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 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are all not persuasive.
The examiner agrees the amendments overcome Riedel alone. The examiner respectfully disagrees however that Forbes in view of Riedel is overcome by the present amendments. Paragraph 21 of Forbes teaches the lock assembly is mounted to the insert.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are overcome by the present amendments.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes US 20130256479 A1 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Riedel et al. US 20190210730 A1 (hereinafter Riedel).
In regards to claim 1, Forbes teaches a locking arrangement for an aircraft galley system (see fig 11), the locking arrangement comprising a lock mounted to the galley insert (see fig 11 and para 21) to lock the galley insert to the galley assembly (para 21).
However, Forbes does not teach the locking arrangement comprising a sensor, and a controller, wherein the sensor is configured to determine when a galley insert has been received by a galley assembly and wherein the controller is configured to control the lock in response to the galley insert being received by the galley assembly.
Riedel teaches a sensor (8), and a controller (15), wherein the sensor is configured to determine when a galley insert (3) has been received by a galley assembly (para 41) and wherein the controller is configured to control the lock in response to the galley insert being received by the galley assembly (para 47; also see para 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have electrified Forbes such as in Riedel in order to ensure the insert is correctly fastened and allow automatic locking (Riedel paras 10-11).
In regards to claim 2, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the sensor (Riedel: para 41 describes an RFID sensor; also para 15 on how RFID works in this case) comprises a first communicator (Riedel: component detector with RFID para 15) configured to determine that the first communicator is within proximity of a second communicator (Riedel: RFID transponder para 15) to determine that the galley insert has been received by the galley assembly (Riedel: para 41).
In regards to claim 3, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the first communicator is a near-field communicator (Riedel: para 15).
In regards to claim 4, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 1 and comprising the lock (Forbes: including 34 and 28).
In regards to claim 5, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 4, wherein the lock comprises a pin (Forbes: 28), the pin movable into a locked position (Forbes: fig 1) wherein the pin is received in an aperture (Forbes: holes described in para 20) of the galley assembly to lock the galley insert to the galley assembly (Forbes para 20; also see para 21).
In regards to claim 6, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the lock comprises an actuator (Riedel: 5) for moving the pin into the locked position (Riedel: para 10).
In regards to claim 7, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 1 and comprising a user controllable element (Riedel: user interface in para 11), the user controllable element actuatable to unlock the galley insert from the galley assembly (para 11 describes using an actuator to ensure the device is correctly opened; also see para 10).
In regards to claim 8, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the locking arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the locking arrangement is comprised in an insert unit (Forbes: 20) mounted to the galley insert (Forbes: 60; para 21).
In regards to claim 9, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches a galley insert comprising the locking arrangement of claim 1 (Forbes: para 21).
In regards to claim 10, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the galley insert according to claim 9, wherein the galley insert is a cooking appliance (Forbes: “oven” see para 19).
In regards to claim 11, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches a locking system (Forbes see paras 20 and 21) comprising the locking arrangement of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
In regards to claim 12, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches a locking system comprising the galley insert of claim 10 and the sensor further comprising the second communicator (Riedel: one of thew component detector or the RFID transponders; see para 15).
In regards to claim 13, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches locking system according to claim 12, wherein the second communicator is comprised in a galley unit (with the modification of Riedel; see Riedel para 15).
In regards to claim 14, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches a galley system comprising a galley assembly (Forbes: galley structure), the galley insert and the locking system according to claim 12.
In regards to claim 15, Forbes in view of Riedel teaches the galley system according to claim 14 and comprising an aperture (Forbes holes described in para 20) for receiving a pin (Forbes:28) to lock the galley insert to the galley assembly (Forbes: para 20).
In regards to claim 16, Forbes teaches a method comprising: sensing, at a sensor, that a galley insert has been received by a galley assembly; and locking the galley insert (60) to the galley assembly )galley structure) via a lock (at least 28, 32 and 36) mounted to the galley insert (para 21).
However, Forbes does not teach a method comprising: sensing, at a sensor, that a galley insert has been received by a galley assembly.
Riedel teaches a method comprising: sensing, at a sensor (8), that a galley insert (3) has been received by a galley assembly (see fig 1) and locking the galley insert to the galley assembly (para 47; also see para 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Forbes to include the method such as in Riedel in order to ensure the insert is correctly fastened and allow automatic locking (Riedel paras 10-11).
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights