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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1,4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarman US 12217559 (hereinafter referred to as Tarman).
Claim 1. Tarman teaches a bike lock, comprising:
a bike lock body (18);
a bike lock clamp (14) fixable to public infrastructure and arranged to slide, rotate, or pivot (slides out to lock onto infrastructure, paragraph 45) thereto;
a locking arm (114+22) connected to the bike lock body and moveable thereto to receive a bike frame or wheel (62 of bicycle, paragraph 44) in an unlocked configuration;
a lock latch (130) that secures the locking arm to the bike lock body in a locked configuration (paragraph 38), whereby the bike frame or wheel is secured; and
an electronic circuit (20) to receive a lock/unlock command (control commands, col. 7 line 40- col.9 line 66, col. 12 lines 9-15, 26-53) from a user (via remote device 58) and relay a signal (control command) to lock the lock latch.
Tarman’s bike lock clamp (14) is the part that receives a bike frame or wheel, and the locking arm (22+48) is fixable to public infrastructure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts so that Tarman’s bike lock clamp is fixable to the public infrastructure and the locking arm is movable thereto to receive a bike frame or wheel since the rearrangement of parts is a design consideration that is of routine skill in the art as the rearrangement would remain functionally equivalent (in locking the bike). MPEP 2144.
Claim 4. Tarman teaches the bike lock of claim 1, further comprising an actuator (136) that moves the lock latch upon receiving the signal from the electronic circuit. (col. 12 lines 9-15, 26-33)
Claim 5. Tarman teaches the bike lock of claim 1, wherein the electronic circuit receives the lock/unlock command by at least one of: wireless communication, electronic buttons, a touchscreen, credit card reader, RFID reader, or an electronic keypad. (Can receive commands via remote device, therefore wireless communication; col. 12 lines 9-15, 26-33)
Claim 6. Tarman teaches the bike lock of claim 1, further comprising sensors (col.7 lines 15-46) to trigger an alarm (alert system, col. 7 lines 15-46) and send wireless notifications (col. 7 lines 34-46).
Claim 7. Tarman teaches the bike lock of claim 1, further comprising a tightener (160+164) to tighten or loosen the bike lock clamp on the infrastructure. (col. 13 line 45- col. 14 line 29)
Claim 8. Tarman teaches the bike lock of claim 1, the electronic circuit comprising a processor (col. 6 line 5) and instruction memory (col. 6 line 6) arranged to interface with a remote application (software application, fig14) to communicate and act as an interface for user instructions, bike lock operation, bike lock user reservations, stakeholder notifications, recording and exchange of user or event data, user account management, or customer payment collection. (col. 6 lines 3-15, col. 8 lines 45-63, col 9 line 1 – col. 10 line 42, fig 8)
Claim 9. Tarman teaches a bike lock therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Tarman can also teach the method of operating a bike lock (fig1), having a bike lock clamp (14), locking arm (114+22), and electronic circuit (20), the method comprising:
fixing the bike lock clamp to public infrastructure;
opening the locking arm connected to the bike lock body in an unlocked configuration and receiving a bike frame or wheel;
closing the locking arm into a locked configuration to secure the bike frame or wheel;
receiving a lock/unlock command (control commands, col. 7 line 40- col.9 line 66, col. 12 lines 9-15, 26-53) from a user (via remote device 58), at the electronic circuit within the bike lock; and
relaying a signal (control command) to secure the locking arm to the bike lock body with a lock latch (130) in the locked configuration.
Tarman’s bike lock clamp (14) is the part that receives a bike frame or wheel, and the locking arm (22+48) is fixable to public infrastructure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts so that Tarman’s bike lock clamp is fixable to the public infrastructure and the locking arm is movable thereto to receive a bike frame or wheel since the rearrangement of parts is a design consideration that is of routine skill in the art as the rearrangement would remain functionally equivalent (in locking the bike). MPEP 2144.
Claim 10. Tarman teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising powering an actuator (136) to move the lock latch upon receiving the signal. (col. 12 lines 9-15, 26-33)
Claim 11. Tarman teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the lock/unlock command is received by at least one of: wireless communication, electronic buttons, a touchscreen, credit card reader, RFID reader, or an electronic keypad. (Can receive commands via remote device, therefore wireless communication; col. 12 lines 9-15, 26-33)
Claim 12. Tarman teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising detecting a security event (col.7 lines 15-46) by sensors (col.7 lines 15-46) and then triggering an alarm (alert system) and sending wireless notifications. (col.7 lines 15-46)
Claim 13. Tarman teaches the method of claim 9, tightening (via 160+164) the bike lock clamp on the infrastructure. (col. 13 line 45- col. 14 line 29)
Claim 14. Tarman teaches the method of claim 9, the electronic circuit comprising a processor and instruction memory to interface with a remote application (software application, fig14) to communicate and act as an interface for user instructions, bike lock operation, bike lock user reservations, stakeholder notifications, recording and exchange of user or event data, user account management, or customer payment collection. (col. 6 lines 3-15, col. 8 lines 45-63, col 9 line 1 – col. 10 line 42, fig 8)
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evarts US 12152413 (hereinafter referred to as Evarts).
Claim 1. Evarts discloses a bike lock, comprising:
a bike lock body (110);
a bike lock clamp (130) fixable to public infrastructure and arranged to slide, rotate, or pivot (pivots about attachment point to 110) thereto;
a locking arm (120) connected to the bike lock body and moveable thereto (pivots about hinge 115) to receive a bike frame or wheel (not labeled, fig9-10) in an unlocked configuration;
a lock latch (30) that secures the locking arm to the bike lock body in a locked configuration (paragraph 38), whereby the bike frame or wheel is secured; and
an electronic circuit (20) to receive a lock/unlock command from a user (via wireless device, col. 5 line 65 – col.6 lines 68) and relay a signal (col. 7 line 41-col. 8 line 67) to lock the lock latch.
Evart’s bike lock clamp (130) is the part that receives a bike frame or wheel, and the locking arm (120) is fixable to public infrastructure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts so that Evart’s bike lock clamp is fixable to the public infrastructure and the locking arm is movable thereto to receive a bike frame or wheel since the rearrangement of parts is a design consideration that is of routine skill in the art as the rearrangement would remain functionally equivalent (in locking the bike). MPEP 2144.
Claim 2. Evart teaches the bike lock of claim 1, wherein the locking arm is connected to the bike lock body at a pivot point (at 115) at an end of the locking arm opposite from the lock latch.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarman et al. US 12217559 (hereinafter referred to as Tarman) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lind US 6043733 (hereinafter referred to as Lind).
Claim 3. Tarman teaches the bike lock of claim 1, further comprising an anti-theft sensor (an anti-theft sensor is sensor that can be configured to sense unauthorized movement of the locking device, either on (12) or (14); col. 7 lines 14-61), preferably located within the locking arm (because it can also detect contact with the locking arm (14), the sensor can be configured to be located on the locking arm; col. 7 lines 14-61), however does not teach the anti-theft sensor as an alarm wire providing electrical continuity to and from the bike lock body, when the bike lock is in the locked configuration.
Lind teaches a bike lock comprising an alarm wire providing electrical continuity to and from the bike lock body when the bike lock is in the locked configuration (summary, col.3 lines 19-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the anti-theft sensor of Tarman and modify it to be preferably an alarm wire, as taught by Lind, in order to have an alarm that is not easily cut or broken and therefore provides more security (Lind, col. 1. Lines 10-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to bike locks.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 10937086, US 11932337, US 5408212.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights