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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026. The limitations of claim 10 corelate to para 80 of the spec and claim 17 corelates to para 122 of the spec which are both drawn to non-elected species II.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 3 and 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 “the conductor connected between the main circuit board and the command-signal verification element passes through the wire hole of the mortise” should read “wherein the conductor is connected between the main circuit board and the command-signal verification element and the conductor passes through the wire hole of the mortise”.
n claim 3 “the conductor connected between the main circuit board and the motor passes through the wire hole of the mortise” should be “ and wherein the conductor is connected between the main circuit board and the motor and the conductor passes through the wire hole of the mortise”.
In claim 11 “the other end” should read “an other end “.
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 1-18 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.
In regards to claims 1-18, “replacement storefront door lock” is unclear. It’s unclear if the claim is intended to require the storefront door lock to be a replacement (which is unclear in the context of an apparatus claim) or if “replacement” is merely used as a title. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming the storefront door lock must have a functional limitation of replacing another door lock in order to meet the limitation.
In regards to claims 1-18, “with no drilling” is unclear. What does “no drilling” require? No Drilling at all? No additional holes made during replacement? Is laser cutting a hole acceptable? The scope of the limitation is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to be met if no additional holes need to be made during a replacement.
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(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko KR 101461504 B1 (hereinafter Ko) in view of Berger US 5219192 A (hereinafter Berger), Caterino et al. US 20190226827 A1 (hereinafter Caterino).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko teaches a storefront door (note: the italicized limitation recites an intended use for the replacement lock and does not hold patentable weight. It’s the position of the examiner that the lock disclosed by Ko could be applied to a variety of doors, including a storefront door) lock wit , configured to be mounted on a first component (400) of a storefront door so as to lock or unlock the first component, the storefront door lock with comprising: an outdoor component (100 and 200) configured to mounted at an outer side of the first component (para 21), a command-signal verification element (101) located on the outdoor component (see fig 6); an indoor component (500 and 600) configured to mounted at an inner side of the first component (600, para 26); a mortise (300), disposed between the outdoor component and the indoor component, the mortise comprising a housing (see fig 4), a bolt (302 and/or 301) a drive shift (see follower in mortise in fig 5), the bolt movably disposed in the housing, and the housing defining a wire hole (303); and an electronic assembly, comprising a main circuit board (602), a motor (motor described in para 27) and the command-signal verification element located on the outdoor component (see fig 3), the motor and the command-signal verification element electrically connected to the main circuit board (para 27 and fig 6), and when a verification signal sent by command-signal verification element verified by the main circuit board, the main circuit board sending a command to the motor in the indoor component (para 27), and the motor causing the bolt to extend or retract to open or lock the door (para 27); wherein a conductor connected to the main circuit board passes through the wire hole of the housing to transmit electronic signals (103, see fig 6).
However, Ko does not teach a replacement storefront door lock with no drilling (examiner emphasis added).
Berger teaches a similar lock, where an identical lock is used as a replacement for a damaged identical lock (abstract) with no drilling (as the locks are identical no additional drilling is needed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Ko’s lock be a replacement lock in order replace a damaged lock, ensuring correct locking of the door.
Additionally, Ko does not teach to lock or unlock the first component relative to a second component; a tailpiece, rotatably disposed and engaged with the drive shift, the drive shift configured to receive a driving from the tailpiece to rotate to push the bolt to extend or retract; or the motor located in the indoor component and the motor configured to drive the tailpiece to rotate. However, the examiner would like to note these are extremely common in the art and would likely be used by Ko.
Caterino teaches to lock or unlock the first component relative to a second component (door frame para 30); a tailpiece (106), rotatably disposed and engaged with the drive shift, the drive shift configured to receive a driving from the tailpiece to rotate to push the bolt to extend or retract; the motor located in the indoor component (see fig 1) and the motor configured to drive the tailpiece to rotate (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the bolt lock and unlock a first component relative to a second component in order to provide an extremely well known and conventional way of locking a door, a tailpiece, rotatably disposed and engaged with the drive shift, the drive shift configured to receive a driving from the tailpiece to rotate to push the bolt to extend or retract in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of driving a bolt, and the motor located in the indoor component and the motor configured to drive the tailpiece to rotate in order to provide a conventional way of electrically driving a bolt and to allow easy replacement and protection from external attacks for the motor.
In regards to claim 2, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 1, wherein the main circuit board is disposed on the indoor component, the conductor connected between the main circuit board and the command-signal verification element passes through the wire hole of the mortise (Ko: see fig 6).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 1, wherein the wire hole is formed adjacent the drive shift and offset from the drive shift (Ko: see fig 5).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Berger and Caterino as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hood US 20200095805 A1 (hereinafter Hood).
In regards to claim 4, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 1.
However, Ko is silent on details of his mortise and thus fails to teach wherein the housing comprises a first side plate, a second side plate parallel to and spaced apart from the first side plate, and a front plate located at the front side of the housing, and each of the first side plate and the second side plate defines the wire hole.
Hood teaches a similar housing comprises a first side plate , a second side plate parallel to and spaced apart from the first side plate, and a front plate located at the front side of the housing, and each of the first side plate and the second side plate defines the wire hole.
Hood teaches a similar housing comprises a first side plate (270), a second side plate (parallel plate of 220, see fig 6) parallel to and spaced apart from the first side plate, and a front plate located at the front side of the housing (with 214 projecting through).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the housing comprises a first side plate, a second side plate parallel to and spaced apart from the first side plate, and a front plate located at the front side of the housing in order to provide for well-known and conventional mortise components.
With the modification above Ko in view of Berger, Caterino, and hood teaches and each of the first side plate and the second side plate defines the wire hole (since Ko’s wire hole is a through hole going through both sides of the mortise).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 4, wherein the outdoor component comprises an outer main housing (Ko: 100) and an outer cover plate (Ko: 200), the outer main housing has an opening on one side facing the mortise (see fig 4), and the outer cover plate covers the opening of the outer main housing (Ko: see fig 4), the outer cover plate is provided with a first through hole (Ko: see fig 4), and the command-signal verification element is disposed on the outer main housing (Ko: see fig 6); the indoor component further comprises an inner main housing (600), and an inner cover (Ko: 500), and the inner cover covers an opening of the inner main housing (see fig 5), the inner cover plate is provided with a second through hole (Ko: 501); the conductor connected to the main circuit board passes through the second through hole of the inner cover (Ko: see fig 6), the wire hole of the first side plate of the housing, the wire hole of the second side plate of the housing (Ko: see fig 6 with modifications of hood), the first through hole of the outer cover of the outdoor component sequentially (Ko: see fig 6), and then extends into the outer main housing of the outdoor component to connect to the command-signal verification element (see fig 6).
However, Ko is silent on details of the housing and therefore fails to teach an inner sub-housing, an inner sub-cover, the inner sub-cover covers an opening of the inner sub- housing, the inner sub-housing and the inner sub-cover are located inside the inner main housing, the inner sub-cover is disposed at one side of the inner main housing facing the mortise, the motor is disposed on the inner sub-cover and the motor and the main circuit board are mounted on the inner sub-cover.
Caterino teaches an inner sub-housing (415), an inner sub-cover (421), the inner sub-cover covers an opening of the inner sub- housing (see fig 1A), the inner sub-housing and the inner sub-cover are located inside the inner main housing (see fig 1), the inner sub-cover is disposed at one side of the inner main housing facing the mortise (see fig 1), the motor is disposed on the inner sub-cover and the motor and a main circuit board (502) are mounted on the inner sub-cover (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an inner sub-housing, an inner sub-cover, the inner sub-cover covers an opening of the inner sub- housing, the inner sub-housing and the inner sub-cover are located inside the inner main housing, the inner sub-cover is disposed at one side of the inner main housing facing the mortise, the motor is disposed on the inner sub-cover and the motor and the main circuit board are mounted on the inner sub-cover, in order to protect the motor while allowing access, improving modularity and to provide a known way of mounting the circuit board.
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 5, wherein the wire hole of the first side plate, the wire hole of the second side plate and the first through hole are substantially aligned (Ko: See fig 6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Berger and Caterino as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Uyeda US 20210159634 A1 (hereinafter Uyeda).
In regards to claim 8, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 1.
However Ko is silent on wherein the electronic assembly further comprises a battery, the battery is connected to the motor and the command-signal verification element to power the motor and the command-signal verification element.
Uyeda teaches an electronic assembly further comprises a battery (146), the battery is connected to the motor and the command-signal verification element to power the motor and the command-signal verification element (see fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a battery, the battery is connected to the motor and the command-signal verification element to power the motor and the command-signal verification element In Ko in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of powering a door lock.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Berger and Caterino as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Speckamp DE 102012111537 A1 (hereinafter Speckamp)
In regards to claim 9, Ko in view of Berger and Caterino teaches a replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 1.
However, Ko does not teach wherein the mortise further comprises a drive rod movably located in the housing and being movable relative to the bolt; the drive shift is configured to couple with the tailpiece and receive drive from the tailpiece to rotate around a first direction, thereby driving the drive rod to move in the housing, and drive shift drives the bolt to extend or retract directly or indirectly via the drive rod.
Speckamp teaches wherein a mortise further comprises a drive rod (20) movably located in the housing and being movable relative to the bolt (see figs 1 and 4); the drive shift is configured to couple with the tailpiece and receive drive from the tailpiece to rotate around a first direction (see fig 1), thereby driving the drive rod to move in the housing, and drive shift drives the bolt to extend or retract directly or indirectly via the drive rod (see fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a rotating bolt and a drive rod movably located in the housing and being movable relative to the bolt; the drive shift is configured to couple with the tailpiece and receive drive from the tailpiece to rotate around a first direction, thereby driving the drive rod to move in the housing, and drive shift drives the bolt to extend or retract directly or indirectly via the drive rod, such as in Speckamp, in order to allow for increased security (Speckamp para 13).
In regards to claim 11, Ko in view of Berger, Caterino and Speckamp teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 9, wherein the drive rod is rotatably connected to the housing about a first axis (Speckamp 30), the bolt is rotatably connected to the housing about a second axis (Speckamp, 31), the drive shift is drivingly coupled to the tailpiece and is rotatably mounted relative to the housing about a third axis (Speckamp see fig 1) to make the drive shift being capable of driving by the tailpiece; one end of the drive rod, located on one side of the first axis, is movably connected to one end of the drive shift (Speckamp at least indirectly see fig 1), which is away from the third axis; the other end of the drive rod, located on the other side of the first axis, is movably connected to the bolt (Speckamp see fig 1).
Claim(s) 1 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200337616 Y1 (hereinafter KR ‘616) in view of Berger.
In regards to claim 1, KR ‘616 teaches a storefront (note: the italicized limitation recites an intended use for the replacement lock and does not hold patentable weight. It’s the position of the examiner that the lock disclosed by KR ‘616 could be applied to a variety of doors, including a storefront door) door lock, configured to be mounted on a first component (a component of the door para 4) of a storefront door so as to lock or unlock the first component relative to a second component (door frame para 23), the storefront door lock with no drilling comprising: an outdoor component (20) configured to mounted at an outer side of the first component, a command-signal verification element (22) located on the outdoor component; an indoor component (30) configured to mounted at an inner side of the first component ;a mortise (40), disposed between the outdoor component and the indoor component, the mortise comprising a housing (see fig 3), a bolt (41 and/or 42) and a drive shift (for receiving 33, see fig 3, also note cam operating element para 23), the bolt movably disposed in the housing, and the housing defining a wire hole (45L); a tailpiece (33), rotatably disposed and engaged with the drive shift (see fig 2 and fig 3), the drive shift configured to receive a driving from the tailpiece to rotate to push the bolt to extend or retract (para 23); and an electronic assembly, comprising a main circuit board (PCB in para 20), a motor located in the indoor component (para 23, see fig 2 and note para 7) and the command-signal verification element located on the outdoor component, the motor and the command-signal verification element electrically connected to the main circuit board, and when a verification signal sent by command-signal verification element verified by the main circuit board , the main circuit board sending a command to the motor in the indoor component, and the motor configured to drive the tailpiece to rotate, thereby causing the bolt to extend or retract to open or lock the door (para 7 and see fig 2); wherein a conductor (60) connected to the main circuit board passes through the wire hole of the housing to transmit electronic signals (see fig 2).
However, Ko does not teach a replacement storefront door lock with no drilling (examiner emphasis added).
Berger teaches a similar lock, where an identical lock is used as a replacement for a damaged identical lock (abstract) with no drilling (as the locks are identical no additional drilling is needed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have KR ‘616’s lock be a replacement lock in order replace a damaged lock, ensuring correct locking of the door.
In regards to claim 18, KR ‘616 teaches a storefront (storefront note: the italicized limitation recites an intended use for the replacement lock and does not hold patentable weight. It’s the position of the examiner that the lock disclosed by KR ‘616 could be applied to a variety of doors, including a storefront door), configured to be mounted on a first component (a component of the door para 4) of a storefront door so as to lock or unlock the first component relative to a second component, the storefront door lock comprising: an outdoor component (20) configured to mounted at an outer side of the first component (see fig 2); an indoor component (30) configured to mounted at an inner side of the first component; a mortise (40), disposed between the outdoor component and the indoor component, the mortise comprising a housing (see fig 3), a bolt (41 and/or 42) and a drive shift (for receiving 33, see fig 3, also note cam operating element para 23), the bolt movably disposed in the housing, and the housing defining a wire hole (45L); a tailpiece (33), rotatably disposed and engaged with the drive shift, the drive shift configured to receive a driving from the tailpiece to rotate to push the bolt to extend or retract (para 23); and an electronic assembly, comprising a first electronic element mounted on the indoor component (controller and/or motor) and a second electronic element (2b) mounted on the outdoor component, the first electronic element and the second electronic element are electrically connected to each other via a conductor (60); wherein the conductor passes through the wire hole of the housing to transmit electronic signals (see fig 4).
However, Ko does not teach a replacement storefront door lock with no drilling (examiner emphasis added).
Berger teaches a similar lock, where an identical lock is used as a replacement for a damaged identical lock (abstract) with no drilling (as the locks are identical no additional drilling is needed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have KR ‘616’s lock be a replacement lock in order replace a damaged lock, ensuring correct locking of the door.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘616 in view of Berger and Caterino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lie-Nielsen et al. US 20070204665 A1 (hereinafter Lie-Nielsen).
In regards to claim 3, KR ‘616 in view of Caterino teaches the replacement storefront door lock with no drilling of claim 1.
However, KR ‘616 does not teach wherein the main circuit board is disposed in the outdoor component, the conductor connected between the main circuit board and the motor passes through the wire hole of the mortise.
Lie-Nielsen teaches a main circuit board (106) is disposed in an outdoor component (104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have placed KR ‘616’s main circuit board in the outdoor component as doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts and involve only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
With the modifications above KR ‘616 in view of Berger and Lie-Nielsen teaches the conductor connected between the main circuit board and the motor (as the motor is still in the inner housing) passes through the wire hole of the mortise (KR ‘616, see fig 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
White et al. US 20160194903 A1 – teaches a similar device with a pivoting bolt.
Bradstock US 4126341 A – teaches an electrically actuated door lock with a mortise similar to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675