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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 19, 2026 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, and 4-20 and the cancellation of claim 3.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 1-7 should read as follows: “A latch alignment system comprising: a latch receiver comprising a body configured to be operably coupled with a first structure; a latch pin comprising a body configured to be operably coupled with a second structure.”
In regards to claim 12, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “a coupling event or a decoupling event” should be changed to “a coupling event and a decoupling event.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, the amended language of lines 1-3 suggests that the latch alignment system is separate from the latch pin and the latch receiver because of the “for controlling alignment,” while the language in lines 4-7 recites that the latch alignment system includes the latch pin and the latch receiver. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 12, it is unclear how the method occurs during a coupling event or a decoupling event, when the body of the claim positively recites both the coupling event and the decoupling event in at least line 22. Based on the body of the claim, the preamble must positively recite both the coupling event and the decoupling event instead of in the alternative. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2, 4-11, and 13-19, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-19 have been examined as drawn to the combination.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 12, Baehr (US-4428609) fails to disclose that the second end of the first pin is configured to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch receiver and the fourth end of the second pin is configured to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch pin while the latch pin is coupled with the latch receiver. The first pin and the second pin of Baehr do not move relative to the bodies of the latch receiver and the latch pin, respectively, and therefore, no disengagement occurs. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Baehr without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
In regards to claims 1 and 12, Roedding et al. (US-2113747) fails to disclose that the fourth end of the second pin is configured to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch pin while the latch pin is coupled with the latch receiver. The fourth end of the second pin is never shown or discussed to disengage from the surface of the body during operation of the device of Roedding et al. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Roedding et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
In regards to claim 20, Baehr (US-4428609) fails to disclose that even if the first and second spring assemblies were duplicated, the first pin of the first spring assembly is not configured to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch receiver and the second pin of the second spring assembly is not configured to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch pin when the latch pin is coupled with the latch receiver. The first and second pins of Baehr do not move relative to the latch pin and the latch receiver, and therefore, no disengagement occurs. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Baehr without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
In regards to claim 20, Roedding et al. (US-2113747) in view of Turnbull (US- 1566937) fails to disclose that the second pins of the second spring assemblies are configured to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch pin when the latch pin is coupled with the latch receiver. The second pin of Roedding et al. is never shown or discussed to disengage from the surface of the body of the latch pin. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Roedding et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and corresponding claim objections are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights