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.
Claim 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luedtke et al. (US 12,012,167) in view of Minnich et al. (20180298636).
Regarding claim 21, Luedtke et al. discloses a method of locking a lock assembly for a micromobility transit vehicle to be executed by a controller (c.18, l.18-24) of the micromobility transit vehicle, the lock assembly including a locking pin (204), a lock cylinder (708) for receiving the locking pin, a latch (714) for securing the locking pin in the lock cylinder, an actuator (716) with different positions for locking the latch, unlocking the latch, and enabling the latch to autolock, and an electric motor (704) for actuating the actuator, the method comp rising:
commanding the electric motor to retract the actuator (Fig. 11c) to an autolock position so as to enable the latch to autolock in response to a determination to place the lock assembly in an autolock state (Fig 11a);
determining a position of the actuator via one or more switches (c.7, l.8-13; determining a first position of the latch via one or more switches;
determining that the lock assembly is in the autolock state in response to a determination that (a) the first position of the latch is in a locking position (c.7, l.8-13), and (b) the position of the actuator is in the autolock position;
determining a position of the locking pin within the lock cylinder via one or more switches in response to the locking pin being inserted into the lock cylinder;
determining a second position of the latch based on the one or more switches (c.7, l.8-13); and
commanding the electric motor (704) to extend the actuator to a locked position in response to a determination that (a) the position of the locking pin is in a fully inserted position (c.7, l. 30-33), and (b) the second position of the latch is in the locking position, thereby preventing the latch from unlocking(c.7, l. 34-45).
Luedtke et al. does not disclose: multiple Hall effect sensors.
Minnich et al. teaches multiple Hall effect sensors for the purpose of detecting position of moving elements such as a pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luedtke et al. with multiple Hall effect sensors as taught by Minnich et al. for the expected benefit of detecting position of moving elements such as a pin.
Regarding claim 22, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al .discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first sensor ([0033]; Minnich et al.) includes one or more potentiometers, one or more rotary encoders, or one or more Hall effect sensors ([0033]; Minnich et al.) .
Regarding claim 23, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the second sensor includes a contact switch, a photointerrupter, a Hall effect sensor ([0033]; Minnich et al.) , or an infrared sensor.
Regarding claim 24, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the third sensor includes a Hall effect sensor ([0033]; Minnich et al.), an inductive sensor, or a contact switch.
Regarding claim 25, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, wherein: the electric motor selectively drives the actuator, and the actuator is connected to the electric motor and connected the actuator such that rotation of the via the electric motor moves the actuator.
Luedtke et al. does not disclose: threaded to internal threads of the actuator such that rotation of the leadscrew via the electric motor moves the actuator
Minnich et al. teaches threaded to internal threads of the actuator ([0030]; Minnich et al.) such that rotation of the leadscrew via the electric motor moves the actuator for the purpose of replacing one known actuator with another known actuator to accomplish a remote action.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luedtke et al. with threaded to internal threads of the actuator such that rotation of the leadscrew via the electric motor moves the actuator as taught by Minnich et al. for the expected benefit of replacing one known actuator with another known actuator to accomplish a remote action.
Regarding claim 26, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising, after the commanding of the electric motor (704; Luedtke et al.) to retract the actuator to the autolock position, determining a failure ([0033] determination of position determines lock status success or failure; Minnich et al.) of the electric motor in response to a determination that the actuator has failed to reach the autolock position.
Regarding claim 27, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising, after the commanding of the electric motor (704; Luedtke et al.) to retract the actuator (Fig 11c; Luedtke et al.) to the autolock position, determining the lock assembly needs replacement or repair in response to a determination that (a) the actuator has failed to reach the autolock position ([0033]; Minnich et al.), or (b) the latch has failed to reach the locking position ([0033]; Minnich et al.).
Regarding claim 28, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising, after the determining of the position ([0033]; Minnich et al.) of the locking pin within the lock cylinder, issuing a request to the user to reinsert the locking pin in response to a determination that the locking pin has failed to reach the fully inserted position (C.15, l35-40, communication with user; Luedtke et al.).
Regarding claim 29, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising, after the determining of the second position (c.7, l.8-13; Luedtke et al.) of the latch, determining the lock assembly needs replacement or repair in response to a determination that the latch has failed to reach the locking position ([0033]; Minnich et al.).
Regarding claim 30, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising, after the commanding of the electric motor to extend the actuator to the locked position([0033]; Luedtke et al.), determining the lock assembly is in a superlocked state in response to a determination that the actuator has reached the locked position ([0033]; Minnich et al.).
Note: as “superlocked” is undefined, the state is determined to be the same as locked rather than taken indefinitely.
Claim 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luedtke et al. (US 12,012,167) in view of Minnich et al. (20180298636).
Regarding claim 31, Luedtke et al. discloses a method of unlocking a lock assembly for a micromobility transit vehicle to be executed by a controller (c.18, l.12-24; Luedtke et al.) of the micromobility transit vehicle, the lock assembly including a locking pin (204; Luedtke et al.), a lock cylinder (708; Luedtke et al.) for receiving the locking pin, a latch (714; Luedtke et al.) for securing the locking pin in the lock cylinder, an actuator (716; Luedtke et al.)with different positions for locking the latch (Fig 11a-c), unlocking the latch, and enabling the latch to autolock, and an electric motor for actuating the actuator, the method comprising:
commanding the electric motor to retract the actuator to an unlock position in response to a determination to unlock the lock assembly (11c; Luedtke et al.);
determining a position of the actuator via one or more switches (c.7, l.8-13 Luedtke et al.); determining a position of the latch via one or more switches (c.7, l.8-13 Luedtke et al.);
determining that the lock assembly is in an unlock state (c.4, l.33-34; Luedtke et al.) which enables withdrawal of the locking pin (11c; Luedtke et al.)in response to a determination that (a) the position of the actuator is in the unlock position (11c; Luedtke et al.), and (b) the position of the latch is in an unlocking position(11c; Luedtke et al.);
determining a position of the locking pin within the lock cylinder via one or more switches (c.7, l.8-13 Luedtke et al.); and
commanding the lock assembly to an autolock state in response to a determination that the position of the locking pin is fully removed from the lock cylinder(Fig 11c; Luedtke et al.).
Luedtke et al. does not disclose: multiple Hall effect sensors.
Minnich et al. teaches multiple Hall effect sensors for the purpose of detecting position of moving elements such as a pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luedtke et al. with multiple Hall effect sensors as taught by Minnich et al. for the expected benefit of detecting position of moving elements such as a pin.
Regarding claim 32, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, wherein the first sensor includes one or more potentiometers, one or more rotary encoders, or one or more Hall effect sensors ([0033];Minnich et al.).
Regarding claim 33, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, wherein the second sensor includes a contact switch, a photointerrupter, a Hall effect sensor([0033];Minnich et al.), or an infrared sensor.
Regarding claim 34, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, wherein the third sensor includes a Hall effect sensor([0033];Minnich et al.), an inductive sensor, or a contact switch.
Regarding claim 35, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, wherein: the electric motor (704; Luedtke et al.) selectively drives the actuator, and the actuator is connected to the electric motor and connected to the actuator such that rotation of the electric motor moves the actuator.
Luedtke et al. does not disclose: threaded to internal threads of the actuator such that rotation of the leadscrew via the electric motor moves the actuator.
Minnich et al. teaches threaded to internal threads of the actuator ([0030]; Minnich et al.) such that rotation of the leadscrew via the electric motor moves the actuator for the purpose of replacing one known actuator with another known actuator to accomplish a remote action.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luedtke et al. with threaded to internal threads of the actuator such that rotation of the leadscrew via the electric motor moves the actuator as taught by Minnich et al. for the expected benefit of replacing one known actuator with another known actuator to accomplish a remote action.
Regarding claim 36, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising, after the commanding of the electric motor (704; Luedtke et al.) to retract the actuator to an unlock position (Fig 11C; Luedtke et al.), determining a failure of the electric motor in response to a determination that the actuator has failed to reach the unlock position ([0033] determination of position determines lock status success or failure; Minnich et al.).
Regarding claim 37, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising, after the commanding of the electric motor (704; Luedtke et al.) to retract the actuator to an unlock position (Fig.11c; Luedtke et al.), determining the lock assembly needs replacement or repair in response to a determination that (a) the actuator has failed to reach the unlock position([0033]; Minnich et al.), (b) the latch has failed to reach the unlocking position ([0033]; Minnich et al.), or (c) the locking pin remains in a fully inserted position (Fig.11A; Minnich et al.).
Regarding claim 38, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising, after the commanding of the lock assembly to the autolock state, determining a failure (by position of 714 Fig. 11A-C; Luedtke et al) of the electric motor in response to a determination that the actuator has failed to reach the autolock position ([0033]; Minnich et al.).
Regarding claim 39, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising, after the commanding of the lock assembly to the autolock state, determining the lock assembly is in the autolock state in response to a determination that (a) the actuator has reached the autolock position ([0033]; Minnich et al.), and (b) the latch has reached the locking position.
Regarding claim 40, Luedtke et al, as modified by Minnich et al. discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising, after the commanding of the lock assembly to the autolock state, determining the lock assembly needs replacement or repair in response to a determination that (a) the actuator has failed to reach the autolock position ([0033]; Minnich et al.), or (b) the latch has failed to reach the locking position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
