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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 15-20 recite:
A means for engaging a latch pin, which is interpreted to be a latch hook.
A means for receiving a latch pin, which is interpreted to be a second recess.
A means for locking, which is interpreted to be a pawl.
A means for resetting, which is interpreted to be a reset link
A means for connecting, which is interpreted to be a connector.
A means for actuating, which is interpreted to be an actuation handle.
A means for receiving the means for locking, which is interpreted to be a first recess.
NOTE: Applicant’s arguments that the limitations of claim 15 previously not interpreted under 112f are persuasive and therefore are currently interpreted under USC 112(f)
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)(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) 8-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230340809 to Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Choi discloses:
An apparatus, comprising: a pawl (72) movably coupled to a reset link (73), the reset link to rotate about a first joint (73a) of a primary latch actuation handle (6, via 75), the primary latch actuation handle to cause latching of a door (5), the pawl including a first portion (portion to the right of 72a) and a second portion (portion to the left of 72a) coupled at a second joint (72a); and a latch hook (71) positioned to receive the pawl (fig 9), the door stabilized against further movement when the pawl engages the latch hook (fig 9b), the latch hook having a first recess (71d) and a second recess (71b), the second recess including a first edge surface (right edge of 71b as seen in fig 9b) and a second edge surface (back end of 71b as seen in fig 9b), a protrusion (72d) of the pawl contact the second edge surface (via 71d, fig 9b) when entering the first recess, the protrusion positioned between the second joint and a spring (71c, see fig 9b).
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the pawl includes a post (72b), the post to transition within a slot of the reset link (73b).
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the latch hook is to engage a latch pin (31a) when the door is closed.
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the latch hook includes a first recess (71d) to receive the pawl.
Regarding claim 14, Choi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the latch hook includes a second recess (71b) to receive the latch pin.
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) 1-7, 10-11, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230340809 to Choi in view of US 20160245000 to Ottino et al (Ottino).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses:
An apparatus, comprising: a pawl (72) having a protrusion (72d), the pawl including a first portion (portion to the right of 72a) and a second portion (portion to the left of 72a) coupled at a joint (72a); and a latch hook (71) having a first recess (71d) to receive the protrusion of the pawl and a second recess (71b) to receive a latch pin (31) when the cabin door (5) closes (Note: The term cabin is treated as a title), the second recess including a first edge surface (right edge of 71b as seen in fig 9b) and a second edge surface (back end of 71b as seen in fig 9b) to receive the latch pin, the protrusion to contact the second edge surface (via 71d, fig 9b) when entering the first recess, the protrusion positioned between the second joint and the spring (see fig below, 72d is between the left end of the spring and the joint).
Choi does not explicitly disclose: the pawl coupled to an over-center spring, the over- center spring connected to a frame of a cabin door. However, Ottino teaches that is well known in the art for a pawl (92) to an over-center spring (122), the over-center spring connected to a frame of a cabin door (door of the car. Note: The term cabin is treated as a title). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ottino into Choi at least because doing so would provide added safety over the lock by providing the security of an over-centered biasing member.
PNG
media_image1.png
195
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pawl is pivotally coupled to a reset link (73).
Regarding claim 3, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the reset link includes a slot (73b) to receive a connector (72b) that translates within the slot (see figs 9b and 9c).
Regarding claim 4, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the connector is movably coupled to a main latch handle (6, via 75).
Regarding claim 5, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the latch pin is positioned within a latch pin fitting (78), the latch pin fitting coupled to the frame of the cabin door (see paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 6, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the latch pin is to cause the latch hook to rotate when receiving the latch pin in a receiver (movement between figs 9c and 9b).
Regarding claim 7, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
he apparatus of claim 1, wherein the over-center spring is to cause the pawl to transition into a fully unlatched position (fig 9b) when a primary latch actuation handle (6, via 75) is engaged and the latch hook is disengaged.
Regarding claim 10, Choi does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the post of the pawl is coupled to a spring.
However, Ottino teaches that is well known in the art for a post of a pawl (92) to be coupled to a spring (122). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ottino into Choi at least because doing so would provide added control over the pawl and latch system by introducing a biasing member.
Regarding claim 11, Choi (in view of Ottino) discloses:
The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the spring is to cause the pawl to fully unlatch when the primary latch actuation handle is engaged (122 causes 92 to fully unlatch when the handle is engaged, Ottino).
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses:
An apparatus, comprising: means for engaging (71) a latch pin (31), the means for engaging the latch pin having means for receiving the latch pin (71b/d); the means for engaging the latch pin including a first portion (right half of 71) and a second portion (left half of 71) coupled at a joint (71a), the means for receiving the latch pin having a first recess (71d) and a second recess (71b), the second recess including a first edge surface (right edge of 71b as seen in fig 9b) and a second edge surface (back end of 71b as seen in fig 9b) to receive the latch pin, a protrusion (72d) of the means for engaging the latch pin contact the second edge surface (via 71d, fig 9b) when entering the first recess, the protrusion positioned between the second joint and a spring (72c, see fig produced above, 72d is between the left end of the spring and the joint); and means for locking (72) the means for engaging the latch pin, the means for locking having means for connecting (72b) to a means for resetting (73), the means for resetting pivotally coupled to a means for actuating (75) a primary latch actuation handle (6).
Choi does not explicitly disclose the spring being an over-center spring.
However, Ottino teaches that is well known in the art for a pawl (92) to have an over-center spring (122). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ottino into Choi at least because doing so would provide added safety over the lock by providing the security of an over-centered biasing member.
Regarding claim 16, Choi in view of Ottino discloses:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the means for engaging the latch pin is configured to rotate relative to the latch pin for the latch pin to translate into the means for receiving the latch pin (see figs 9b and 9c).
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Ottino discloses:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the means for locking the means for engaging the latch pin is configured to rotate relative to the means for resetting (see figs 9b-9d).
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Ottino discloses:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the means for engaging the latch pin includes means for receiving (71d) the means for locking when the means for engaging a latch hook is engaged (fig 9b).
Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Ottino discloses:
The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the means for locking is coupled to the over-center spring (72c as per the combination), the spring to force the means for locking to translate into the means for receiving the means for locking (72c biases 72 to the position of fig 9b).
Regarding claim 20, Choi in view of Ottino discloses:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the latch pin is to cause the means for locking to disengage from the means for engaging the latch pin when the means for engaging the latch pin translates in a direction opposite from the latch pin (fig 9c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the first protrusion of Choi does not contact the second edge surface, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the protrusion does not directly come in contact with the second edge surface, the protrusion contacts it through 71d. Similar to how the protrusion of the claimed invention does not directly contact the second edge surface as seen in fig 3a and contacts it via 238, Choi teaches this in fig 9B (see interpretation in claim 1). 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
Prosecution Insights