Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/740,974

DOOR LOCKING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Examiner
WATSON, PETER HUCKLEBERRY
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
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

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2039586 A (hereinafter GB ‘586) in view of DE 102013106220 A1 (hereinafter DE ‘220). In regards to claim 1, GB ‘586 teaches a locking device, comprising: a lock housing (1, 3 and 11); a first carriage (6) attached to a first guided member (one of 6a) and a second guided member (the other of 6a); a locking bolt (4) having a first portion (portion between 6d) that is slidably retained within the first carriage (see fig 2); a first spring (one of 13) connecting an upper portion of the first carriage to an upper portion of the locking bolt (see fig 2); a second spring (other of 13) connecting a lower portion of the first carriage to a lower portion of the locking bolt (see fig 2); a first carriage guide (An interior wall of 1b) attached to the lock housing and positioned inside the lock housing (see fig 2), the first carriage guide constructed and arranged to guide the first guided member attached to the first carriage (see fig 3); a second carriage guide (another interior wall of 1b) attached to the lock housing and positioned inside the lock housing (see fig 2), the second carriage guide constructed and arranged to guide the second guided member attached to the first carriage (see fig 3); wherein: the carriage is constructed and arranged to be actuated to move from at least a first position (see fig 3) to a second position (see fig 4) within the lock housing, the carriage being further constructed and arranged to be actuated to move from at least the second position to the first position within the lock housing (see fig 3 and fig 4); when the carriage is actuated to move to the first position, the locking bolt is moved to a locked position (see fig 1); when the carriage is actuated to move to the second position, the locking bolt is moved to an unlocked position (see fig 4). However, GB ‘586 does not teach the first and second spring are extension springs. DE ‘220 teaches a similar device using tension springs in alternative to compression spring (para 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified GB ‘586 to use tension springs (extension springs) instead of compression springs in GB ‘586 as doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (a compression spring) for another (extension spring) to obtain predictable results (a biased lock bolt relative to the carriage) and involve only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2141 III B). In regards to claim 8, GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 teaches the locking device of claim 1, wherein: the lock housing includes a first bolt hole (hole of 3); when the locking bolt is moved to the locked position (see fig 3), the locking bolt extends through the first bolt hole (see fig 3). In regards to claim 11, GB ‘586 teaches a locking device, comprising: a lock housing (1, 3 and 11); a first carriage (6) attached to a first guided member (one of 6a); a locking bolt (4) having a first portion (portion between 6d) that is slidably retained within the first carriage (see fig 2); a first spring (one of 13) connecting an upper portion of the first carriage to an upper portion of the locking bolt (see fig 2); a second spring (other of 13) connecting a lower portion of the first carriage to a lower portion of the locking bolt (see fig 2); a first carriage guide (An interior wall of 1b) attached to the lock housing and positioned inside the lock housing (see fig 2), the first carriage guide constructed and arranged to guide the first guided member attached to the first carriage (see fig 3); wherein: the carriage is constructed and arranged to be actuated to move from at least a first position (see fig 3) to a second position (see fig 4) within the lock housing, the carriage being further constructed and arranged to be actuated to move from at least the second position to the first position within the lock housing (see fig 3 and fig 4); when the carriage is actuated to move to the first position, the locking bolt is moved to a locked position (see fig 1); when the carriage is actuated to move to the second position, the locking bolt is moved to an unlocked position (see fig 4). However, GB ‘586 does not teach the first and second spring are extension springs. DE ‘220 teaches a similar device using tension springs in alternative to compression spring (para 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified GB ‘586 to use tension springs (extension springs) instead of compression springs in GB ‘586 as doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (a compression spring) for another (extension spring) to obtain predictable results (a biased lock bolt relative to the carriage) and involve only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2141 III B). In regards to claim 16, GB ‘586 teaches a locking device, comprising: a lock housing (1, 3 and 11); a first carriage (6) attached to a first guided member (one of 6a); a locking bolt (4) having a first portion (portion between 6d) that is positioned within the first carriage (see fig 2); a first spring (one of 13) connecting an upper portion of the first carriage to an upper portion of the locking bolt (see fig 2); a second spring (other of 13) connecting a lower portion of the first carriage to a lower portion of the locking bolt (see fig 2); a first carriage guide (An interior wall of 1b) attached to the lock housing and positioned inside the lock housing (see fig 2), the first carriage guide constructed and arranged to guide the first guided member attached to the first carriage (see fig 3); wherein: the carriage is constructed and arranged to be actuated to move from at least a first position (see fig 3) to a second position (see fig 4) within the lock housing, the carriage being further constructed and arranged to be actuated to move from at least the second position to the first position within the lock housing (see fig 3 and fig 4); when the carriage is actuated to move to the first position, the locking bolt is moved to a locked position (see fig 1); when the carriage is actuated to move to the second position, the locking bolt is moved to an unlocked position (see fig 4). However, GB ‘586 does not teach the first and second spring are extension springs. DE ‘220 teaches a similar device using tension springs in alternative to compression spring (para 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified GB ‘586 to use tension springs (extension springs) instead of compression springs in GB ‘586 as doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (a compression spring) for another (extension spring) to obtain predictable results (a biased lock bolt relative to the carriage) and involve only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2141 III B). Claim(s) 2, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 as applied to claims 1, 8, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Alvarado et al. US 20250027336 A1 (hereinafter Alvarado). In regards to claim 2, GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 teaches the locking device of claim 1. However, GB ‘586 does not teach further comprising: a debris scraper mounted to the lock housing, wherein the debris scraper is constructed and arranged to scrape debris on the locking bolt as the locking bolt moves from the locked position to the unlocked position. Alvarado teaches a debris scraper (40 and see para 33) mounted to the lock housing (42), wherein the debris scraper is constructed and arranged to scrape debris on the locking bolt as the locking bolt moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (para 33 in the case of debris removal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided GB ‘586 with a debris scraper such as in Alvarado in order to prevent increase in friction (Alvarado para 3). In regards to claim 12, GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 teaches the locking device of claim 11. However, GB ‘586 does not teach further comprising: a debris scraper mounted to the lock housing, wherein the debris scraper is constructed and arranged to scrape debris on the locking bolt as the locking bolt moves from the locked position to the unlocked position. Alvarado teaches a debris scraper (40 and see para 33) mounted to the lock housing (42), wherein the debris scraper is constructed and arranged to scrape debris on the locking bolt as the locking bolt moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (para 33 in the case of debris removal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided GB ‘586 with a debris scraper such as in Alvarado in order to prevent increase in friction (Alvarado para 3). In regards to claim 17, GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 teaches the locking device of claim 16. However, GB ‘586 does not teach further comprising: a debris scraper mounted to the lock housing, wherein the debris scraper is constructed and arranged to scrape debris on the locking bolt as the locking bolt moves from the locked position to the unlocked position. Alvarado teaches further comprising: a debris scraper (40 and see para 33) mounted to the lock housing, wherein the debris scraper is constructed and arranged to scrape debris on the locking bolt as the locking bolt moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (see figs 6 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided GB ‘586 with a debris scraper such as in Alvarado in order to prevent increase in friction (Alvarado para 3). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 as applied to claims 1, 8, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Kimball US 20030084616 A1 (hereinafter Kimball). In regards to claim 3, GB ‘586 in view of DE ‘220 teaches locking device of claim 1, wherein the locking bolt has a tapered end portion (see fig 1). However, GB ‘586 does not teach the locking bolt is constructed and arranged to be actuated by a closing door so that when the locking bolt is actuated by the closing door, the door pushes the locking bolt toward the lock housing and out of a path of the closing door. Kimball teaches a similar device mounted to the frame where the locking bolt that is constructed and arranged to be actuated by a closing door so that when the locking bolt is actuated by the closing door, the door pushes the locking bolt toward the lock housing and out of a path of the closing door (see figs 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided GB ‘586 on the frame of the door such that the locking bolt is constructed and arranged to be actuated by a closing door so that when the locking bolt is actuated by the closing door, the door pushes the locking bolt toward the lock housing and out of a path of the closing door in order to reduce the weight of and allow easier replacement of the door. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 18-20 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 0498490 A – teaches two extension spring similarly arranged. US 20180328080 A1 – teaches a similar device but fails to teach the carriage and extension springs. CN 115217368 A – teaches guides mounted to the housing. EP 1970507 A2 – teaches a similar push bolt and linkage. EP 2463458 A2 – teaches another similar scraper. 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

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+35.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 166 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month