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
Claims 15 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9 Dec. 2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 4 and 5 be found allowable, claims 19 and 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pascal et al., US 2022/0250757 A1.
Claim 1: Pascal discloses an assembly for an aircraft (Fig. 1), comprising:
a keeper (11);
a latch including a handle (13) and a hook structure (12) operatively coupled to the handle ([0068]), the handle configured to move between a closed position and an open position ([0067-68]), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position ([0068]), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position ([0068]); and
a lock (18) comprising a lock element (“key”) configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position ([0074] (“the key is configured to cooperate with the latch 18 … to move the locking device 10 between the locking position and the unlocking position”)), the lock configured to lock the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position ([0072]), and the lock configured to unlock the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position ([0073]); and
an electronic sensor (21) configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked or the unlocked position ([0074-75]; [0096-99]; claim 10).
Claim 17: Pascal discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
a fixed structure (3);
a first aircraft component (8) pivotally attached to the fixed structure ([0063]), the latch mounted to the first aircraft component (Fig. 3); and
a second aircraft component (7) pivotally attached to the fixed structure ([0063]), the keeper mounted to the second aircraft component (Fig. 3).
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, 9-12, 14, 16, and 20 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); and
a lock (24 and 26 form a lock) comprising a lock element (24) 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), and 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).
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 the lock element 24 structured with two lever arms that engage the plate 26).
Claim 11: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein
the lock further comprises a catch (Richter 26);
the lock element is aligned with the catch locking the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (Richter col. 3 ln. 12-17 (the lock element is aligned with the catch when it is engaged with the catch)); 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 (Richter col. 4 ln. 29-31 (the lock element is misaligned from the catch when rotated out of alignment and disengaged from the catch)).
Claim 12: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the lock element is configured to rotate about a lock element axis between the locked position and the unlocked position (Richter depicts the lock element 24 rotates about an axis in the longitudinal direction of the element 24).
Claim 14: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 12, 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).
Claim 20: 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); and
a lock (24 and 26 form a lock) comprising a lock element (24) 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), and 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).
However, Richter is silent to a proximity sensor configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position.
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 Richter 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]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter, US 4,159,137 A, and Bulin et al., FR 3007390 A, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Scalera, US 3,958,821 A.
Claim 13: Richter, in view of Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a fitting (Richter 10) adjacent the handle (Richter Fig. 2).
However, Richter, in view of Bulin, is silent to the lock further including a bolt rotatably mounted to the fitting; and the lock element rotationally fixed to the bolt.
Scalera teaches a lock comprising a lock element (66) configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position (Fig. 6), a fitting (28) adjacent a handle (Fig. 2); the lock including a bolt (64) rotatably mounted to the fitting (rotatably mounted via barrel lock 60); and the lock element rotationally fixed to the bolt (col. 4 ln. 5-18).
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, in view of Bulin, to alternatively provide the lock taught by Scalera, wherein the lock includes a bolt rotatably mounted to the fitting and the lock element is rotationally fixed to the bolt, in order to prevent unauthorized access to the handle by requiring a key and increase convenience by allowing the handle to be automatically re-locked when closed (Scalera col. 5 ln. 36-44 (“closed and locked by one motion of the operator”)).
Claims 1, 4, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter, US 4,159,137 A, in view of Aerts et al., US 2017/0275930 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); and
a lock (24 and 26 form a lock) comprising a lock element (24) 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), and 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).
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.
Aerts teaches an electronic sensor (408) configured to provide a signal when an element is in one of a first position or a second position ([0042]; [0048] (different angles correspond to different positions)).
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 Aerts, 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 electronically monitor the position of the lock element (Aerts [0047] (a “controller can monitor the angle that is continuously detected by the sensor assembly”)).
Claim 4: Richter, in view of Aerts, teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the electronic sensor comprises a rotary sensor (Aerts [0040-41]).
Claim 19: 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); and
a lock (24 and 26 form a lock) comprising a lock element (24) 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), and 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).
However, Richter is silent to a rotary sensor configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position.
Aerts teaches a rotary sensor (408) configured to provide a signal when an element is in one of a first position or a second position ([0042]; [0048] (different angles correspond to different positions)).
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 Aerts, configured to provide a signal when the rotatable lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to electronically monitor the position of the lock element (Aerts [0047] (a “controller can monitor the angle that is continuously detected by the sensor assembly”)).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al., US 2004/0012212 A1, in view of Henrichs, US 5,152,559 A.
Claim 1: Pratt discloses an assembly for an aircraft (abstract), comprising:
a keeper (41);
a latch (illustrated in Fig. 6) including a handle (depicted in Fig. 5) and a hook structure (25) operatively coupled to the handle (depicted in Fig. 6; [0027]), the handle configured to move between a closed position (Fig. 6) and an open position (), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 6), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position ([0027]); and
a lock comprising a lock element (47) configured to move between a locked position ([0027] (position where the lock element retains the hook in engagement); Fig. 6) and an unlocked position ([0027] (position where the lock element facilitates disengagement));
an electronic sensor (21) configured to provide a signal ([0031] “provide information” correlates to provide a signal) when the lock element is in one of the locked position or unlocked position (one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “the state, characteristics or condition” of the lock element includes the lock element in at least one of the locked position or unlocked position, and the electronic sensor is configured to provide a signal when the lock element is in one of the locked position or the unlocked position).
Regarding the latch, Pratt teaches the handle in a closed position (Fig. 6), but is silent to the handle configured to move between the closed position and an open position. Pratt also teaches the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 6), but is silent to the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position. Regarding the lock, Pratt teaches the lock element in a locked position (Fig. 6), but is silent to the lock configured to lock the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position and unlock the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to Henrichs (incorporated by Pratt [0015]) for the structural details of the latch and lock in order to successfully practice the assembly disclosed by Pratt.
Henrichs teaches an assembly comprising a latch (Fig. 3) including a handle (84) and a hook structure (64) operatively coupled to the handle (col. 3 ln. 56-58; Figs. 3, 8-9), the handle configured to move between a closed position (solid lines in Fig. 3) and an open position (phantom lines of handle in Fig. 3; col. 3 ln. 58-60), the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position (Fig. 3; Fig. 8), and the hook structure disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position (Fig. 3; Fig. 9); and
a lock comprising a lock element (88) configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position (the lock element rotates about the shaft 89 between the positions (col. 3 ln. 50-54)), the lock configured to lock the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position (col. 3 ln. 66-68; Fig. 2), and the lock configured to unlock the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position (the lock element rotates about the shaft 89 to disengage the pin 92 (col. 3 ln. 50-68)).
It would have been obvious to configure the latch disclosed by Pratt so the handle can move between a closed position and an open position, the hook structure engaged with the keeper when the handle is in the closed position and disengaged from the keeper when the handle is in the open position, as taught by Henrichs, in order to practice the latch as disclosed by Pratt. Likewise, it would have been obvious to configure the lock disclosed by Pratt to lock the handle in the closed position when the lock element is in the locked position, and unlock the handle from the closed position when the lock element is in the unlocked position, as taught by Henrichs, in order to practice the lock as disclosed by Pratt.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al., US 2004/0012212 A1, and Henrichs, US 5,152,559 A, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bulin, FR 3007390 A1.
Claim 6: Pratt, in view of Henrichs, teaches the assembly of claim 1, but is silent to a second electronic sensor configured to provide a second 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 taught by Pratt, in view of Henrichs, to further include a second 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 make it possible to filter out a one-off malfunction and avoid delaying the aircraft (Bulin [0013]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al., US 2004/0012212 A1, Henrichs, US 5,152,559 A, and Bulin, FR 3007390 A1, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Aerts et al., US 2017/0275930 A1.
Claim 7: Pratt, in view of Henrichs and Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 6, however, Pratt, as modified by Henrichs and Bulin, is silent to electronic sensor and the second electronic sensor are different types of sensor.
Pratt does not explicitly teach the electronic sensor is a particular type of sensor. Different types of sensors are well known in the art. Aerts teaches an electronic sensor (408) configured to provide a signal when an element is in one of a first position or a second position ([0042]; [0048] (different angles correspond to different positions)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electronic sensor Pratt, in view of Henrichs, as a rotary sensor, as taught by Aerts, in order to enable continuous monitoring of the lock element’s position (Aerts [0047]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results would have been predictable and would not affect operation of the device.
The resulting assembly taught by Pratt, as modified by Henrichs, Bulin, and Aerts, includes the electronic sensor and the second electronic sensor, wherein the electronic sensor and the second electronic sensor are different types of sensor.
Claim 8: Pratt, in view of Henrichs and Bulin, teaches the assembly of claim 6, wherein the second electronic sensor comprises a proximity sensor (Bulin [0004]).
Pratt, in view of Henrichs and Bulin, are silent to the electronic sensor comprising a rotary sensor. However, different types of sensors are well known in the art. Aerts teaches an electronic sensor (408) configured to provide a signal when an element is in one of a first position or a second position ([0042]; [0048] (different angles correspond to different positions)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electronic sensor Pratt, in view of Henrichs and Bulin, as a rotary sensor, as taught by Aerts, in order to enable continuous monitoring of the lock element’s position (Aerts [0047]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results would have been predictable and would not affect operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pascal et al. (US 2022/0250757 A1) is related to an assembly for an aircraft comprising a latch and keeper, a locking element, and an electronic sensor detecting the lock element position.
Feirer et al. (US 2016/0290009 A1) is related to a system comprising two sensors coupled to an assembly to calibrate the system and use as a plausibility check of the signals.
Helsley (US 2017/0306669 A1) is related to a latch assembly for an aircraft comprising a handle, a locking element, and a hook that engages a keeper, and first and second aircraft components, wherein the lock element is aligned with a catch to lock the handle and misaligned to unlock the handle.
Davis et al. (US 4413849 A) I related to a latch assembly comprising a fitting adjacent a handle, wherein a lock is mounted to the fitting via a projection and the lock element is rotationally fixed to a projection.
Wieben (US 2246708 A) is related to an assembly for an aircraft comprising a latch with a handle and a lock element structured as a lever configured to lock the handle in the closed position.
Parsell, Jr., et al. (US 2017/0101811 A1) is related to an assembly comprising a latch and a locking element configured to engage a catch to hold a handle in a closed position.
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