regarding claim 27, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 21, wherein the bolt is remote from the actuator (the bolt is not mounted directly on the push bar) and is connected with the actuator via a vertical connector (20).
Regarding claim 29, Capozziello teaches a vertical exit device, comprising:
a push bar (para. 0142) assembly comprising a push bar that extends in a horizontal direction;
a remote latch (21) positioned remote from the push bar assembly (the latch is not mounted on the push bar and is therefore being interpreted as remote), the remote latch comprising:
a housing (10);
a bolt (23) operable to extend from the housing and to retract into the housing; and
an indicator (annotated fig. 1) positioned on the bolt such that the indicator is visible when the bolt is extended; and
a vertical connector (20) connected between the push bar assembly and the remote latch to thereby actuate the remote latch in response to depression of the push bar in an egress direction.
Regarding claim 30, Capozziello teaches the vertical exit device of claim 29, wherein the indicator is positioned in a recess of the bolt (the angled portion set back from the rest of the latch bolt is being interpreted as a recess).
Regarding claim 32, Capozziello teaches the vertical exit device of claim 29, further comprising a dogging mechanism (para. 0181) operable to retain the push bar in a depressed position against a biasing force urging the push bar toward a projected position (para. 0181).
Regarding claim 33, Capozziello teaches the vertical exit device of claim 29, further comprising: an additional remote latch (26) positioned remote from the push bar; and
an additional vertical connector (16) connected between the push bar assembly and the additional remote latch;
wherein the push bar assembly is positioned between the remote latch and the additional remote latch (positioned between both in order to operate both).
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 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capozziello (US 20190211583 A1) in view of Sweeney (US 20190368226 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Capozziello teaches the access control device of claim 21, however does not explicitly teach wherein the indicator comprises at least one of a retroreflective material, a fluorescent material, or a photoluminescent material.
Sweeney teaches a similar access control device utilizing a retroreflective material (para. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Capozziello with those of Sweeney in order to incorporate a retroreflective coating on the indicator of Capozziello. A retroreflective coating catches attention more easily as identified by Sweeney in paragraph 0052. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 31, Capozziello teaches the vertical exit device of claim 29, however does not explicitly teach wherein the indicator comprises at least one of a retroreflective material, a fluorescent material, or a photoluminescent material.
Sweeney teaches a similar access control device utilizing a retroreflective material (para. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Capozziello with those of Sweeney in order to incorporate a retroreflective coating on the indicator of Capozziello. A retroreflective coating catches attention more easily as identified by Sweeney in paragraph 0052. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 34-37, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 0747252 A) in view of Banks (US 20070246947 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Capozziello teaches an access control device configured for mounting to a door that is pivotable about a first vertical axis, the access control device comprising:
a housing assembly (10);
a bolt (23) mounted to the housing assembly in an extending direction and a retracting direction, wherein a portion of the bolt projects from the housing assembly when the bolt is extended;
an indicator (annotated fig. 1) mounted to a front face of the bolt such that the indicator is visible when the bolt is extended; and an actuator (push bar discussed in para. 0142) operably connected with the bolt and configured to drive the bolt in the retracting direction when the actuator is actuated.
Capozziello does not explicitly teach wherein the bolt is configured for pivotal movement about a second vertical axis.
Banks teaches a similar access control device wherein the bolt is configured for pivotal movement about a vertical axis (figs. 5a-5f).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Capozziello with those of Banks in order to utilize a pivoting keeper rather than the sliding keeper of Capozziello. A pivoting keeper allows for smoother opening and closing as it can essentially roll around the catch to provide quieter operation and easier opening. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 35, Capozziello in view of Banks teaches the access control device of claim 34, Capozziello further teaches wherein the actuator comprises a manual actuator (push bar).
Regarding claim 36, Capozziello in view of Banks teaches the access control device of claim 35, Capozziello further teaches wherein the manual actuator is configured to drive the bolt in the retracting direction when the actuator is driven in an actuating direction different from the retracting direction (A push bar acts in the egress direction while the latch retracts in a direction perpendicular to the egress direction).
Regarding claim 37, Capozziello in view of Banks teaches the access control device of claim 35, Capozziello further teaches further comprising a dogging mechanism operable to retain the manual actuator in an actuated position (para. 0181).
Regarding claim 39, Capozziello in view of Banks teaches the access control device of claim 34, Capozziello further teaches wherein the front face of the bolt comprises a recess in which the indicator is positioned (the angled portion set back from the rest of the latch bolt is being interpreted as a recess).
Regarding claim 40, Capozziello in view of Banks teaches the access control device of claim 34, Capozziello further teaches wherein the bolt is biased in the extending direction (spring visible in annotated fig. 1 biases bolt to extend).
Claims 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capozziello (US 20190211583 A1) in view of Banks (US 20070246947A) and further in view of Sweeney (US 20190368226 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Capozziello in view of Banks teaches the access control device of claim 34, however does not explicitly teach wherein the indicator comprises at least one of a retroreflective material, a fluorescent material, or a photoluminescent material.
Sweeney teaches a similar access control device utilizing a retroreflective material (para. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Capozziello and Banks with those of Sweeney in order to incorporate a retroreflective coating on the indicator of Capozziello. A retroreflective coating catches attention more easily as identified by Sweeney in paragraph 0052. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights