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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument, on pages 7-9, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention in claim 1, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a lock element is located adjacent the handle) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, the claim does not require the lock element is an element mounted to the fitting independently from the handle element.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-12, with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter, US 4,159,137 A, in view of Bulin et al., FR 3007390 A1.
Claim 1: Richter discloses an assembly for an aircraft (col. 1 ln. 5-7), comprising:
a keeper (18);
a latch (illustrated in Fig. 1) including a handle (20) and a hook structure (62) operatively coupled to the handle (col. 4 ln. 39-45), the handle configured to move between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 4), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 2), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position (Fig. 4);
a fitting (10) adjacent the handle (Fig. 2);
a lock comprising a lock element (Fig. 4, annotated below), a catch (26) and a bolt (annotated below), the bolt rotatably mounted to the fitting (the bolt is mounted to the fitting via rotating handle 20 and is rotatable relative to the fitting), the lock element configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position (col. 3 ln. 12-17; col. 4 ln. 29-31), the lock configured to lock the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (col. 3 ln. 12-17), the lock configured to unlock the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (col. 4 ln. 28-34), the lock element rotationally fixed to the bolt (col. 4 ln. 27-31; Fig. 2 and 4 show the lock element is attached to the bolt and rotates with the bolt) and configured to rotate about a lock element axis between the locked position and the unlocked position (lock element rotates about an axis in the longitudinal direction of the bolt), the lock element aligned with the catch locking the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (shown in Fig. 2), and the lock element is misaligned from the catch unlocking the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (shown in Fig. 4; col. 4 ln. 29-31).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Richter is silent to an electronic sensor configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position.
Bulin teaches an electronic sensor (72) configured to provide a signal when an element is in one of a first position or a second position ([0010]).
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 assembly disclosed by Richter to further include an electronic sensor, as taught by Bulin, configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remotely monitor the state of the lock element (Bulin [0011-12]).
Claim 2: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the electronic sensor is configured to provide the signal when the lock element is in the locked position (as modified, the sensor is configured to transmit a signal when the lock element is in the locked position; Bulin [0010]).
Claim 3: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the electronic sensor is configured to provide the signal when the lock element is in the unlocked position (as modified, the sensor is configured to transmit a signal when the lock element is in the unlocked position; Bulin [0010]).
Claim 5: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the electronic sensor comprises a proximity sensor (Bulin [0001]).
Claim 6: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1. However, Richter, as modified by Bulin, is silent to a second electronic sensor.
Bulin further teaches providing a second electronic sensor configured to provide a second signal when the element is in one of the first position or the second position ([0013]).
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 assembly taught by Richter, in view of Bulin, to further comprise a second electronic sensor configured to provide a second signal, as taught by Bulin, when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position in order to filter out a malfunction and avoid delaying the aircraft (Bulin [0013]).
Claim 9: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1. Bulin further teaches a user interface configured to present an indicator when the electronic sensor provides the signal (Bulin [0011-12] “information system” corresponds to a user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a user interface configured to present an indicator when the electronic sensor provides the signal, as Bulin teaches, with the assembly taught by Richter, in view of Bulin, in order to practice the device and meaningfully use the electronic sensor to remotely monitor the lock element (see Bulin [0011-12] (state of the lock element is indicated to pilots in the cockpit)).
Claim 10: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the lock element comprises a lever (Richter depicts an arm of the lock element 24 is structured as a lever).
Claim 14: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein
the latch is configured to pivot about a latch axis between the closed position and the open position (movement between Figs. 2 and 4 of Richter depicts the latch rotates about an axis of pin 60);
and the latch axis is angularly offset from the lock element axis (Richter Fig. 2 depicts the axis of pin 60 extends in a different direction, thus is angularly offset, from the axis of the lock element).
Claim 16: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein
the handle extends longitudinally between a first end and a second end (Richter Fig. 3); and
the lock is arranged at the first end (as oriented in Fig. 3 of Richter, the right side end corresponds to the first end).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter, US 4,159,137 A and Bulin et al., FR 3007390 A1, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Belmond et al., US 2005/0034373 A1.
Claim 7: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 6, but are silent to the electronic sensor and the second electronic sensor being different types of sensors.
Belmond teaches a lock assembly comprising an electronic sensor (72) and a second electronic sensor (74) are different types of sensors ([0038]). 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 assembly taught by Richter, in view of Bulin, to utilize different types of sensors as the electronic sensor and the second electronic sensor as taught by Belmond, in order to improve reliability (Belmond [0031]) and reduce the risk of common failure (Belmond [0038]).
Claim 8: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 6, wherein the second electronic sensor comprises a proximity sensor (Bulin [0011]).
Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches an electronic sensor and a second electronic sensor, but is silent to the electronic sensor comprising a rotary sensor. However, rotary sensors are a well-known type of sensor. Belmond teaches a lock assembly comprising an electronic sensor (72) and a second electronic sensor (74) are different types of sensors ([0038]) in order to improve reliability and reduce risk of common failure ([0031], [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a rotary sensor as the electronic sensor and a proximity sensor as the second electronic sensor in order to reliably monitor the position of the lock element (Belmond [0031]).
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a rotary sensor and a proximity sensor configured to provide signals when the lock element is in one of the locked or unlocked positions.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter, US 4,159,137 A, in view of Ney, US 2020/0332572 A1.
Claim 1: Richter discloses an assembly for an aircraft (col. 1 ln. 5-7), comprising:
a keeper (18);
a latch (illustrated in Fig. 1) including a handle (20) and a hook structure (62) operatively coupled to the handle (col. 4 ln. 39-45), the handle configured to move between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 4), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 2), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position (Fig. 4);
a fitting (10) adjacent the handle (Fig. 2);
a lock comprising a lock element (Fig. 4, annotated below), a catch (26) and a bolt (annotated below), the bolt rotatably mounted to the fitting (the bolt is mounted to the fitting via rotating handle 20 and is rotatable relative to the fitting), the lock element configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position (col. 3 ln. 12-17; col. 4 ln. 29-31), the lock configured to lock the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (col. 3 ln. 12-17), the lock configured to unlock the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (col. 4 ln. 28-34), the lock element rotationally fixed to the bolt (col. 4 ln. 27-31; Fig. 2 and 4 show the lock element is attached to the bolt and rotates with the bolt) and configured to rotate about a lock element axis between the locked position and the unlocked position (lock element rotates about an axis in the longitudinal direction of the bolt), the lock element aligned with the catch locking the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (shown in Fig. 2), and the lock element is misaligned from the catch unlocking the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (shown in Fig. 4; col. 4 ln. 29-31).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Richter is silent to an electronic sensor configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position.
Ney teaches an electronic sensor (3) configured to provide a signal when a lock element is in one of a locked position or an unlocked position ([0030-31]).
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 assembly disclosed by Richter to further include a rotary sensor, as taught by Ney, configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remotely monitor the state of the lock element (Ney [0030]) with reduced cost and size (Ney [0038]).
Claim 4: Richter, in view of Ney, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the electric sensor comprises a rotary sensor (as modified by Ney, the sensor comprises a hall-effect sensor which is a rotary sensor).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfredsson, US 10,597,901 B2, in view of Ney, US 2020/0332572 A1.
Claim 19: Alfredsson discloses an assembly for an aircraft (the assembly disclosed is structurally capable of being used on an aircraft) (Note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations for the claim (MPEP 2114.)), comprising:
a keeper (30);
a latch (6) including a handle (2) and a hook structure (22) operatively coupled to the handle (col. 7 ln. 35-46), the handle configured to move between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 7), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 9), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position (Fig. 10);
a lock comprising a lock element (7) and a catch (9), the catch connected to the handle (Fig. 4; col. 7 ln. 57-58), the lock element adjacent the handle (Fig. 1), the lock element configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position (movement by movement Figs. 4 and 6), the lock configured to lock the latch when the lock element is in the locked position (col. 7 ln. 55-61), and the lock configured to unlock the latch when the lock element is in the unlocked position (col. 8 ln. 5-15), the lock element aligned with the catch locking the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (Fig. 4 depicts the surface 81 is aligned with the catch 9), the lock element is misaligned from the catch unlocking the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (Fig. 6 depicts the surface 81 is not aligned with the catch 9).
However, Alfredsson is silent to a rotary sensor to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked or unlocked positions.
Ney teaches a rotary sensor (3; a hall effect sensor is configured as a rotary sensor) configured to provide a signal when a lock element is in one of a locked position or an unlocked position ([0030-31]).
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 assembly disclosed by Alfredsson to further include a rotary sensor, as taught by Ney, configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remotely monitor the state of the lock element (Ney [0030]) with reduced cost and size (Ney [0038]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfredsson, US 10,597,901 B2, in view of Bulin et al., FR 3007390 A1.
Claim 20: Alfredsson discloses an assembly for an aircraft (the assembly disclosed is structurally capable of being used on an aircraft) (Note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations for the claim (MPEP 2114.)), comprising:
a keeper (30);
a latch (6) including a handle (2) and a hook structure (22) operatively coupled to the handle (col. 7 ln. 35-46), the handle configured to move between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 7), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 9), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position (Fig. 10);
a lock comprising a lock element (7) and a catch (9), the catch connected to the handle (Fig. 4; col. 7 ln. 57-58), the lock element adjacent the handle (Fig. 1), the lock element configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position (movement by movement Figs. 4 and 6), the lock configured to lock the latch when the lock element is in the locked position (col. 7 ln. 55-61), and the lock configured to unlock the latch when the lock element is in the unlocked position (col. 8 ln. 5-15), the lock element aligned with the catch locking the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (Fig. 4 depicts the surface 81 is aligned with the catch 9),and the lock element is misaligned from the catch unlocking the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (Fig. 6 depicts the surface 81 is not aligned with the catch 9).
However, Alfredsson is silent to a proximity sensor to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked or unlocked positions.
Bulin teaches a proximity sensor (72) configured to provide a signal when an element is in one of a first position or a second position ([0004]; [0010]).
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 assembly disclosed by Alfredsson to further include a proximity sensor, as taught by Bulin, configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reliably and remotely monitor the state of the lock element (Bulin [0010-11]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights