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
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2016/0353548) in view of Simon (US 6,461,013).
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a door latching and locking assembly comprising: an escutcheon plate (see Fig. 1, main plate having top and bottom screws) configured to be mounted to a door; a door handle 13 mounted to the escutcheon plate; a key cylinder 12 mounted to the escutcheon plate; and a lighting arrangement comprising: at least one lighting element 10 carried by the escutcheon plate and configured to illuminate at least a portion of the key cylinder; a power source 16 carried by the escutcheon plate; an ambient light sensor 14 carried by the escutcheon plate; and a controller (at least remote control and wireless receiver 15 and circuitry between ambient sensor 14 and light elements 10 that activate lights when ambient level falls, see at least paras [0023]-[0025]) in circuit communication with the lighting element, the power source, the motion sensor and the ambient light sensor; wherein the controller is configured to supply power from the power source 16 to the at least one lighting element 10 in response to at least one of an indication from a motion sensor of motion in proximity of the door latching and locking assembly and an indication from the ambient light sensor 14 of ambient light below a predetermined threshold (see at least Fig. 1 and paras [0019]-[0028]).
Davis generally describes a motion detector on a door frame light fixture from the prior art (see para [0012]) but does not specifically providing a motion sensor carried by the escutcheon plate to be activate the light sources 10 when motion is detected. However, the use of motion sensors on illuminated door locks is well-known in the art and specifically taught in Simon (see Simon, at least Figs. 1 and 5 and column 4, lines 33-50). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a motion sensor on the plate of Davis as taught by Simon in order to conveniently activate the light sources 10 when a user approaches the door handle for hands-free activation and deactivation while providing an energy efficient control system for extending the life of the power source and light source.
Regarding claim 2, Davis does not specifically teach that lighting emitting elements 10 comprise a light transmitting ring around the key cylinder 12. However the use of light transmitting rings is well-known in the art (Official Notice). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a light transmitting ring around the key cylinder 12 in Davis in order to provide a more uniform light distribution pattern for full illumination around the key cylinder.
Regarding claim 3, the power source 16 in Davis can comprises a DC power source (see at least para [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, the at least one light emitting element 10 in Davis comprises a light emitting diode (see at least para [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Davis does not specifically teach that the predetermined threshold be about 3 lux. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the predetermined threshold be about 3 lux in Davis in order to provide activation of the light sensor 14 and the light emitting elements 10 prior to full darkness while avoiding unnecessary activation during daylight hours, and since it has been held discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Davis does not specifically teach that the lighting arrangement 10 be configured to provide illumination sufficient to be visible at a minimum distance of about 12 feet during darkness. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the lighting arrangement 10 in Davis provide illumination from a minimum of about 12 feet during darkness in order to ensure clear visibility of the door and keyhole 12 to allow a user to clearly locate the handle and keyhole, and since it has been held discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, as modified above, the lighting arrangement in Davis includes a timer configured to maintain illumination of the at least one lighting element 10 in the absence of motion for a predetermined period (see Simon, at least column 4, lines 33-50).
Regarding claims 8-9, Davis does not specifically teach a timer to limit illumination of the at least one lighting element 10 to a predetermined maximum duration or to delay-reillumination when the lighting element is deactivated. However the use of timers to control light emitting elements to limit or delay activation is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a timer to limit or delay activation of the at least one light emitting elements 10 in Davis in order to prevent overuse or overheating of the light emitting element for safety reasons and to extend the lifetime of the light emitting element 10 and power source 16.
Regarding claims 10-11, Davis does not specifically teach that the at least one lighting element 10 be mounted to the door handle 13 or key cylinder 12. However providing light sources on door handles and key cylinders is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least one light emitting element 10 on the door handle 13 or key cylinder 12 in Davis in order to clearly illuminate the critical parts of the door locking device such as the handle and key for improved user visibility and safety.
Regarding claim 12, the at least one light emitting element 10 in Davis is mounted to the escutcheon plate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 13-14, David does not specifically teach the lighting arrangement include a light pipe surrounding the key cylinder 12 or spindle of the door handle 13. However, providing light pipes around key cylinders or door handles is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least one light pipe around the door handle 13 or key cylinder 12 in Davis in order to clearly and uniformly illuminate the critical parts of the door locking device such as the handle and key for improved user visibility and safety.
Regarding claim 15, the power source 16 in Davis can include at least one photovoltaic cell carried by the escutcheon plate (see at least para [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, the power source 16 in Davis can include at least one photovoltaic cell and at least one energy storage element (see at least para [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, the power source 16 in Davis can include at least one energy storage element and at least one photovoltaic cell (see at least para [0023]), thus suggesting that they can be connected for the photovoltaic cell to supply a charge to the storage element but it is not explicitly taught. However connecting photovoltaic cells to energy storage elements is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to connect the energy storage element and photovoltaic cell in Davis in order to provide an efficient and long-lasting rechargeable power source 16 for power the at least one light emitting elements 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm 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, Majeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875