Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/456,710

LOCK DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Examiner
SIDKY, YAHYA I
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Pacific Lock Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 198 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
238
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 198 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information disclosure statement of 02/12/2026 has been received and reviewed. Claim Objections Claims 2-6 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-6, lines 1, “the lock device for a container” should be “the lock device for the container”. Claims 15-20, lines 1, “the lock device for a truck tool box” should be “the lock device for the truck tool box”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 4 was previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 02/12/2026. Accordingly, the rejection to the claim has been withdrawn. 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. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20180096382 to Ha. Regarding claim 1, Ha discloses: A non-electric lock device for a container (fig 1), comprising: a striker member (12a) fixed external a lid (12) of the container (fig 2); a protective lock casing (30) fixed external the container (fig 1); the protective lock casing houses: a non-electric, removable cylinder assembly (60); and a non-electric rotary latch (42); the rotary latch is actuated from a latched position (fig 7) to an unlatched position (fig 5) to unlock the lock device and pop open the lid of the container, and is actuated from the unlatched position to the latched position by the striker member when engaged with the rotary latch for locking the lock device (movement from fig 5 to 7). Regarding claim 2, Ha discloses: The lock device for a container as set forth in claim 1, wherein: the container is a truck tool box (100 is a truck tool box). Regarding claim 3, Ha discloses: The lock device for a container as set forth in claim 1, wherein: the cylinder assembly includes an actuator cam (41) that rotates to actuate a catch (catch A seen in fig 4) of the rotary latch from the latched position to the unlatched position, thus releasing the strike member (see movement from fig 7 to fig 5, 41 rotates to unlock 42 and release the strike member). Regarding claim 4, Ha discloses: The lock device for a container as set forth in claim 1, wherein: the actuation of a catch of the rotary latch from the latched position to the unlatched position allows a resilient member (43) of the rotary latch to change from a loaded state (fig 7) with a stored positive potential energy to an unloaded state (fig 5) with positive kinetic energy, which is applied to the catch to move the catch to an unlatched position and quickly release the strike member, thus allowing the lid to pop open (fig 5). Regarding claim 5, Ha discloses: The lock device for a container as set forth in claim 1, wherein: the striker member includes a protective shroud cover (bottom portion of 12) that fully covers over and protects an upper most distal portions portion of the protective lock casing (fig 2). Regarding claim 6, Ha discloses: The lock device for a container as-set forth in claim 1, wherein: the protective lock casing is comprised of a top opening (34) for accommodating a striker of the striker member (fig 4). Regarding claim 7, Ha discloses: A non-electric lock device (fig 1), comprising: a striker member (12a); a protective lock casing (30) that houses: a non-electric, removable cylinder assembly (60); and a non-electric rotary latch (42); the rotary latch is actuated from a latched position (fig 7) to an unlatched position (fig 5) for unlocking the lock device and for popping open the lid of the container, and is actuated from the unlatched position to the latched position by the striker member when engaged with the rotary latch for locking the lock device (see movement from fig 7 to fig 5). Regarding claim 8, Ha discloses: The lock device as set forth in claim 7, wherein: the striker member is comprised of: a protective shroud cover (bottom portion of 12). Regarding claim 9, Ha discloses: The lock device as set forth in claim 7, wherein: the protective lock casing is comprised of: a top protective side with a top side opening (34) that accommodates a striker of the striker member (fig 4); and a back protective side (31) with a back opening (32) for assembly of the rotary latch within the protective casing (fig 4). Regarding claim 10, Ha discloses: The lock device as set forth in claim 9, wherein: top side opening of the top protective side of the protective lock casing is fully covered over and protected by a protective shroud cover of the striker member when in closed position (fig 2). Regarding claim 11, Ha discloses: The lock device as set forth in claim 9, wherein: the back opening of the back protective side of the protective lock casing is fully covered and protected by a rear protective enclosure (internal wall of 30 that covers 32). Regarding claim 12, Ha discloses: The lock device as set forth in claim 9, wherein: the back opening of the back protective side of the protective lock casing is comprised of a plurality of recessed surfaces (right and left sides of 31 are recessed) to accommodate the cylinder assembly and the rotary latch (figs 4 and 5). Regarding claim 13, Ha discloses: The lock device as set forth in claim 7, wherein: the cylinder assembly includes: a driver member (20); and an actuator cam (70); the driver member moves the actuator cam to engage a lock member (41) of the rotary latch for unlatching the rotary latch. Claim 14 is rejected as per the rejection of claims 1-2 above. Claim 15 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 3 above. Claim 16 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 4 above. Claim 17 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 5 above. Claim 18 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 6 above. Regarding claim 19, Ha discloses: The lock device for a truck tool box as set forth in claim 14, wherein: the cylinder assembly includes: an actuator cam (41) that engages the rotary latch for unlatching the rotary latch (see movement between figs 7 and 5). 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. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20180096382 to Ha in view of US 20170233155 to Daws. Regarding claim 20, Ha does not explicitly disclose: The lock device for a truck tool box as set forth in claim 14, wherein: the striker member is fixed external the lid of the truck tool box by a first set of fasteners; and the protective lock casing is fixed external the truck tool box by a second set of fasteners. However, Daws teaches that it is well known in the art for a striker member (40) to be fixed by a first ser of fasteners (see fasteners of 40 in fig 1); and the protective lock casing (144) to be fixed by a second set of fasteners (124). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Daws into Ha at least because doing so would provide additional security via fasteners holding the striker and casing in place. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 02/12/2026 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30. 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. /Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
May 22, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601210
DOOR HANDLE SYSTEM FOR A SAFETY DOOR, ESPECIALLY FOR A SLIDING DOOR OR A SWING DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590480
COMPACT POWERED DOOR LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577807
VERTICALLY ADJUSTABLE STRIKE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577808
GATE LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559991
MINIMALIST SECONDARY BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 198 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