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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the entrainer having a guiding section which is opposite the blocking section and which the latch contacts in the blocking section must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings illustrate an entrainer with a guiding section (41) related to a latch that is movable by a rotary movement (Figs. 1A-7C), but does not illustrate a guiding section opposite the blocking section, which the latch contacts in the blocking position, with the entrainer embodiment moving the latch linearly (claim 5). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6 of claim 2, “at a common” should likely be --as a common--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lock" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the term “the lock” is intended to refer to the electromechanical lock of the preamble or a specific element of the electromechanical lock.
Claim 9 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lock" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the term “the lock” is intended to refer to the electromechanical lock of the preamble or a specific element of the electromechanical lock.
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) 1-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al., CN 111764763 A.
Claim 1: Luo discloses an electromechanical lock, comprising an electromechanical locking mechanism for locking an associated counter-piece (2) that adopts an open position or a closed position relative to the locking mechanism (Figs. 2-3);
wherein the electromechanical locking mechanism has a latch (3), an entrainer (20) that is rotatable about an axis of rotation for driving the latch (Fig. 2 depicts a center line through the wheel 20 and motor 9 corresponding to the axis of rotation), and an electric motor (9) for driving the entrainer ([0032]),
wherein the latch is movable between a locking position (shown in Fig. 2), in which the latch locks the associated counter-piece located in the closed position (Fig. 2), and an unlocking position (shown in Fig. 3), in which the latch releases the associated counter-piece for the open position (Fig. 3),
wherein the latch is preloaded in the direction of the locking position ([0033]), and wherein the latch is movable by a linear movement along a latch axis (Fig. 5 depicts a line along a latch axis; [0039]) from the locking position into the unlocking position (movement from Fig. 5 to Fig. 6 depicts linear movement),
wherein the entrainer is selectively rotatable into a release position (post 201 is against the side 311 in unlocking position), a standby position (shown in Fig. 5, post 201 in groove 313 is blocked by side 315), and a blocking position by way of the electric motor (shown in Fig. 6, post 201 is in groove 314 between side 312 and side 311),
wherein, by rotating the entrainer into the release position, the latch is driven by way of the entrainer to perform a movement from the locking position into the unlocking position ([0028]; [0032]),
wherein, in the standby position of the entrainer, the latch is released to be urged back against the preload from the locking position ([0035]; Fig. 5 depicts the latch released from the entrainer and configured to be urged against the spring), and
wherein, in the blocking position of the entrainer, the entrainer blocks the latch against a movement from the locking position in the direction of the unlocking position ([0037]).
Claim 2: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 1,
wherein the latch has a drive section (31) that is impacted by the entrainer in order to drive the latch into the unlocking position ([0028]), and wherein the latch has a blocking section that locks the associated counter-piece (Fig. 6 illustrates a section of the latch that engages the opening 21, corresponding to a blocking section), which is located in the closed position, in the locking position of the latch ([0035]), wherein the drive section and the blocking section are formed at a common latch element (Fig. 7 depicts the sections formed as a common latch element) or as separate latch elements.
Claim 3: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 1,
wherein, in the standby position of the entrainer (Fig. 5), the latch is released to first be urged back from the locking position by way of the associated counter-piece when the latter is brought from the open position into the closed position (Fig. 3, [0037]; the released latch is structured to be urged against the preload, from the locking position, as the counter-piece is in the open position and brought into the closed position), and then to snap back into the locking position as a result of the preload ([0035], [0037]; the released latch and preload are configured to snap back to the locking position when the counter-piece is brought to the closed position).
Claim 4: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 1,
wherein the entrainer has a blocking section (portion of 201, shown in annotated Fig. 7 below) that forms an abutment for the latch in the blocking position ([0037]; Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 4,
wherein the entrainer has a guiding section which is opposite the blocking section (portion of 201, shown in annotated Fig. 7 above) and which the latch contacts in the blocking position (Fig. 6 depicts the latch contacts the guiding section in the blocking position).
Claim 6: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 1,
wherein the entrainer, starting from the standby position, is transferred into the standby position again by a complete rotation about the axis of rotation (the entrainer (Figs. 5-8) is structured that a complete rotation from the standby position will position the entrainer into the standby position again).
Claim 7: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 1,
further comprising a control circuit (6), wherein the control circuit controls the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the release position, the standby position, and the blocking position ([0032]).
Claim 11: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 1,
wherein the lock has a lock body (1), which includes the locking mechanism, and the associated counter-piece (Fig. 2 illustrates the lock body houses the locking mechanism and associated counter-piece),
wherein the counter-piece forms a securing part that is movable relative to the lock body between the open position and the closed position (Figs. 2-3),
wherein the latch locks the securing part, which is located in the closed position, to the lock body in the locking position (Fig. 6) and releases the securing part in the unlocking position for a movement into the open position ([0028]; [0032]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al., CN 111764763 A, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Meekma, US 2012/0011902 A1.
Claim 8: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 7. Luo further teaches a sensor that sends a detection signal corresponding to the counter-piece being in the locked or unlocked state ([0032]). However, Luo is silent to the sensor configured to detect the associated counter-piece in the closed position and output a corresponding detection signal and the control unit controls the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the blocking position in response to the detection signal.
Meekma teaches a lock having a sensor (46) that detects an associated counter piece (3) in a closed position ([0042]) and outputs a corresponding detection signal ([0042] (“actuates the switch 46 to prompt the motor 45 (through circuitry on PC board 47)” correlates to outputting a detection signal to the circuit board)), wherein a control circuit (47) controls an electric motor to drive an entrainer into the blocking position in response to the detection signal ([0042] (“prompt the motor 45 (through circuitry on PC board 47) to operate in the reverse or locking direction”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical lock disclosed by Luo to include a sensor that detects the associated counter-piece in the closed position and outputs a corresponding detection signal, wherein the control circuit controls the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the blocking position in response to the detection signal, as taught by Meekma, in order to automatically lock the counter-piece when it is closed.
Claim 9: Luo, in view of Meekma, teaches the electromechanical lock of claim 8. However, Luo, as modified by Meekma, is silent to wherein the control unit controls the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the blocking position in response to the detection signal after a predefined waiting time.
Meekma further teaches the control unit controls the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the blocking position in response to the detection signal after a predefined waiting time ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical lock taught by Luo, in view of Meekma, to configure the control unit to control the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the blocking position in response to the detection signal after a predefined waiting time, as taught by Meekma, in order to ensure the counter-piece is not inadvertently left unlocked (Meekma [0043]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al., CN 111764763 A, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schafer, EP 1760230 A2.
Claim 10: Luo discloses the electromechanical lock of claim 7,
wherein the control circuit controls the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the release position in response to an unlocking command ([0033]). However, Luo is silent to the control circuit controlling the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the standby position in response to the unlocking command after a predetermined waiting time.
Schafer teaches a control circuit controls an electric motor to drive an entrainer into a standby position in response to an unlocking command after a predetermined waiting time ([0028-29]; brought into an unlocked position for a time interval, then the motor drives the entrainer to release a latch to move toward the locked position, corresponding to a standby position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuit disclosed by Luo to be configured to control the electric motor to drive the entrainer into the standby position in response to the unlocking command after a predetermined waiting time, as taught by Schafer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve security and safety by allowing the counter-piece to be re-latched automatically if it is not opened and/or when being re-closed (Schafer [0025], [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 12-20.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Luo discloses an electromechanical locking mechanism having a latch (3), an entrainer (20) that is rotatable about an axis of rotation for driving the latch (Fig. 2 depicts a center line through the wheel 20 and motor 9 corresponding to the axis of rotation), and an electric motor (9) for driving the entrainer ([0032]). However, Luo does not disclose the entrainer has a thread in which a contact section of the latch is guided during a rotation of the entrainer into the release position. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the entrainer disclosed by Luo to be structured with a thread without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Regarding claim 12, Schroll (US 2022/0381073 A1) discloses an electromechanical locking mechanism comprising a latch (24) an entrainer (54) that is rotatable, and an electric motor (46) for driving the entrainer, wherein the latch is moved between a locking position (Fig. 3) and an unlocking position (Fig. 6), wherein the latch is preloaded in the direction of the locking position ([0022]), wherein rotating the entrainer into the release position drives the latch into the unlocking position and rotating the entrainer into the blocking position blocks movement of the latch ([0022]; Fig. 6), and rotating the entrainer to a standby position where the latch is released to be urged back against the preload from the locking position ([0023]; Fig. 4). However, Schroll is silent to a blocking position wherein the entrainer blocks the latch against movement from the locking position in the direction of the unlocking position. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the locking mechanism disclosed by Schroll to be configured with an entrainer rotatable to a blocking position by the electric motor where the entrainer blocks the latch against movement from the locking position in the direction of the unlocking position without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Schroll discloses an electromechanical locking mechanism comprising a latch (24) an entrainer (54) that is rotatable, and an electric motor (46) for driving the entrainer, wherein the latch is moved between a locking position (Fig. 3) and an unlocking position (Fig. 6), wherein the latch is preloaded in the direction of the locking position ([0022]), wherein rotating the entrainer into the release position drives the latch into the unlocking position and rotating the entrainer into the blocking position blocks movement of the latch ([0022]; Fig. 6), and rotating the entrainer to a standby position where the latch is released to be urged back against the preload from the locking position ([0023]; Fig. 4). However, Schroll is silent to the entrainer in a blocking position, different from the release and standby positions, where a blocking section of the entrainer is in alignment with a contact section of the latch and blocks a movement of the latch in the direction of the unlocking position and the blocking section is formed by a part of the thread. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the entrainer disclosed by Schroll to include a blocking section formed by a part of the thread configured to be in alignment with a contact section of the latch to block a movement of the latch in the direction of the unlocking position without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
In regards to claims 13-15, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 12 from which the claims depend.
In regards to claims 17-20, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 16 from which the claims depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Worm et al. (US 2013/0033045 A1) teaches an electromechanical lock comprising an entrainer selectively rotatable into three positions with a thread guided during a rotation of the entrainer, but does not teach the latch is released to be urged against the preload from the locking position when the entrainer is in a standby position and a contact section of the latch guided in the thread.
Raatikainen (US 10508470 B2) teaches an entrainer having a thread and a contact section of the latch is guided by the thread, but the entrainer is not configured to be rotated into a standby position wherein the latch is released to be urged back against the preload from the locking position.
Lanigan et al. (US 2004/0155477 A1) teaches an electromechanical lock comprising a latch configured to move linearly with rotation of a threaded entrainer, but the entrainer is moved between a release position and a blocking position and is not rotated to a distinct standby position where the latch is released to be urged away from the locking position.
Vonlanthen (US 6523377 B1) teaches an entrainer driven by a motor and a latch with a contact section guided in a thread of the entrainer to move linearly, the entrainer moving between a release position and a blocking position, but does not teach the latch is preloaded in the direction of the locking and is configured to be released to be urged back against the preload when the entrainer is moved to a standby position.
Zhang (CN 104763248 A) teaches a lock comprising an entrainer with a thread and a latch with a contact section guided by the thread, the entrainer movable to a position where the latch is released to be urged into the unlocking position by a preload and the entrainer movable to positions where the latch is blocked and where the latch is fully released from the entrainer, but does not teach a motor or the latch preloaded in the direction of the locking position.
Nunez (US 5715715 A) teaches an entrainer with a thread and a latch guided by a contact section in the groove to move linearly into an unlocking position and a locking position with rotation of the entrainer, but the entrainer does not have a standby position where the latch is released to be urged back against a preload from the locking position.
Ellis et al. (US 10570645 B2) teaches an electromechanical lock comprising an entrainer driven by a motor and configured with a thread for linearly actuating a latch, the latch being preloaded to a locking position, but the entrainer is configured to move between a release position and a standby position and does not have a blocking position where the latch is blocked from moving out of the locking position into the unlocking position.
Lin (US 4752090) teaches an entrainer for actuating a latch, wherein the entrainer has a thread in which a contact section of the latch is guided during a rotation of the entrainer into a release position but the entrainer does not have a standby position where the latch is released to be urged back against the preload from the locking position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
