DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Opsahl (US 4,726,146).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Opsahl discloses an assembly with a carrier element, a hinged door that is pivotally mounted to the carrier element and pivotable between a closed position and an open position (See Figure 1), and an open-door locking system for locking the hinged door in the open position (See Abstract), wherein the open-door locking system comprises: a hinge bracket (element 36) that is rigidly attached to the carrier element, wherein the hinge bracket comprises a locking notch (element 70); and an open-door locking device comprising: a mounting bracket (element 30) that is pivotally mounted to the hinge bracket; a housing (See at least Figures 6-7 and 11-13, considered combination of elements 38, 42, 43, 48, 50, 52) that is connected to the mounting bracket and rigidly attached to the hinged door (element 38 is directly rigidly connected to element 30, which non-flexibly attached (i.e. rigidly attached) to element 16); a sliding block (element 94) that is accommodated in the housing and slidable in the housing in a first direction between a normal position and an actuated position; and a slider (element 40) that is accommodated in the housing and slidable in the housing in a second direction between a blocking position and a releasing position (Figures 10 and 11), wherein the slider is coupled to the sliding block such that the slider is in the blocking position and engages the locking notch of the hinge bracket for blocking the hinged door in the open position when the sliding block is in the normal position (See Figure 10, See column 4, lines 28-24, “An opening 70 (see FIGS. 2 and 6) is positioned in the upper channel 68 for receiving and engaging with the end 72 of the locking pin 40. When the device 22 is armed for locking, the spring 58 moves the pin's end 72 into engagement with the opening 70.”).
Regarding claim 2, Opsahl discloses wherein the slider comprises a blocking pin (element 40 is a blocking pin) that engages the locking notch of the hinge bracket for blocking the hinged door in the open position when the slider is in the blocking position.
Regarding claim 10, Opsahl discloses wherein the open-door locking system further comprises a remote actuator (element 104) for remotely actuating the open-door locking device, wherein the remote actuator is located spaced apart from the open-door locking device on the hinged door (See at least Figure 8, element 104 is clearly “spaced apart” from the open-door locking device).
Regarding claim 15, Opsahl discloses an aircraft (See Figure 1) comprising an assembly according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Opsahl discloses wherein the sliding block is accommodated within an interior of the housing and is linearly translatable in the housing in the first direction between the normal position and the actuated position (See at least Figures 6-7 and 10-13).
Regarding claim 17, Opsahl discloses wherein the slider is accommodated within the interior of the housing and is linearly translatable in the housing in the second direction between the blocking position and the releasing position (See at least Figures 6-7 and 10-13).
Regarding claim 18, Opsahl discloses wherein the slider is mechanically coupled to and driven by the sliding block, and wherein the locking notch is a recess formed in the hinge bracket and configured to receive a portion of the slider when the slider is in the blocking position (See at least column 5, lines 4-13 and 32-41).
Regarding claim 19, Opsahl discloses wherein the locking notch is in a bulge- shaped portion of the hinge bracket (See at least Figure 2, element 70 is formed in element 62, which is “bulge-shaped”. Also see column 4, lines 18-35).
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, 3-4, 7-9, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audisio (US 2001/0025397).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Audisio discloses an assembly with a carrier element, a hinged door that is pivotally mounted to the carrier element and pivotable between a closed position and an open position (See at least paragraphs [0001] and [0017]), and an open-door locking system for locking the hinged door in the open position, wherein the open-door locking system comprises: a hinge bracket (considered at least elements 16, 18, 40) that is attached to the carrier element (See at least paragraph [0017], Examiner notes that all elements of the assembly are at least indirectly “attached” to each other), wherein the hinge bracket comprises a locking notch (Figure 3, element 42); and an open-door locking device comprising: a mounting bracket (element 14) that is pivotally mounted to the hinge bracket (See at least paragraphs [0010] and [0017]); a housing (element 30) that is connected to the mounting bracket and attached to the hinged door (See paragraph [0010] and [0017]); a sliding block (element 40) that is accommodated in the housing and slidable in the housing in a first direction (See Figure 4, element 40 is considered to slide in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, as viewed from Figure 4) between a normal position and an actuated position (See at least paragraphs [0010-0011], considered positions when multiple element 38 are seated in corresponding element 32, and when multiple element 38 are positioned outside of element 32, respectively); and a slider (element 38) that is accommodated in the housing and slidable in the housing in a second direction (element 38 rolls during operation (See Figures 2-4) and the surface of element 38 necessarily “slides” on the surface of element 42) between a blocking position (considered position when element 38 is seated within element 32) and a releasing position (considered position when element 38 is not seated within element 32), wherein the slider is coupled to the sliding block (Examiner notes that each element 38 is “coupled” with a corresponding element 42 in operation) such that the slider is in the blocking position and engages the locking notch of the hinge bracket for blocking the hinged door in the open position when the sliding block is in the normal position.
Although Audisio does not explicitly disclose which of element 14 or 16 is directly rigidly attached to the vehicle door, and which is directly rigidly attached to the vehicle body, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure either of element 14 or 16 such that they were directly rigidly attached to either of the vehicle door or the vehicle body, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and since the vehicle door hinge of Audisio is necessarily interposed and connected between the vehicle door and vehicle body for the system to function as intended.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that although Audisio does not explicitly disclose which of element 14 or 16 is rigidly attached to the vehicle door, and which is rigidly attached to the vehicle body, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Audisio such that element 16 is rigidly attached to the vehicle body (i.e. carrier element) and element 14 is rigidly attached to the hinged door, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 3, Audisio discloses wherein the slider comprises a sliding member (element 38) that slides in the sliding block when the sliding block slides in the housing in the first direction between the normal position and the actuated position (Examiner notes that during operation, element 38 necessarily “slides” in element 40, against the surface of element 42).
Regarding claim 4, Audisio discloses wherein the slider is coupled to a transfer rod (element 18) that is equipped with the sliding member (Examiner notes that element 38 is slidingly “coupled” to element 18 via element 40, and element 18 is “equipped” with the various elements of the hinge mechanism, including element 38).
Regarding claim 7, Audisio discloses wherein the first direction is at least approximately perpendicular to the second direction (Examiner notes that the directions of angular rotation between element 40 and element 38 are “at least approximately perpendicular”).
Regarding claim 8, Audisio discloses, wherein the open-door locking device further comprises a slider return spring (element 54) that biases the slider into the blocking position.
Regarding claim 9, Audisio discloses wherein the open-door locking device further comprises a sliding block return spring (element 54) that biases the sliding block into the normal position.
Regarding claim 13, Audisio discloses wherein the open-door locking device further comprises a push bar (element 18) that is rigidly attached to the sliding block and operable for manually moving the sliding block in the housing in the first direction between the normal position and the actuated position.
Regarding claim 14, Audisio discloses wherein the slider is in the releasing position and disengaged from the locking notch of the hinge bracket for releasing the hinged door in the open position when the sliding block is in the actuated position.
Regarding claim 15, Audisio does not explicitly disclose an aircraft comprising an assembly according to claim 1. Examiner notes, however, that it is well-known that aircraft include various doors and hatches for various purposes. Therefore, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the open-door locking system of Audisio such that it was used in combination with a door or hatch on an aircraft, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and the open-door locking system of Audisio would function as intended for this purpose, especially when arranged for use with a hatch or door of an aircraft where holding the door in an open position is desirable (e.g. internal compartment hatch or door, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Audisio discloses wherein the slider is mechanically coupled to and driven by the sliding block (elements 38 and 40 are “mechanically coupled”), and wherein the locking notch is a recess formed in the hinge bracket and configured to receive a portion of the slider when the slider is in the blocking position (element 42 is a recess formed in element 40 and receives element 38).
Regarding claim 19, Audisio discloses wherein the locking notch is in a bulge- shaped portion of the hinge bracket (See at least Figure 3. Examiner notes that the term “a bulge- shaped portion” is considered to be extremely broad).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Opsahl's movable element is a locking pin received in a hollow guide member, NOT a claimed slider accommodated in a housing and coupled to a sliding block as claimed.”. Examiner disagrees and notes that the terms “slider” and “housing” are considered to be extremely broad. Examiner maintains that Opsahl discloses the claimed housing (See at least Figures 6-7 and 11-13, considered combination of elements 38, 42, 43, 48, 50, 52) that is connected to the mounting bracket and rigidly attached to the hinged door (element 38 is directly rigidly connected to element 30, which non-flexibly attached (i.e. rigidly attached) to element 16) and a sliding block (element 94) that is accommodated in the housing and slidable in the housing in a first direction between a normal position and an actuated position; and a slider (element 40) that is accommodated in the housing and slidable in the housing in a second direction between a blocking position and a releasing position (Figures 10-11).
Regarding the argument “Opsahl's guide bar 30 is itself a pivoting structural member, not the claimed mounting bracket/housing arrangement recited in claim 1”. Examiner notes that this argument is unclear, since claim 1 requires “a mounting bracket that is pivotally mounted to the hinge bracket”, and element 30 of Opsahl is “pivotally mounted” to element 36 as required.
Regarding the argument “Opsahl appears to teach only that the locking end 34 of the guide bar 30 is articulated to the bracket-like member 36 and the carrier element 10 (not to the door as claimed)”. This argument is unclear as no claim language directed to the mounting bracket being articulated to the door can be found in the claim, and it is unclear how Opsahl is deficient in this requirement. Additionally, Examiner notes that element 30 is clearly and explicitly illustrated as being “articulated to the door” in Figures 3 and 4 (area of element 32).
Regarding the argument to Audisio “guide plate 40 rotates with hinge pin 18, rather than constituting a sliding block accommodated in a housing and slidable in a first direction, as required by claim 1”. Examiner disagrees, and notes that element 40 necessarily “slides” in a first direction within element 30.
Regarding the argument “The Patent Office "notes that all elements (16 18 and 40) of the assembly are at least indirectly "attached" to each other, thus differing from the claimed feature of the subject application. Notably, indirect attachment is not what is claimed. Claim 1 requires a hinge bracket rigidly attached to the carrier element and a housing rigidly attached to the hinged door”. This argument is unclear, as the “rigid” attachment of elements 16 and 18 is clearly and specifically addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding the argument “the guide plate 40 cannot be both the "hinge bracket" and the "sliding block," as understood from the statements of the Patent Office. Claim 1 recites distinct structural elements having distinct functions, and Audisio does not disclose those claimed elements arranged as required”. Examiner disagrees and notes that the claim never recites that the hinge bracket and the sliding block cannot include shared structural features or components. Additionally, claim 1 as presented recites no “distinct structural elements having distinct functions”.
Regarding the argument “The ball seats 42 thus do not form a locking notch. In the same vein, as understood from the statements of the Patent Office, the rolling members 38 (i.e., the balls) that are permanently in the ball seats 42, cannot be interpreted as a "slider."”. Examiner disagrees, and notes that elements 42 and 38 of Audisio are considered to satisfy the broad terms “locking notch” and “slider”. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding the argument “as understood from the statements of the Patent Office, if it is considered that the claim "housing" corresponds to the lower cup 30 of Audisio, this lower cup 30 cannot be considered as fixed to the door, as it is remote from both first and second elements 14 and 16. Nor does Audisio disclose that such lower cup 30 is connected to a claimed mounting bracket pivotally mounted to a hinge bracket, as required by claim 1”. This argument is unclear as this issue is explicitly addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Additionally, Examiner points to paragraph [0011] which recites “The cup 30 is integral in rotation with the first hinge element 14”. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights