Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/711,171

LOCKING DEVICE WITH A CATCH FOR PREVENTING ROTATION OF A LATCH BOLT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 17, 2024
Examiner
WATSON, PETER HUCKLEBERRY
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Stendals El AB
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
91 granted / 166 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
216
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 166 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the 112 rejections of claims 19 and 20. The examiner asserts the scope of “non-mechanical mechanisms” is not clear from the spec. Although the spec states non-mechanical mechanisms include motors and solenoids it’s still unclear the full scope of what’s considered a non-mechanical mechanism and it’s impossible to determine the full scope with the confusing and contradictory nature of the term. Claim Objections Claims 1-18 objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 1 “Locking device comprising” should be “A locking device comprising”. In regards to claims 2-18 “Locking device comprising” should be “The locking device comprising”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Some of the previous 112 rejections have been overcome by the present amendments, however some remain. 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. Claim 19-20 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 19 and 20, “non-mechanical mechanism” is indefinite. The term is contradictory and confusing. The term is also used in the specification to describe electric motors and solenoids. The examiner considers these electromechanical mechanisms and therefore mechanical. Furthermore, the spec grants the term breadth beyond just solenoids and motors however it’s impossible to determine this breadth with the confusing and contradictory nature of the term. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming “non-mechanical mechanism” to read “mechanism”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-18 allowed if written to overcome the present claim objections. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the locking device as claimed in independent claim 1 of the instant application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight. Regarding claims 1, the prior art of record, including Bedford (US 20210293053 A1) and Hultgren (EP 2975202 A1), teaches locking devices having much of the claimed structure, but fails to teach each and every limitation of the claims. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach “a protruding element (17) removably fastened to the bolt body (11) between the first end (11 A) and the second end (11B) and adjacent to the face plate (30) in the extended position, the protruding element (17) configured to cooperate with the face plate (30) to form a fulcrum for rotating the bolt body”, in addition to the other claimed structure and functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the structure and functionality of the bolt body the prior art to be configured and to function as claimed in the instant application without the use of hindsight and/or destroying the references. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose the locking device of claim 1. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 17, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 10, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601199
HANDLE LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595679
LOCKSET ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577811
ELECTRONIC LOCK ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546152
SECURITY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12540494
CLOSURE LATCH ASSEMBLY WITH CRASH UNLOCK MECHANISM USING SINGLE ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
55%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+35.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 166 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