Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/139,210

GATE LATCH

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Apr 25, 2023
Examiner
SIDKY, YAHYA I
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Elbee Pty Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 198 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
238
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 198 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11041340 to Flannery et al (Flannery). Regarding claim 1, Flannery discloses: A gate latch (fig 1) comprising: a latch body (16) configured to be coupled to a gate barrier (28), the latch body comprising: a latch bolt (96) configured to slide between an engaged position (fig 4a) and a disengaged position (fig 4c) in a first direction (see figs 4a-c), the latch bolt including an inclined latch engagement face oriented toward a bottom of the latch bolt (see fig 5a, 96 has an incline towards the bottom of the latch), and a latch operator (100) engaged with the latch bolt and configured to slide between a locking position (fig 4a) and an unlocking position (fig 4c) in a second direction (titled axis as seen in fig 4a-c) different from the first direction, wherein sliding the latch operator between the locking position and the unlocking position slides the latch bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position (figs 4a-c); and a latch receptacle (18) configured to receive and retain the latch bolt when the latch bolt is in the engaged position (fig 2b). Regarding claim 2, Flannery discloses: The gate latch of claim 1, wherein the first direction is a horizontal direction, and wherein the second direction is inclined relative to the horizontal direction (see figs 4a-c). Regarding claim 3, Flannery discloses: The gate latch of claim 1, wherein the inclined latch engagement face is configured to move the latch bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position when the latch engagement face engages an upward facing surface (162) of the latch receptacle (see figs 2a and 22, and col 24 lines 54-57). Regarding claim 4, Flannery discloses: The gate latch of claim 3, wherein the inclined latch engagement face is configured to move the latch bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position while the latch operator remains in the locking position (100 does not retract as 100is moved to the disengaged position). Regarding claim 5, Flannery discloses: The gate latch of claim 1, wherein the latch body further comprises a spring (104) coupled to the latch bolt configured to bias the latch bolt to the engaged position (fig 14). Regarding claim 6, Flannery discloses: The gate latch of claim 1, wherein the latch body comprises an upper portion (top half of 92), a lower portion (bottom half of 92) and a post (120) extending between the upper portion and the lower portion, wherein the latch operator comprises an operator slot (slot through which 100 extends through crated on the bottom of 92 when both halves connect, see fig 3) surrounding the post, wherein a first end of the operator slot defines the locking position (left end as seen in fig 4a, 100 is extended to left end) and wherein a second end of the operator slot defines the unlocking position (right end as seen in fig 4c, 100 moves to the right end). Regarding claim 7, Flannery discloses: The gate latch of claim 6, wherein the lower portion slidingly supports a bottom surface of the latch bolt (see fig 3 and 13). Regarding claim 8, Flannery discloses: A gate (fig 1) comprising: a frame (12); a gate barrier (10) disposed in an opening of the frame (fig 1), wherein the gate barrier is configured to rotate between an open position and a closed position (gate is configured to rotate in both directions, see col 1 lines 34-36) and translate between a lower position and an upper position (see col 5 lines 10-18); an upper latch (fig 1) comprising: a latch body (16) coupled to the gate barrier, the latch body comprising: a latch bolt (96) configured to slide between an engaged position (fig 4a) and a disengaged position (fig 4c) in a first direction (left-right direction as seen in figs 4a-c), the latch bolt including an inclined latch engagement face oriented toward a bottom of the latch bolt (see fig 5a, 96 has an incline towards the bottom of the latch), and a latch operator (100) engaged with the latch bolt and configured to slide between a locking position (fig 4a) and an unlocking position (fig 4c) in a second direction (titled axis as seen in fig 4a-c) different from the first direction, wherein sliding the latch operator between the locking position and the unlocking position slides the latch bolt from the engaged position to the disengaged position (see movement between figs 4a-c), and a latch receptacle (18) coupled to the frame configured to receive and retain the latch bolt when the latch bolt is in the engaged position (fig 2b); and a lower latch (82) comprising a pocket (arms of 82) configured to receive a portion (24) of the gate barrier when the gate barrier is in the closed position and the lower position (fig 1). Claims 9-14 are rejected as per rejections of claims 2-7 respectively. Regarding claim 15, Flannery discloses: The gate of claim 8, further comprising a gate hinge (34) coupled to the gate barrier (via 68, see col 12 lines 25-27) configured to inhibit the gate barrier from rotating between the open position and the closed position when the gate barrier is in the lower position (when 82 is in the lower position inhibiting the swinging of the gate in both directions, 34 inhibits the pivoting of the gate, see at least col 13 lines 3-5). Regarding claim 16, Flannery discloses: The gate of claim 8, wherein the pocket is configured to receive the portion of the gate barrier when the gate barrier moves from the upper position to the lower position (82 abuts 24 when in the lower position). 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. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11041340 to Flannery et al (Flannery). Regarding claims 17-20, although Flannery doesn’t explicitly disclose the method of claims 17-20, Flannery teaches the structure necessary for such method as rejected in claims 8-11 above. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the apparatus of Flannery in the method of claims 17-20. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the latch operator of Flannery does not move the latch from the engaged to the disengaged position, Examiner respectfully disagrees. When 100 is actuated, 98 pulls the latch backwards as seen in fig 4c. Therefore, rejection is maintained. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30. 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 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. /Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601210
DOOR HANDLE SYSTEM FOR A SAFETY DOOR, ESPECIALLY FOR A SLIDING DOOR OR A SWING DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590480
COMPACT POWERED DOOR LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577807
VERTICALLY ADJUSTABLE STRIKE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577808
GATE LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559991
MINIMALIST SECONDARY BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 198 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month