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 Amendment
The Amendments filed May 8, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-37 remain pending in the application. Claim Interpretation issues previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11, 2026 were not addressed. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim 10 Claim Objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant' s claims 1, 10, 18, 26, and 31 arguments about the teachings of Scribner, US 7003992 B1, in view of Woodward, US 20250333981 A1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed housing and assembly without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question.
Claim Interpretation
The claim 1 preamble recites “A lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together” with the “for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together” recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim contains positive recitations of the first and second panels. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the loci or the lock in combination with the multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
The claim 10 preamble recites “A lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together” with the “for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together” recited merely as an intended use, however, lines 9-10 of the claim contains recitations which require the configurations recited in lines 3-4. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the loci or the lock in combination with the multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner, US 7003992 B1, in view of Woodward, US 20250333981 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Scribner teaches a lock (lock 11) for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together (in re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; Scribner’s apparatus teaches all the structural limitations), the lock comprising:
a strike section (receiver 20; frame plate 22) configured to be mounted to the first panel (20;22 are structurally capable without modification of being mounted on the first panel of a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in the same manner they are mounted on frame F as depicted in Fig 3);
a latch section (dead bolt 14; door plate 24; receiver discussed in col 3, lines 57-62; receiver given reference character 20L by Examiner to denote similarity to receiver 20 of the strike section; Fig 3 depicts arrow 36 to point where the receiver would be located) comprising a latch body (20L) configured to be mounted to the second panel (14;24;20L are structurally capable without modification of being mounted on the second panel of a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in the same manner they are mounted on door D as depicted in Fig 3), the latch section selectively movable between an unlocked position that is away from the strike section (first position 36; Fig 3) and a locked position that is engaged with the strike section (second position 38; Fig 2; col 4, lines 28-34);
a bolt (rod 16) mounted to the latch section (Fig 3 depicts 36 to point where 20L would be located and 20L would receive the bolt in the same manner in the latch section as 20 receives the bolt in the strike section), the bolt contained within the latch body in a unlocked position (Fig 3) and the bolt extends outward from the latch body in a locked position (Fig 2);
a hinge (hinge 18) that pivotally connects the strike section and the latch section (Fig 3).
While Scribner teaches the latch section is mounted to a movable door and movable about the hinge relative to the striker section and the strike section is mounted to a door frame which is generally unable to move, Scribner does not teach wherein the strike section and the latch section are selectively movable about the hinge to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel.
Woodward teaches it is known in the art for locks (locking device 400) to be mounted on a multiple panel door (door 201; 202; Fig 6) with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together [0002] wherein the strike section (section 401) and the latch section (section 403) which are selectively movable about a hinge (pin 407; knuckles 409) to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel [0036-0040].
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the frame mounted single panel door application of Scribner with the intended use application of the frame mounted bifold door of Woodward. The prior art contains a lock apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of where it is mounted with a different mounting application. Locks mounted on bifold doors are known in the art, as evidenced by Woodward, Hawle et al., US 10829955 B2; and Hoogeveen et al. US 10907390 B2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute door lock applications in order to expand market opportunities for their locking apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the fixed frame mounted door application for the bifold door application with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a lock apparatus configured to function in the same manner as disclosed by Scribner locking the latch section to the strike section.
Regarding claim 2, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L) are relatively movable between a closed position (Scribner, Fig 2) and an open position (Scribner, Fig 3) with the closed position comprising the strike section and the latch section aligned in a coplanar orientation (Scribner, Fig 2 depicts the strike section and the latch section aligned in a coplanar orientation) and the open position comprising the strike section and the latch section aligned at a transverse orientation (Scribner, Fig 3 depicts the strike section and the latch section set crosswise from each other aligned at a transverse orientation).
Regarding claim 3, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein each of the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L) comprise a face (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts the strike face to be the shown surface of 22 and the latch face to be the shown surface of 24), and wherein the faces are positioned together in a closed position (Scribner, Fig 2 depicts 22 and 24 positioned together) and the faces are spaced apart in an open position (Scribner, Fig 3 depicts 22 and 24 spaced apart).
Regarding claim 4, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 3, wherein the bolt (Scribner, 16) extends outward from the face of the latch section and into the face of the strike section in the locked position (Scribner, Fig 2 depicts 16 extending outward from shown surface of 24 and into the shown surface of 22).
Regarding claim 5, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 4, further comprising a handle (Scribner, handle 28; key in keyway 34; col 4, lines 28-34) positioned on the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L) with the handle movable relative to the latch body (Scribner, 20L) and configured to control the position of the bolt (Scribner, col 4, lines 12-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner
Regarding claim 6, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 5, wherein the handle (Scribner, 28; key in 34) comprises a front handle (Scribner, key in 34; a key in 34 is a part designed to be grasped by a hand thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of handle and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) and a rear handle (28) with the front handle exposed on a front side of the latch section and the rear handle exposed on a rear side of the latch section (Scribner, 14; 24;20L; see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner).
Regarding claim 7, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) is configured to enable the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) to pivot relative to the latch section (Scribner, 14; 24;20L) forward of the latch section and to prevent the strike section to pivot rearward of the latch section (Scribner, movement between Fig 2 and Fig 3 depicts relative movement between the latch and strike sections to be the same as depicted between movement from instant Figs 4 to Figs 5).
Regarding claim 8, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the lock (Scribner, 11) comprise a first side that faces outward from the door in a first direction (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner) and a second side that faces outward from the door in an opposing second direction (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner), wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) is mounted on the first side of the lock and configured to be accessible from the first side and inaccessible from the second side when the door is in a closed position (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scdribner depicts 18 accessible from the first side; Fig 5 depicts 18 inaccessible from the second side when D is closed).
Regarding claim 9, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the lock (Scribner, 11) is configured to be mounted within an aircraft (Scribner, 11 is structurally capable without modification of being mounted within an aircraft).
Regarding claim 10, Scribner teaches a lock (lock 11) for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together (in re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; Scribner’s apparatus teaches all the structural limitations), the lock comprising:
a strike section (receiver 20; frame plate 22) configured to be mounted to the first panel (20;22 are structurally capable without modification of being mounted on the first panel of a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in the same manner they are mounted on frame F as depicted in Fig 3) and a latch section (dead bolt 14; door plate 24; receiver discussed in col 3, lines 57-62; receiver given reference character 20L by Examiner to denote similarity to receiver 20 of the strike section; Fig 3 depicts arrow 36 to point where the receiver would be located) configured to be mounted to the second panel (14;24 are structurally capable without modification of being mounted on the second panel of a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in the same manner they are mounted on door D as depicted in Fig 3), each of the strike section and the latch section comprising a body (strike section body comprising the physical components of the strike 20; 22 in the same manner as the instant invention in [0085]; latch section body comprising the physical components of the latch 14;24;20L in the same manner as the instant invention in [0085]) with a front side and a rear side that form a perimeter (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Scribner depicts the latch section perimeter to be a line bounding the latch section area and the strike section perimeter to be a line bounding the strike section area thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of perimeter and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and a face that extends between the front side and the rear side (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts the faces to be the shown surfaces of 22;24 which are extending between the front side and the rear side);
a receptacle (20) that extends into the face of the strike section (Fig3);
a handle (handle 28; key in keyway 34; col 4, lines 28-34) and bolt (rod 16) mounted to the latch section (Fig 3) with the handle positioned withing the perimeter of the body of the latch section (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Scribner depicts the keyway 34 handle to be positioned within the perimeter of the latch section);
a hinge (hinge 18) connected to the strike section and the latch section (Fig 3); and
wherein the strike section and the latch section are relatively movable about the hinge between a closed position (Fig 2) and an open position (Fig 3);
PNG
media_image2.png
421
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Scribner
wherein the closed position comprises the faces of the strike section and the latch section facing together to enable the bolt to extend into the receptacle to lock the lock (Fig 2 depicts the faces of the strike section and the latch section facing together with 16 extending into 20); and
wherein the open position comprises the faces of the strike section and the latch section facing away from each other (Fig 3 depicts the faces of the strike section and the latch section facing away from each other).
While Scribner teaches the latch section mounted to a movable door and movable about the hinge relative to the striker section and the strike section mounted to a door frame which is generally unable to move, Scribner does not teach wherein the strike section and the latch section are selectively movable about the hinge between a closed position and an open position. The structure required for this movement is recited in the lines 3-4 configured to recitations which are addressed in the claim 10 Claim Interpretation section.
Woodward teaches it is known in the art for locks (locking device 400) to be mounted on a multiple panel door (door 201; 202; Fig 6) with a first panel (201) and a second panel (202) that are pivotally connected together [0002] wherein the strike section (section 401) is mounted to the first panel and the latch section (section 403) is mounted to the second panel which are selectively movable about a hinge (pin 407; knuckles 409) to enable relative pivoting movement about the hinge between a closed position and an open posit ion between the first panel and the second panel [0036-0040]. teach wherein the strike section and the latch section are selectively movable about the hinge between a closed position (Fig 6) and an open position (the open position defined as movement out of the position in Fig 6 where 202 and 201 are pivoted towards each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the frame mounted single panel door application of Scribner with the intended use application of the frame mounted bifold door of Woodward. The prior art contains a lock apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of where it is mounted with a different mounting application. Locks mounted on bifold doors are known in the art, as evidenced by Woodward, Hawle et al., US 10829955 B2; and Hoogeveen et al. US 10907390 B2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute door lock applications in order to expand market opportunities for their locking apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the fixed frame mounted door application for the bifold door application with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a lock apparatus configured to function in the same manner as disclosed by Scribner locking the latch section to the strike section.
Regarding claim 11, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) is configured to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel (Scribner, 18 is structurally capable without modification of enabling relative pivoting movement between D and F).
Regarding claim 12, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) is positioned at the front side of each of the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L; Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts 18 positioned at the front side of the strike and latch sections).
Regarding claim 13, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) is a piano hinge (Fig 3 depicts 18 to be a continuous hinge with a thin pin joint which extends along the full length of 22 and 24 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of a piano hinge).
Regarding claim 14, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the faces (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts the faces to be the shown surfaces of 22;24) of the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14; 24;20L) abut together in the closed position (Scribner, Fig 2 depicts 22 and 24 abutting together in the closed position).
Regarding claim 15, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) has a straight shape (Fig 3 depicts 18 to have a straight shape).
Regarding claim 17, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the handle (Scribner, 28; key in 34) comprises a first handle positioned on the front side of the latch section (Scribner, 28) and a second handle positioned on the rear side of the latch section (Scribner, key in 34; a key in 34 is a part designed to be grasped by a hand thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of handle and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) with the bolt (Scribner, 16) positioned between the first handle and the second handle (Scribner, Fig 3 depicts 16 positioned between 28 and 34).
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art, therefore Scribner teaches a method of operating a door, the method comprising:
engaging a lock (lock 11) and extending a bolt (rod 16) outward from a latch section (dead bolt 14; door plate 24; receiver discussed in col 3, lines 57-62; receiver given reference character 20L by Examiner to denote similarity to receiver 20 of the strike section; Fig 3 depicts arrow 36 to point where the receiver would be located) of the lock and engaging a strike section (receiver 20; frame plate 22) of the lock (movement from Fig 3 to Fig 2 depicts 16 outwardly extending from 14;24;20L and engaging 20;22) and locking the door (door D) in an extended configuration across an opening (Fig 1) with the latch section of the lock on the door and the strike section of the lock on the door frame (movement from Fig 3 to Fig 2);
disengaging the lock by retracting the bolt from the strike section back into the latch section (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 3 depicts retracting 16 from 20;22 back into 14;24;20L) and pivoting the door frame relative to the door and pivoting the latch section relative to the strike section (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 3); and closing the door frame to a closed configuration with the door and the latch section folded with the door frame and the strike section (Fig 2).
While Scribner teaches the latch section is mounted to a movable door and movable about the hinge relative to the strike section and the strike section is mounted to a door frame which is generally unable to move, Scribner does not teach engaging a lock and locking the door in an extended configuration across an opening with the latch section of the lock on a second panel of the door and the strike section of the lock on a first panel of the door; disengaging the lock and pivoting the first panel relative to the second panel and pivoting the latch section relative to the strike section; and folding the door to a folded configuration with the second panel and the latch section folded with the first panel and the strike section.
Woodward teaches it is known in the art for locks (locking device 400) to be mounted on a multiple panel door (door 201; 202; Fig 6) with a first panel (201) and a second panel (202) that are pivotally connected together [0002] wherein the strike section (section 401) mounted on the first panel and the latch section (section 403) mounted on the second panel which are selectively movable about a hinge (pin 407; knuckles 409) to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel and mounted strike and latch sections [0036-0040] such that Woodward teaches engaging a lock and locking the door in an extended configuration across an opening with the latch section of the lock on a second panel of the door and the strike section of the lock on a first panel of the door; disengaging the lock and pivoting the first panel relative to the second panel and pivoting the latch section relative to the strike section; and folding the door to a folded configuration with the second panel and the latch section folded with the first panel and the strike section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the frame mounted single panel door application of Scribner with the claim 1 intended use application of the frame mounted bifold door of Woodward. The prior art contains a lock apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of where it is mounted with a different mounting application. Locks mounted on bifold doors are known in the art, as evidenced by Woodward, Hawle et al., US 10829955 B2; and Hoogeveen et al. US 10907390 B2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute door lock applications in order to expand market opportunities for their locking apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the fixed frame mounted door application for the bifold door application with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a lock apparatus configured to function in the same manner as disclosed by Scribner locking the latch section to the strike section.
Regarding claim 19, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising positioning the door (Woodward, 201;202) in the folded configuration along one edge of the opening (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the bi-fold door of Woodward would be able to fold from the extended position depicted in Fig 6 to a folded position within the frame in which is mounted; [0008; 0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18, wherein disengaging the lock (Scribner, 11) comprises turning a handle (Scribner, handle 28) on the latch section (Scribner, 14;24) and rotating the bolt (Scribner, 16) out of a receptacle (Scribner, receptacle 20) in the strike section (Scribner, 20;22; movement from Fig 2 to Fig 3; col 4, lines 12-17, 49-57).
Regarding claim 21, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising aligning the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L) in a coplanar orientation with the door in the extended configuration (movement from Fig 3 to Fig 2 depicts the strike and latch sections in a coplanar orientation).
Regarding claim 22, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising rotating a handle (Scribner, handle 28) on the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L) and moving the bolt (Scribner, 16) of the latch section into a receptacle (Scribner, receptacle 20) in the strike section (Scribner, 20;22; movement from Fig 3 to Fig 2 depicts 16 moving into 20; col 4, lines 12-17, 49-57).).
Regarding claim 23, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising positioning a hinge (Scribner, 18) of the lock (Scribner, 11) on a front side of the door (Scribner, D) with the door in the extended position (Scribner, Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner and Fig 5 depict 18 on the front side of D when it is the extended position).
Regarding claim 26, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art; therefore Scribner teaches a method of locking a door, the method comprising:
unfolding a door (door D) and a door frame (frame F) and unfolding a lock (lock 11) that comprises a first section attached to the door frame (receiver 20; frame plate 22) and a second section attached to the door (dead bolt 14; door plate 24; receiver discussed in col 3, lines 57-62; receiver given reference character 20L by Examiner to denote similarity to receiver 20 of the strike section; Fig 3 depicts arrow 36 to point where the receiver would be located);
extending the door across an opening (Fig 1) and aligning the first section and the second section of the lock in an extended configuration (Fig 2);
extending a bolt (rod 16) that is contained within the second section of the lock and engaging the first section of the lock and locking the lock while in the extended configuration (movement from Fig 3 to Fig 2 depicts extending 16 of 14;24;20L contained with D and engaging 20;22 on F) and preventing the door from being opened (Fig 5);
disengaging the bolt from the first section and moving the bolt back into the second section (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 3 depicts 16 disengaging 20;22 and moving into 14;24;20L) and unlocking the lock and folding the door and the door frame out of the opening (Fig 3); and
folding the first section of the lock relative to the second section of the lock while simultaneously folding the door and door frame (movement from Fig 2 to Fig 3 depicts folding the first section of the lock relative to the second section of the lock while simultaneously folding the door and door frame).
While Scribner teaches the latch section is mounted to a movable door and movable about the hinge relative to the strike section and the strike section is mounted to a door frame which is generally unable to move, Scribner does not teach unfolding a first panel and a second panel of the door and unfolding a lock that comprises a first section attached to the first panel and a second section attached to the second panel; extending the door across an opening and aligning the first section and the second section of the lock in an extended configuration; locking the lock while in the extended configuration and preventing the door from being folded; unlocking the lock and folding the first panel and the second panel out of the opening; and folding the lock while simultaneously folding the first panel and the second panel.
Woodward teaches it is known in the art for locks (locking device 400) to be mounted on a multiple panel door (door 201; 202; Fig 6) with a first panel (201) and a second panel (202) that are pivotally connected together [0002] wherein the strike section (section 401) mounted on the first panel and the latch section (section 403) mounted on the second panel which are selectively movable about a hinge (pin 407; knuckles 409) to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel and mounted strike and latch sections [0036-0040] such that Woodward teaches unfolding a first panel and a second panel of the door and unfolding a lock that comprises a first section attached to the first panel and a second section attached to the second panel; extending the door across an opening and aligning the first section and the second section of the lock in an extended configuration; locking the lock while in the extended configuration and preventing the door from being folded; unlocking the lock and folding the first panel and the second panel out of the opening; and folding the lock while simultaneously folding the first panel and the second panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the frame mounted single panel door application of Scribner with the claim 1 intended use application of the frame mounted bifold door of Woodward. The prior art contains a lock apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of where it is mounted with a different mounting application. Locks mounted on bifold doors are known in the art, as evidenced by Woodward, Hawle et al., US 10829955 B2; and Hoogeveen et al. US 10907390 B2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute door lock applications in order to expand market opportunities for their locking apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the fixed frame mounted door application for the bifold door application with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a lock apparatus configured to function in the same manner as disclosed by Scribner locking the latch section to the strike section.
Regarding claim 27, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 26, further comprising extending the door (Scribner, D) across the opening (Scribner, Fig 1) and aligning the first section (Scribner, 14;24) and the second section (Scribner, 20;22) of the lock (Scribner, 11) in a coplanar orientation (Figs 2;3 depict the lock in a coplanar orientation).
Regarding claim 28, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 27, further comprising moving the door (Scribner, D) out of the opening (Scribner, movement of D out of the position depicted in Fig 1) and aligning the first section and the second section of the lock (Scribner, 11) in a transverse orientation (Fig 3 depicts the first and second sections in a transvers orientation).
Regarding claim 29, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 26, further comprising rotating a handle (Scribner, handle 28) on the second section (Scribner, 14;24) of the lock (Scribner, 11) and engaging the bolt (Scribner, rod 16 ) with the first section (Scribner, 20;22) and locking the lock (Scribner, Fig 2; col 4, lines 49-57).
Regarding claim 30, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 26, further comprising folding the door (Scribner, D) and simultaneously pivoting the first panel (Woodward, 201) and the second panel (Woodward, 202) about a panel hinge ([0030] discusses a hinge between panels) and the first section (Scribner, 20;22) and the second section (Scribner, 14;24) about a lock hinge (Scribner, hinge 18) with the panel hinge and the lock hinge aligned in a straight line (Woodward, Fig 6).
Regarding claim 31, Scribner teaches a door assembly (Fig 1) configured to be mounted in an opening within an interior of an aircraft (in re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim), the door assembly comprising:
a frame (frame F);
a door (door D) mounted in the frame (Fig 1) and comprising a first panel (Fig 1 depicts D to comprise a first panel) and a second panel;
a lock (lock 11) comprising:
a strike section (receiver 20; frame plate 22) configured to be mounted to the first panel (20;22 are structurally capable without modification of being mounted on a door comprising a first panel and a second panel in the same manner they are mounted on frame F as depicted in Fig 3), the strike section comprising
a receptacle (20);
a latch section (dead bolt 14; door plate 24; receiver discussed in col 3, lines 57-62; receiver given reference character 20L by Examiner to denote similarity to receiver 20 of the strike section; Fig 3 depicts arrow 36 to point where the receiver would be located) configured to be mounted to the second panel (14;24 are structurally capable without modification of being mounted on the second panel of a door comprising a first panel and a second panel in the same manner they are mounted on door D as depicted in Fig 3), the latch section comprising a bolt (rod 16) selectively movable between an unlocked position that is contained in the latch section away from the receptacle (first position 36; Fig 3 depicts 16 such that it would be in 20L away from 20 if that component were depicted as 20 is depicted in the strike section) and a locked position that is positioned in the receptacle (second position 38; Fig 2 depicts 16 located in 20 of the strike section);
a hinge (hinge 18) that pivotally connects the strike section and the latch section (Fig 3).
While Scribner teaches the latch section is mounted to a movable door and movable about the hinge relative to the striker section and the strike section is mounted to a door frame which is generally unable to move, Scribner does not teach wherein the strike section and the latch section are selectively movable about the hinge to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel.
Woodward teaches it is known in the art for locks (locking device 400) to be mounted on a multiple panel door (door 201; 202; Fig 6) with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together [0002] wherein the strike section (section 401) and the latch section (section 403) which are selectively movable about a hinge (pin 407; knuckles 409) to enable relative pivoting movement between the first panel and the second panel [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the frame mounted single panel door application of Scribner with the intended use application of the frame mounted bifold door of Woodward. The prior art contains a lock apparatus which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of where it is mounted with a different mounting application. Locks mounted on bifold doors are known in the art, as evidenced by Woodward, Hawle et al., US 10829955 B2; and Hoogeveen et al. US 10907390 B2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute door lock applications in order to expand market opportunities for their locking apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the fixed frame mounted door application for the bifold door application with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a lock apparatus configured to function in the same manner as disclosed by Scribner locking the latch section to the strike section.
Regarding claim 32, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the door assembly of claim 31, wherein the frame (Scribner, F) extends completely around the door (Scribner, D; Fig 1 depicts F extending completely around D in the same manner as the instant Figs 3).
Regarding claim 33 Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the door assembly of claim 31, wherein the door (Scribner, D) comprises a front side and a back side and wherein the hinge (Scribner, 18) is positioned on the front side (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts 18 positioned on the front side).
Regarding claim 34, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the door assembly of claim 31, wherein the door (Scribner, D) is movable between a folded configuration with the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14;24) folded together about the hinge (Scribner, 18; Fig 3 depicts D laying over F thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of folded and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term; Woodward teaches 201 and 202 comprise a bifold door which are known in the art to adopt a folded configuration) and an extended configuration with the strike section and the latch section aligned in a plane (Scribner, Figs 2;5; ; Woodward teaches 201 and 202 comprise a bifold door which are known in the art to adopt an extended configuration).
Regarding claim 35, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 34, wherein each of the strike section (Scribner, 20;22) and the latch section (Scribner, 14;24;20L) comprise a face (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts the strike face to be the shown surface of 22 and the latch face to be the shown surface of 24) and wherein the faces are positioned together in a closed position (Scribner, Fig 2 depicts 22 and 24 positioned together) and the faces are spaced apart in an open position (Scribner, Fig 3 depicts 22 and 24 spaced apart).
Regarding claim 37, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising exposing front faces (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts the front faces to be the front side surfaces and edges of 22;24 which are extending between the front side and the rear side) of the latch section (14; 24; 20L) and the strike section (20; 22) on a forward side of the door and exposing rear faces (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Scribner depicts the rear faces to be the rear side surfaces and edges of 22;24 which are extending between the front side and the rear side)of the latch section and the strike section on a rear side of the door.
Claims 24, 25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner, US 7003992 B1, in view of Woodward, US 20250333981 A1, as applied to claims 18 and 31 above, and further in view of Hawle et al., US 10829955 B2 (hereinafter Hawle).
Regarding claim 24 Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18.
Scribner in view of Woodward does not teach further comprising positioning the door across the opening in a cabin area of an aircraft.
Hawle teaches a door device (10) for the lavatory of an aircraft (12; col 3, lines 44-47) for a multiple panel, bifold door (16; Fig 2; col 3, lines 48-55) comprising a door switch arrangement (22) and locking device (22) mounted across the hinge between the bifold door (Fig 2) that is positioned in a door frame (18) which surrounds an opening to a lavatory that is used by aircraft passengers such that Hawle teaches further comprising positioning the door across the opening in a cabin area of an aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale F, to use the lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in a building application teachings of Scribner in view of Woodward in the field of endeavor of Hawle. The scope and the content of the prior art of Scribner in view of Woodward, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, includes a similar device (door lock) in an analogous application (mounted to a bifold door) which would have prompted adaptation of the known device and method into a different field of endeavor (a building door with a lock to an aircraft door with a lock) because the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are encompassed in the principles known in the prior art (e.g. latching, locking, access control). One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, would have been motivated and prompted to vary their designs into the aircraft field in order to expand market opportunities. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably implemented the claimed variation of the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success, namely a lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in an aircraft application resulting in an aircraft cabin bifold door securable with a lock.
Regarding claim 25, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the method of claim 18.
Scribner in view of Woodward does not teach further comprising positioning the door away from the opening and enabling passengers of an aircraft to move through the opening.
Hawle teaches a door device (10) for the lavatory of an aircraft (12; col 3, lines 44-47) for a multiple panel, bifold door (16; Fig 2; col 3, lines 48-55) comprising a door switch arrangement (22) and locking device (22) mounted across the hinge between the bifold door (Fig 2) that is positioned in a door frame (18) which surrounds an opening to a lavatory that is used by aircraft passengers who will open the door enabling them to exit the lavatory such that Hawle teaches further comprising positioning the door away from the opening and enabling passengers of an aircraft to move through the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale F, to use the lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in a building application teachings of Scribner in view of Woodward in the field of endeavor of Hawle. The scope and the content of the prior art of Scribner in view of Woodward, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, includes a similar device (door lock) in an analogous application (mounted to a bifold door) which would have prompted adaptation of the known device and method into a different field of endeavor (a building door with a lock to an aircraft door with a lock) because the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are encompassed in the principles known in the prior art (e.g. latching, locking, access control). One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, would have been motivated and prompted to vary their designs into the aircraft field in order to expand market opportunities. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably implemented the claimed variation of the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success, namely a lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in an aircraft application resulting in an aircraft cabin bifold door securable with a lock.
Regarding claim 36, Scribner in view of Woodward teaches the lock of claim 31.
Scribner in view of Woodward does not teach , wherein the door assembly is mounted in an opening within an interior of an aircraft.
Hawle teaches a door device (10) for the lavatory of an aircraft (12; col 3, lines 44-47) for a multiple panel, bifold door assembly (16; Fig 2; col 3, lines 48-55) comprising a door switch arrangement (22) and locking device (22) mounted across the hinge between the bifold door (Fig 2) that is positioned in a door frame (18) which surrounds an opening to a lavatory that is used by aircraft passengers such that Hawle teaches wherein the door assembly is mounted in an opening within an interior of an aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale F, to use the lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in a building application teachings of Scribner in view of Woodward in the field of endeavor of Hawle. The scope and the content of the prior art of Scribner in view of Woodward, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, includes a similar device (door lock) in an analogous application (mounted to a bifold door) which would have prompted adaptation of the known device and method into a different field of endeavor (a building door with a lock to an aircraft door with a lock) because the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are encompassed in the principles known in the prior art (e.g. latching, locking, access control). One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, would have been motivated and prompted to vary their designs into the aircraft field in order to expand market opportunities. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably implemented the claimed variation of the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success, namely a lock for a multiple panel door with a first panel and a second panel that are pivotally connected together in an aircraft application resulting in an aircraft cabin bifold door securable with a lock.
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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights