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 § 112
Claims 14-15 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 14, “a rotary latch and a trigger member” is indefinite as “a locking mechanism” was previously introduced in claim 13 from which this claim depends. From the specification it appears the locking mechanism is the rotary latch and trigger member, however as claimed these elements appear to be separate. Thus, it’s unclear if the applicant is intending to claim a rotary latch and a trigger member in addition to a locking mechanism or if the rotary latch and trigger member are apart of the locking mechanism. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
Claim 15 is rejected due to it’s dependency on the rejected claim above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11613912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In regards to claim 1, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (first cover bar) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an enclosure; a second member (second cover bar) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the enclosure; a third member (center bar) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see Col 10 lines 26-38); and a first cam (external cam) rotatably (cam anticipates rotation) coupled to the third member, wherein the first cam is configured to rotate a second cam (first cam) of the enclosure simultaneously upon rotation of the first cam (see Col 10 lines 39-46).
In regards to claim 2, claims 1 and 7 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is oriented transverse to the first member and the second member (see claim 7).
In regards to claim 3, claim 1 and 8 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member or the second member (see claim 8).
In regards to claim 4, claim 1 and 8-9 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (see claim 9).
In regards to claim 5, claim 1 and 8-9 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are engaged with one or more additional cams for the enclosure (at least indirectly with the second cam see claims 8-9).
In regards to claim 6, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (first cover bar) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an access panel; a second member (second cover bar) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the access panel; a third member (center bar) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see Col 12 lines 26-38); a first cam rotatably coupled to the third member (see col 10 lines 39-46); a second cam (Col 10 lines 43-46) coupled to the access panel, wherein the first cam is operably interfaced with the second cam such that the first cam is configured to rotate the second cam simultaneously upon rotation of the first Cam (see col 10 lines 39-46), wherein the first cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the first cam is oriented in a first position; and an electronic locking assembly configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the access panel , wherein the electronic locking assembly is configured to selectively restrict rotation of the first cam or the second cam (see Col 10 lines 58-65).
In regards to claim 7, claims 1-2 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 6 wherein the electronic locking assembly comprises a rotary latch and a trigger member (see claim 2).
In regards to claim 8, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 6 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism between a locked position and an unlocked position (see col 10 lines 63-65).
In regards to claim 9, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 8 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises a wireless receiver and a controller configured to receive and authenticate an access code from a mobile electronic device (see Col 10 lines 61-62).
In regards to claim 10, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 9 wherein the controller is configured to command the electronic actuator to actuate the locking mechanism in response to authenticating the access code from the mobile electronic device (see Col 10 lines 58-65).
In regards to claim 11, claims 1-2 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 8 wherein the second cam is configured to restrict rotation of the first cam when the locking mechanism is engaged in the locked position (see claim 2).
In regards to claim 12, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system comprising: a first member (first cover bar) configured to be coupled to a first area of an enclosure; a second member (second cover bar) configured to be coupled to a second area of the enclosure; a third member (center bar) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see col 10 lines 26-38); an external cam operably engaged with the third member, wherein the external cam is operably interfaced with an internal cam (first cam) of the enclosure, wherein the external cam is configured to rotate the internal cam upon rotation of the external cam (See Col 10 lines 35-47); a strike plate assembly operably interfaced with the internal cam (See Col 10 lines 47-50); and an electronic locking assembly configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the enclosure (see Col 10 lines 58-65).
In regards to claim 13, claim 1 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 12 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism (see Col 10 lines 58-65).
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, claims 1-2 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 13 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises a rotary latch and a trigger member (see claim 2).
In regards to claim 15, claims 1-3 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 14 wherein the electronic locking assembly is configured to rotate the trigger member to actuate the locking mechanism (see claim 3).
In regards to claim 16, claim 1 and 6 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are oriented parallel from each other when the first member is coupled to the first area of the enclosure and the second member is coupled to the second area of the enclosure (see claim 6).
In regards to claim 17, claims 1 and 8-9 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 12 wherein the external cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the external cam is oriented in a first position( see claim 1 due to the quarter turn bracket; note claims 8-9).
In regards to claim 18, claims 1 and 8-9 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 17 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member at a first end of the third member (see claim 8).
In regards to claim 19, claims 1 and 8-9 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 18 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (see claim 9).
In regards to claim 20, claims 1 and 8-9 of US ‘912 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the first cam is oriented in a first position (see claim 1 due to the quarter turn bracket; note claims 8-9).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12291894. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In regards to claim 1, claim 1 of US ‘894 teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (first cover bar) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an enclosure; a second member (second cover bar) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the enclosure; a third member (center bar) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see Col 10 lines 26-38); and a first cam (external cam) rotatably coupled to the third member (Col 10 lines 39-41), wherein the first cam is configured to rotate a second cam (panel cam) of the enclosure simultaneously upon rotation of the first cam (See Col 1 lines 45-48).
In regards to claim 2, claims 1 and 2 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is oriented transverse to the first member and the second member (see claim 2).
In regards to claim 3, claims 1 and 3 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member or the second member (see claim 3).
In regards to claim 4, claims 1 and 4 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (see claim 4).
In regards to claim 5, claims 1 and 5 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are engaged with one or more additional cams for the enclosure (see claim 5).
In regards to claim 6, claims 8 of US ‘894 teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (first cover bar) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an access panel; a second member (second cover bar) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the access panel; a third member (center bar) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (See Col 11 lines 9-15); a first cam rotatably coupled to the third member; a second cam coupled to the access panel (Col 11 lines 16-20), wherein the first cam is operably interfaced with the second cam such that the first cam is configured to rotate the second cam simultaneously upon rotation of the first Cam (see Col 10 lines 45-48), wherein the first cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the first cam is oriented in a first position (Col 11 lines 24-26); and an electronic locking assembly configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the access panel , wherein the electronic locking assembly is configured to selectively restrict rotation of the first cam or the second cam (Col 11 lines 32-36).
In regards to claim 7, claims 8-9 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 6 wherein the electronic locking assembly comprises a rotary latch and a trigger member (see claim 9).
In regards to claim 8, claims 8 and 10 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 6 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism between a locked position and an unlocked position (see claim 10).
In regards to claim 9, claims 8 and 10-11 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 8 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises a wireless receiver and a controller configured to receive and authenticate an access code from a mobile electronic device (see claim 11).
In regards to claim 10, claims 8 and 10-12 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 9 wherein the controller is configured to command the electronic actuator to actuate the locking mechanism in response to authenticating the access code from the mobile electronic device (see claim 12).
In regards to claim 11, claims 8, 10 and 13 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 8 wherein the second cam is configured to restrict rotation of the first cam when the locking mechanism is engaged in the locked position (see claim 13).
In regards to claim 12, claims 14 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system comprising: a first member (first cover bar) configured to be coupled to a first area of an enclosure; a second member (second cover bar_ configured to be coupled to a second area of the enclosure; a third member (center bar) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see Col 12 lines 2-13); an external cam operably engaged with the third member (Col 12 lines 12-13), wherein the external cam is operably interfaced with an internal cam (first cam) of the enclosure, wherein the external cam is configured to rotate the internal cam upon rotation of the external cam ()Col 12 lines 17-19); a strike plate assembly operably interfaced with the internal cam (Col 12 lines 20-31); and an electronic locking assembly configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the enclosure (Col 12 lines 24-31).
In regards to claim 13, claims 14-15 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 12 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism (see claim 15).
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, claims 14-16 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 13 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises a rotary latch and a trigger member (see claim 16).
In regards to claim 15, claims 15-17 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 14 wherein the electronic locking assembly is configured to rotate the trigger member to actuate the locking mechanism (see claim 17).
In regards to claim 16, claims 1 and 6 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are oriented parallel from each other when the first member is coupled to the first area of the enclosure and the second member is coupled to the second area of the enclosure (see claim 6).
In regards to claim 17, claims 14 and 18 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 12 wherein the external cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the external cam is oriented in a first position (see claim 18).
In regards to claim 18, claims 14 and 18-19 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 17 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member at a first end of the third member (see claim 19).
In regards to claim 19, claims 14 and 18-20 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 18 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (see claim 20).
In regards to claim 20, claims 1 and 7 of US ‘894 teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the first cam is oriented in a first position (see claim 7).
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) 1-4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox US 3677043 A (hereinafter Cox).
In regards to claim 1, cox teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (15) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an enclosure (at least 10, see fig 1); a second member (16) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the enclosure (see fig 1); a third member (12) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see fig 1); and a first cam (31; Merriam webster defines a cam as “a rotating or sliding piece (such as an eccentric wheel or a cylinder with an irregular shape) in a mechanical linkage used especially in transforming rotary motion into linear motion or vice versa”) rotatably coupled to the third member (see fig 2), wherein the first cam is configured to rotate a second cam (28) of the enclosure simultaneously upon rotation of the first cam (see fig 2).
In regards to claim 2, cox teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is oriented transverse to the first member and the second member (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 3, cox teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member or the second member (see fig 3).
In regards to claim 4, cox teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (see fig 1).
In regards to claim 16, cox teaches locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are oriented parallel from each other when the first member is coupled to the first area of the enclosure and the second member is coupled to the second area of the enclosure (see fig 1).
Claim(s) 1-6, 12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. US 9915084 B1 (hereinafter Smith).
In regards to claim 1, Smith teaches a locking system comprising: a first member configured to be coupled to a first surface of an enclosure (44 and 64); a second member configured to be coupled to a second surface of the enclosure (see reference image 1); a third member (94) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see fig 3); and a first cam (116) rotatably coupled to the third member , wherein the first cam is configured to rotate a second cam (110) of the enclosure simultaneously upon rotation of the first cam (see figs 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
725
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 2, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is oriented transverse to the first member and the second member (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 6, Smith teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (64) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an access panel (44; at least indirectly via 82 and 84); a second member (see reference image 2) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the access panel; a third member (94) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (at least partially see fig 4); a first cam (116) rotatably coupled to the third member; a second cam (110) coupled to the access panel (see fig 4), wherein the first cam is operably interfaced with the second cam such that the first cam is configured to rotate the second cam simultaneously upon rotation of the first Cam (see fig 7), wherein the first cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member or the second member when the first cam is oriented in a first position (when the door is closed via 110; “secured” as 94 cannot rotate relative to 64); and an electronic locking assembly (96) configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the access panel , wherein the electronic locking assembly is configured to selectively restrict rotation of the first cam or the second cam (see fig 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
622
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference image 2
In regards to claim 12, Smith teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (portion of 82 and/or 84 fixed to 64) configured to be coupled to a first area of an enclosure (64 and 44); a second member (see reference image 21) configured to be coupled to a second area of the enclosure (see fig 5); a third member (94, at least partially, see fig 4) configured to extend between the first member and the second member; an external cam (116) operably engaged with the third member, wherein the external cam is operably interfaced with an internal cam (110) of the enclosure, wherein the external cam is configured to rotate the internal cam upon rotation of the external cam; a strike plate (78) assembly operably interfaced with the internal cam; and an electronic locking assembly (96) configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the enclosure (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 16, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are oriented parallel from each other when the first member is coupled to the first area of the enclosure and the second member is coupled to the second area of the enclosure (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 18, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 17 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member at a first end of the third member (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 19, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 18 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (via 82 and 84, see fig 4).
*** BELOW IS A SEPARATE INTERPRETATION OF SMITH FOR CLAIM 1 FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMS 3-4.
In regards to claim 1, Smith teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (portion of 82 and/or 84 fixed to 64) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an enclosure (64 and 44see fig 4); a second member configured to be coupled to a second surface of the enclosure (see reference image 2); a third member (94) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see fig 3, at least partially); and a first cam (116) rotatably coupled to the third member , wherein the first cam is configured to rotate a second cam (110) of the enclosure simultaneously upon rotation of the first cam (see figs 7-8).
In regards to claim 3, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the third member is rotatably coupled to the first member or the second member (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 4, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member is operably interfaced with the third member (see fig 4).
*** BELOW IS A SEPARATE INTERPRETATION OF SMITH FOR CLAIM 1 FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMS 5 AND 20.
In regards to claim 1, Smith teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (78) configured to be coupled to a first surface of an enclosure (see figs 4 and 6); a second member (80) configured to be coupled to a second surface of the enclosure (see fig 4); a third member (94) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (see fig 4, at least partially with the door closed); and a first cam (116) rotatably coupled to the third member , wherein the first cam is configured to rotate a second cam (110) of the enclosure simultaneously upon rotation of the first cam (see figs 7-8).
In regards to claim 5, cox teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are engaged with one or more additional cams (112 and/or 98) for the enclosure (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 20, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 1 wherein the first cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member (via 110) or the second member when the first cam is oriented in a first position (see fig 2).
*** BELOW IS A SEPARATE INTERPRETATION OF SMITH FOR CLAIM 12 FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIM 17.
In regards to claim 12, Smith teaches a locking system comprising: a first member (78) configured to be coupled to a first area of an enclosure (64 and 44; see fig 6); a second member (80, see fig 3) configured to be coupled to a second area of the enclosure (see fig 5); a third member (94, at least partially, see fig 4) configured to extend between the first member and the second member (when the door is closed); an external cam (116) operably engaged with the third member, wherein the external cam is operably interfaced with an internal cam (110) of the enclosure, wherein the external cam is configured to rotate the internal cam upon rotation of the external cam; a strike plate (78) assembly operably interfaced with the internal cam; and an electronic locking assembly (96) configured to be coupled to an inside surface of the enclosure (see fig 4).
In regards to claim 17, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 12 wherein the external cam is configured to secure the third member to the first member (via 110 and 112; “:secured” as 94 can no longer pivot relative to 64) or the second member when the external cam is oriented in a first position (via 110, when the door is closed).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (first interpretation for both claims 1 and 12) as applied to claims 1-6, 12 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Yuan US 20080303290 A1 (hereinafter Yuan).
In regards to claim 7, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 6 wherein the electronic locking assembly comprises a rotary latch (142; see figs 5 and 6).
However, Smith is silent on details of the electronic locking assembly and therefore does not teach a trigger member.
Yuan teaches a similar device with a rotary latch (20) and a trigger member (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Smith’s electronic locking assembly include a trigger member, such as in Yuan, in order to provide for a well-known and conventional electronic locking assembly.
In regards to claim 8, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 6.
However, Smith is silent on details of the electronic locking assembly and therefore does not teach wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism between a locked position and an unlocked position. How ever this is very common.
Yuan teaches a similar device with an electronic actuator (40) configured to actuate a locking mechanism (20, 30, and/or 50) between a locked position and an unlocked position (see figs 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Smith’s electronic locking assembly include an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism between a locked position and an unlocked position, such as in Yuan, in order to provide for a well-known and conventional electronic locking assembly.
In regards to claim 11, Smith in view of Yuan teaches the locking system of claim 8 wherein the second cam is configured to restrict rotation of the first cam when the locking mechanism is engaged in the locked position (Smith due to 142, see fig 6).
In regards to claim 13, Smith teaches the locking system of claim 12 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism.
However, Smith is silent on details of the electronic locking assembly and therefore does not teach wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism.
Yuan teaches a similar device with an electronic actuator (40) configured to actuate a locking mechanism (20, 30, and/or 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Smith’s electronic locking assembly include an electronic actuator configured to actuate a locking mechanism in order to provide for a well-known and conventional electronic locking assembly.
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Smith in view of Yuan teaches the locking system of claim 13 wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises a rotary latch (142).
However, Smith is silent on details of the electronic locking assembly and therefore does not teach a trigger member.
Yuan teaches a similar device with a rotary latch (20) and a trigger member (42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Smith’s electronic locking assembly include a trigger member, such as in Yuan, in order to provide for a well-known and conventional electronic locking assembly.
In regards to claim 15, Smith in view of Yuan teaches the locking system of claim 14 wherein the electronic locking assembly is configured to rotate the trigger member to actuate the locking mechanism (Yuan see figs 1 and 8).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (first interpretation for both claims 1 and 12) in view of Yuan as applied to claims 7-8, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of US 20140218167 A1 (hereinafter Tseng).
In regards to claim 9, Smith in view of Yuan teaches the locking system of claim 8.
However, Smith is silent on wherein the electronic locking assembly further comprises a wireless receiver and a controller configured to receive and authenticate an access code from a mobile electronic device.
Tseng teaches a wireless receiver and a controller configured to receive and authenticate an access code from a mobile electronic device (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the electronic locking assembly further comprises a wireless receiver and a controller configured to receive and authenticate an access code from a mobile electronic device such as in Tseng in order to provide convenient locking or unlocking (see Tseng para 6).
In regards to claim 9, Smith in view of Yuan and Tseng teaches the locking system of claim 9 wherein the controller is configured to command the electronic actuator to actuate the locking mechanism in response to authenticating the access code from the mobile electronic device (Tseng see fig 1 and para 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
GB 2225371 A – teaches a similar latch cam electronically blocked.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights