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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, line 2, “first side” is recited. It appears the article “a” is missing from the recitation as is used in the subsequent recitation of “a second side”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a first side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202015004415 U1 (hereinafter DE-4415). (Note: cited paragraph numbers are from the Espacenet machine translation of DE202015004415U1).
Regarding claim 1, DE-4415 teaches a door lock (panic release 10) comprising:
a first component (angled piece 30) to be fixed on a first side of a door (door 14; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 and Fig 3 depict 30 to be attached on a first side of 14);
a second component (latch 20) to be fixed on a second side of the door (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 and Fig 3 depict 20 to be attached on a first side of 14);
a structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415) mechanically joining the first component and the second component (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the structure mechanically joining 20 and 30), wherein the structure is to pass through a gap between the door in a closed position and a door frame corresponding to the door (door frame 12; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 and Fig 3 depict the structure passing through where the gap would be if 14 were closed against 12; Fig 5 depicts the structure in the gap between 12 and 14); and
PNG
media_image1.png
331
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415
a communication connection (slide 28) between the first component and the second component (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-DE-4415 depicts 28 connecting 20 and 30 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of the intransitive verb form of communicate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
PNG
media_image2.png
250
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-DE-4415
Regarding claim 2, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 1, wherein the communication connection (28) comprises at least one of: a mechanical control connection ([0024] discusses 28 mechanically controlling the opening of 20); a wired communication connection; or a wireless communication connection (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 3, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 1, wherein the communication connection (28) is to pass through the gap between the door in the closed position and the door frame corresponding to the door (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 and Fig 3 depict the structure passing through where the gap would be if 14 were closed against 12; Fig 5 depicts the structure in the gap between 12 and 14).
Regarding claim 4, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 1, wherein the structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415) comprises a clearance (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the clearance to be a slot) for the communication connection (28) and wherein the structure surrounds the communication connection on at least two sides (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the clearance surrounding 28 on at least two sides).
Regarding claim 5, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 4, wherein the structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415) surrounds the communication connection (28) on at least four sides (Figs 6-9 depict the structure surrounding 28 on a least four sides).
Regarding claim 6, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 4, wherein the clearance (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the clearance to be a slot) comprises at least one of: a channel in the structure and a slot in the structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the clearance to be a slot in the structure).
Regarding claim 7, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 4, wherein the clearance comprises a slot (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the clearance to be a slot) and the structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415) further comprises a first covering on a (see claim interpretation under claim 7 Claim Objection) first side of the slot and a second covering on a second side of the slot, such that the communication connection is sandwiched between the first covering and the second covering (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 depicts the first and second coverings to be on the first and second sides of the slot and 28 sandwiched between them concealing the edges of 28 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of covering and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 8, DE-4415 teaches the door lock of claim 1, wherein the communication connection (28) comprises at least one of: an electrical ribbon cable, a mechanical ribbon (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 7 to be a long narrow strip thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 5 of ribbon and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and a mechanical cord (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 15, DE-4415 teaches a lock (panic release 10) comprising:
a catch (latch 26);
a release (actuating button 32); and
a bracket (angled piece 30) for attaching around an edge of a door (door 14) when the door is closed (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 and Fig 3 depict 30 to be attached around an edge of 14; Fig 5 depicts a different mounting embodiment of 10 with a closed 14 against door frame 12) and to fix the catch and the release to opposite sides of the door (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415 and Fig 3 depict 30 giving 10 final installation and operational form of 26 on opposite sides of 14 thereby meeting Merriam-Webster definition 2b of fix and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 16, DE-4415 teaches the lock of claim 15, wherein the bracket (30) comprises a slot or a channel (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415), wherein the slot or the channel accommodates a communication connection (slide 28) between the catch and the release (movement from Fig 8 to Fig 9 depicts the slot to connect 32 to 26 via the movement of 28 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of the intransitive verb form of communicate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 17, DE-4415teaches the lock of claim 16, wherein the communication connection (28) comprises at least one of: a mechanical linkage, a cable, a ribbon, and an electrical wire ([0028] discusses 28 being a mechanical linkage to open 26).
Regarding claim 20, DE-4415 teaches the lock of claim 15, wherein the bracket (30) includes a resilient material (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that Figs 6-9 depict 30 to be a molded component therefore comprising a plastic material which would be resilient) that clamps onto a surface of the door without causing damage, maintaining a position of the lock on the door during use ([0008] discusses 30 being rigidly connected and held tightly to the side surface of 14 using countersunk screws thereby not causing damage to the door and resulting in 30 maintaining a position of 10 on 14 during use; this structure meets the Merriam-Webster definition 2a of clamps and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huggan, US 11812850 B2.
Regarding claim 10, Huggan teaches a lock (latching mechanism 1) comprising:
a structure (link 7) configured to fit through a gap between a door frame (cabinet face 12) and a closed door (drawer front panel 9; Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 7 to fit through a gap between 12 and 9); and
a catch (latch 3) connected to the structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 3 attached to 7);
wherein the catch is configured to engage with an existing feature of the door frame or a door jamb (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 4 to engage with an existing feature of 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
289
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan
Regarding claim 11, Huggan teaches the lock of claim 10, further comprising a release (handle 2) connected to the structure (7), wherein the release is configured to cause the catch (3) to disengage from the existing feature of the door frame or the door jamb ([Abstract]; col 4, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 12, Huggan teaches the lock of claim 11, wherein the structure (7) is configured to fix the release (2) on a first side of the closed door (9) and the catch (3) on a second side of the closed door (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 7 fixing 2 on the first side of 9 and 3 on the second side of 9).
Regarding claim 13, Huggan teaches the lock of claim 11, wherein the structure (7) comprises a mechanical structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts to be used to manually operate 1 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definitions of mechanical structure and the broadest reasonable interpretations of the terms) and a communication connection, wherein the communication connection communicates between the release and the catch (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 7 connecting 2 to 3 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of the intransitive verb form of communicate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 14, Huggan teaches the lock of claim 13, wherein the communication connection (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 7 connecting 2 to 3 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of the intransitive verb form of communicate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) comprises one of: a ribbon mechanically connected between the release and the catch (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Huggan depicts 7 to be a long narrow strip thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 5 of ribbon and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and an electrical connection (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202015004415 U1, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Huggan, US 11812850 B2.
Regarding claim 19, DE-4415 teaches the lock of claim 15.
DE-4415 is silent on the internal latch bolt biasing structure wherein the catch is biased towards an extended position by a spring mechanism.
Huggan teaches it is known in the art for a lock (latching mechanism 1) to comprise a catch (latch 3) wherein the catch is biased towards an extended position (Fig 9) by a spring mechanism (biasing means 6).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the silent latch biasing structure of DE-4415 with the explicit spring biasing structure of Huggan. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the latch of DE-4415 was biased to an engaged position by some sort of spring mechanism in order for the panic exit device to be used repetitively. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to explicitly detail the latch biasing components in order to better define apparatus structure in support of sourcing and manufacturing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch member spring biased to an extended position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, while DE-4415 teaches it is known in the art for a door lock to comprise a first component, a second component, and a structure mechanically joining them, wherein: the first component (30) is to be disposed on the first side of the door (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415) and comprises a manually actuated slider (slider 28), wherein the first side of the door is a side opposite a door jamb (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415); the second component (20) is to be disposed on the second side of the door that is adjacent to the door jamb (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415), the second component comprising a slidable catch configured to extend to catch on the door jamb and prevent the door from opening (Fig 5 depicts 20 comprising a slidable latch 28; NOTE: it appears DE-4415 has labeled two components 28); the structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DE-4415) mechanically joining the first component, and the structure further comprising a clearance path; and Morehouse, US 4399672 A, teaches it is known in the art for an auxiliary door lock to comprise a first component and a second component, the second component comprises a U bracket to pass through the gap between the door and the door frame when the door is fully closed and is connected to the first component and the second component, and Zimmerlee, US 8191938 B2, teaches it is known in the art for a door lock to comprise a first component, the first component comprising a manually activated slider, a second component, and a communication connection, the communication connection comprising a tensile member connected to the manually actuated slider of the first component and to the slidable catch of the second component such that when the manually actuated slider is actuated, the slidable catch is to disengage from the door jamb to allow the door to be opened, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify DE-4415 in view of Morehouse and Zimmerlee as claimed in the instant application without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Regarding claim 18, while DE-4415 teaches it is known in the art for a door lock to comprise a release, wherein the release includes a manually operable slider that, when actuated, pulls on the communication connection to retract the catch, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the first embodiment used in the above rejections in view of the second embodiment without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the embodiments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for door locks.
Zimmerlee, US 8191938 B2, teaches a push-pull type door latch with motion transfer belt with a first component, a second component, and a tensile communication connection joining them.
Ellenreider, DE 19839630 A1, teaches a door lock mechanism comprising blocking and locking elements, frame or guiderails, and control of spring and pull cable with a first component, a second component, and a tensile communication connection joining them.
Probasco et al., US 8641106 B2, teaches an aircraft control surface gust lock with a first component, a second component, and a tensile communication connection joining them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights