Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/194,134

LATCH MECHANISM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 31, 2023
Examiner
DOUGLAS, STEVEN O
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rivian Ip Holdings LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1229 granted / 1557 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1575
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1557 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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)(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) 1-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vogg et al. (US 4,583,896). The Vogg et al. reference discloses a latch apparatus for securing cargo to the floor of an aircraft comprising a hook 10, a lever 19 and a link 22, as claimed. In regard to claim 2, see hook point (proximate reference numeral 17 in Fig. 2), lever point (proximate reference numeral 19 in Fig. 2), lever rotation point 15 and an imaginary axis (unnumbered) between the hook point and lever point, as claimed. In regard to claim 3, see spring 18. In regard to claims 4 and 8, the housing is defined by the floor of the aircraft (proximate reference plane 31 in Fig. 3) which the latch apparatus is mounted below in Fig. 3. In regard to claim 6, see slight bend proximate reference numeral 32 in Fig. 2. In regard to claim 7, the first and second positions are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. In regard to claims 11-16, the method as claimed would be inherent during normal use and operation of the latch apparatus (supra). In regard to claims 17 and 20, the vehicle would be the associated aircraft (not shown). Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nockels (US 2,961,262). The Nockels reference discloses a latch apparatus for tailgate C of a bed box (proximate reference letter B in Fig. 1) of a vehicle comprising a hook 22, a lever 30 and a link 33, as claimed. In regard to claim 2, see hook point (proximate reference numeral 25 in Fig. 2), lever point (proximate reference numeral 30 in Fig. 2), lever rotation point 27 and an imaginary axis (unnumbered) between the hook point and lever point, as claimed. In regard to claim 7, the first and second positions are shown in Figs. 2 and 4. In regard to claims 11, 12, 15 and 16, the method as claimed would be inherent during normal use and operation of the latch apparatus (supra). In regard to claim 18, the latch apparatus is most certainly disposed adjacent the top of the sidewall of the bed box (see Fig. 1). 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) 3, 4, 13, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nockels (US 2,961,262) in view of Herrmann et al. (US 2,134,823). The Nockels reference discloses a latch apparatus for a vehicle (supra), but fails to disclose a compliant member or spring as claimed. Attention is directed to the Herrmann et al. reference which discloses another latch apparatus for a vehicle that utilizes known springs 20,24 (i.e. compliant members) to urge or aid in movement of the latch apparatus to and from a latched position. Therefore, 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 Nockels latch apparatus to utilize a compliant member or spring in view of the teachings of the Herrmann et al. reference to urge or aid in movement of latch apparatus the to and from a latched position. In regard to claims 13 and 14, the method as claimed would be inherent during normal use and operation of the modified latch apparatus, as claimed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The McNeilly, Saroka, Mosley et al. and Baldwin et al. references pertain to various latch mechanisms with similarities to that of Applicant’s. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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 O DOUGLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 31, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594872
Lockable Cargo Retaining Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594847
ELECTROMOTIVE LOCKING UNIT FOR AN ELECTRICAL CHARGING DEVICE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594871
Cargo Retaining System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588608
Mobile Forestry Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589856
LIQUID RETENTION DEVICE FOR EQUIPMENT CARRIED BY A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1557 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