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 Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an entrance of an aircraft lavatory unit” and “an entrance of a lavatory”, followed by numerous recitations of “the entrance”. This is unclear, since it is unclear how many “entrances” are being claimed, and which “entrance” the term “the entrance” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “to make the door moved from the closed position to the open position” and “to make the door moved from the open position to the closed position”. This appears to be a typographic error and should read “to make the door move from the closed position to the open position” and “to make the door move from the closed position to the open position”, respectively.
Claim 8 recites “the driving force”. This is unclear since “the driving force” lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear (i.e. what is “the driving force”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 are objected to as depending from a base claim with an objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an engaging member provided inside the lavatory at a location more on the upper side than the door and being engageable with the engaged member”. This limitation is awkwardly worded and renders the claim indefinite (i.e. how is “an engaging member provided inside the lavatory at a location more on the upper side than the door”?). As best understood, “the upper side” is the upper side of the door (i.e. “an upper side of the door” is recited), as previously claimed, and it is unclear how the engagement member is provided “a location more on the upper side than the door” (i.e. how can the engaging member be “more” on the side of the door than the door itself is?). It is therefore unclear what is being claimed, and the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments with respect to claim amendments filed 6/03/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, claim amendments filed 6/03/2026 have introduced new issues (See above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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