Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/406,012

Electronic device lock

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Examiner
LUGO, CARLOS
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ingamar Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
929 granted / 1243 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1294
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1243 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . This Office Action is in response to applicant’s RCE filed on 12/4/25. 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) 1, 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 11,359,406 to Su in view of US Pat No 7,308,809 to Yu, US Pat No 3,439,515 to Gehrie and US Pat No 6,058,744 to Ling. PNG media_image1.png 785 980 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Su discloses an electronic device lock that comprises a lock (20) comprising a lock lever (13) and a plurality of number wheels (11) mounted on the lock lever. The number of wheels control the displacement of the lock lever. The lock lever is moved by a switch control button (30) to form a connection or disconnection state between the lock and an electric device. One end of the lock lever is sequentially equipped with an operating block (12) and a push pillar (13). A fitting hole (121) is recessed on one side of the operating block. The push pillar is a conical rod with a tip. The lock comprises a housing composed of a two-piece symmetrical cover (20) that will cover the lock lever and the number of wheel. The housing is provided with a plurality of holes for partially exposing the number wheel for operation. The housing is provided with a displacement space (21) and an arc-shaped ball chamber (22) connected to each other. The displacement space accommodates the operating block, and the ball chamber provides the penetration of the push pillar. An opening is formed from the top of the ball chamber through the housing. An operating hole is aligned with the fitting hole in order to connect the switch control button to the operating block. The lock comprises two fasteners (40) that are symmetrically provided with hemispherical arc parts (41) that are accommodated in the ball chamber. An accommodation tank (42) is formed at one end of the arc parts and a buckle arm (44) at the end of the arc parts and passes out of the housing through the opening. First, Su fails to disclose that the lock lever has a buckle part that corresponds with a buckle hole on the lock, and that an insert part of a cable is inserted into the buckle hole and secured by the buckle part. Su discloses a cable (25) that comprises an insert part (251) at one end and collar part at the other end, wherein the insert part is fixedly connected to the lock at a connecting pin (24). PNG media_image2.png 311 1087 media_image2.png Greyscale Gehrie teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock (A) with a lock lever (D) that is moved by a switch control button (46), and a plurality of number wheels (22) mounted on the lock lever. The number of wheels control the displacement of the lock lever. The lock lever comprises a buckle portion (arm with notch 78) to secure a buckle part (82) of an insert part (80) of an inserting member (B). PNG media_image3.png 718 1211 media_image3.png Greyscale Lu teaches that it is well known in the art to provide the insert part (at 41) of a cable (4) removable secured to a lock (A) by means of being inserted into a buckle hole (523) and secured by a buckle part (612). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lock lever described by Su with a buckle part, as taught by Gehrie, and to provide the cable as a removable cable from the lock, as taught by Lu, in order to allow the user to detach the cable at any desired time. Su, as modified by Gehrie and Lu, will teach that the buckle part is protruding on the other side of the operating block and that the buckle hole and the operating hole can be configured to be positioned on opposite sides of the housing. Further, Gehrie teaches that the end of the buckle part is protruding into the buckle hole. Second, Su also fails to disclose that housing comprises a plurality of perspective holes used for viewing the number of wheel. Su discloses that the wheel numbers can be seen, but not specifically the desired number. PNG media_image4.png 673 842 media_image4.png Greyscale Ling teaches that it is well known in the art to manufacture a housing (11, 12) of a lock (1) that comprises a plurality of perspective holes (15) used for viewing the number on the wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing described by Su with perspective holes, as taught by Ling, in order to allow the user to just see a single distinctive number or symbol of the wheel. As to claim 3, Ling teaches the use of a spring (54) under an operating block (53) of a lock lever (5) and between a number wheel (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lock lever with a spring, as taught by Ling, in order to automatically move the lever to a desired position. As to claim 4, Su discloses that a 1st annular groove (221) is recessed on the inner surface of the ball chamber. At least one slider (43) is protruding on the outside of the two arc parts. The slider can be slidably equipped in the 1st annular groove. Two block parts (421) are symmetrically protruding inside the accommodation tank. The push pillar is tapered toward the direction of the operating block to for a tapered part. When the tapered part presses against the block parts of the two fasteners, the two fasteners swing with the slider as the axis and the two buckle arms are relatively close to each other. As to claim 6, Su discloses that a 2nd annular groove (222) is provided in the ball chamber adjacent the opening. A cover (26) is sandwiched between the 2nd annular groove and is provided with a through hole (261) through which the two-buckle arm can pass through. Response to Arguments The applicant now argues the rejection in view of Su, Gehrie and Lu. The applicant argues that Gehrie that the flanges 22 interact with slots 42 on the lock case to lock the latch itself; instead of displacement of the lock lever drives the buckle part and the insert part to form a buckle connection or engage/disengage a cable at any time As mentioned above in the rejection, Gehrie is only used to demonstrate that it is well known in the art to provide a lock lever (D) that is used to engage and disengage an inserting member (B), when is in an unlocked position and when a switch control button (46) is operated. Lu is only used to demonstrate that the inserting member can be an end of a cable secured by means of being inserted into a buckle hole and secured by a buckle part. Providing the teachings of Gehrie and Lu into the device described by Su, will allow to provide a lock that can allow the user to engage or disengage the cable at any desired time. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive. The applicant also argues that Gehrie is not analogous art with the current invention. In response to the applicant’s argument that the cited prior art is nonanalogous art, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a nonanalogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. At the instant, Gehrie is a lock that comprises wheels to lock or unlock a lo9ck lever that is configured to be moved by a switch control button to engage or disengage a buckle part of an inserting member. Also, Gehrie device is pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved, which is to engage or disengage a buckle part of an inserting member. Finally, Gehrie is a lock, in the same search area as the current application. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive. Since argument are still nor persuasive and the examiner will not change this position, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can file an appeal brief as his next response, to allow the Board of Appeals to decide. Prosecution has been closed. Conclusion All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm. 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. /Carlos Lugo/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3675 January 14, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
May 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 14, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601209
FLUSH HANDLE ASSEMBLY FOR A VEHICLE DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598713
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPENING A RECEIVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595692
AUTO FLUSH DOOR HANDLE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584330
LATCH ASSEMBLY WITH REMOVABLE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578054
Double Door Retainer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
75%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+14.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1243 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