Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/774,521

GALLEY COMPARTMENT RETENTION ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 16, 2024
Examiner
SIDKY, YAHYA I
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
B/E Aerospace, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 198 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
238
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 198 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Claim Objections Claims 4-5 and 14 were previously objected to. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 12/10/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 4-5 and 9 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 12/10/2025. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 10-11, 14, 16-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3964441 to Keskin. Regarding claim 1, Keskin discloses: A vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly (fig 3), the assembly comprising: a shaft (300) and a retaining handle (202) fixed relative to the shaft such that the shaft rotates when the retaining handle is rotated (see paragraph 0045); and wherein the shaft comprises a first shaft detent feature (312). or wherein the or each detent feature is a projection. Regarding claim 10, Keskin discloses: A mounting block (204) for mounting a vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly (200) in a vehicle galley (100), the mounting block comprising: a cavity (302) configured to receive a shaft (300) of the vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly; and a cavity detent feature (304) on an inner surface of the cavity, configured to interact with at least one detent feature (306) on the shaft, wherein the cavity detent feature is a detent mechanism configured to produce a bias (via 310) in the direction of the cavity, and wherein the detent mechanism further comprises an adjustable mechanism (310) configured to adjust the biasing force of the detent mechanism (via 310 increasing/decreasing the bias force depending on the position of 202). Regarding claim 14, Keskin discloses: A vehicle galley compartment retention assembly (fig 2), the vehicle galley compartment retaining assembly comprising: a handle assembly (200), the handle assembly comprising: a shaft (300) comprising a first shaft detent feature (306); and a retaining handle (202) fixed relative to the shaft such that the shaft rotates when the retaining handle is rotated (see paragraph 0045); a mounting block (204) comprising: a cavity (302) configured to receive the shaft (300) of the handle assembly; and a cavity detent feature (304) on an inner surface of the cavity, configured to interact with at least one detent feature on the shaft (306, fig 3c), wherein the cavity detent feature is a detent mechanism configured to produce a bias (via housing 300 and 310) in the direction of the cavity, and wherein the detent mechanism further comprises an adjustable mechanism (310) configured to adjust the biasing force of the detent mechanism (via 310 increasing/decreasing the bias force depending on the position of 202); a fixing means (frame member, not shown, see paragraph 0039) configured to fix the handle assembly to the mounting block, whilst allowing for rotational movement of the handle assembly relative to the mounting block (see figs 3a-3d); wherein the shaft of the handle assembly is configured to be inserted into the cavity of the mounting block (fig 3a), and to be rotatable within the cavity, and wherein the first shaft detent feature and the cavity detent feature are configured to interact with each other to hold the retaining handle in a first angular position when rotationally aligned (see figs 3a-3d). Regarding claim 16, Keskin discloses: The mounting block according to claim 10, wherein the vehicle galley is an aircraft galley (fig 2b). Regarding claim 17, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retention assembly according to claim 14, wherein the vehicle galley compartment retaining is in a vehicle galley of an aircraft galley (fig 2b). Regarding claim 18, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the shaft further comprises a second detent feature (316). Regarding claim 19, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 2, wherein the shaft further comprises a third detent feature (318). Regarding claim 21, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle according to claim 1, wherein each detent feature of the at least one detent feature is a projection (306). Regarding claim 22, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the or each detent feature is located on the radially outer surface of the shaft (fig 3c). Regarding claim 23, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the shaft comprises a shaft rotation limiter (306) to limit the rotation of the handle assembly to a predetermined angular range (306 limits the rotation of the handle via the ends of the track 304). Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3964441 to Keskin. Note: This is a different interpretation of Keskin. Regarding claim 14, Keskin discloses: A vehicle galley compartment retention assembly (fig 2), the vehicle galley compartment retaining assembly comprising: a handle assembly (200), the handle assembly comprising: a shaft (300) comprising a first shaft detent feature (306); and a retaining handle (202) fixed relative to the shaft such that the shaft rotates when the retaining handle is rotated (see paragraph 0045); a mounting block (204) comprising: a cavity (302) configured to receive the shaft (300) of the handle assembly; and a cavity detent feature (304) on an inner surface of the cavity, configured to interact with at least one detent feature on the shaft (316, 304 and 316 interact via 300), wherein the cavity detent feature is a detent mechanism configured to produce a bias (via housing 300 and 310) in the direction of the cavity, and wherein the detent mechanism further comprises an adjustable mechanism (310) configured to adjust the biasing force of the detent mechanism (via 310 increasing/decreasing the bias force depending on the position of 202); a fixing means (frame member, not shown, see paragraph 0039) configured to fix the handle assembly to the mounting block, whilst allowing for rotational movement of the handle assembly relative to the mounting block (see figs 3a-3d); wherein the shaft of the handle assembly is configured to be inserted into the cavity of the mounting block (fig 3a), and to be rotatable within the cavity, and wherein the first shaft detent feature and the cavity detent feature are configured to interact with each other to hold the retaining handle in a first angular position when rotationally aligned (see figs 3a-3d). Regarding claim 20, Keskin discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle according to claim 1, wherein each detent feature of the at least one detent feature is a recess (316, fig 3c). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3964441 to Keskin in view of US 20190241268 to Iacobucci. Regarding claim 24, Keskin does not explicitly disclose: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the shaft is made from metal. However, Iacobucci teaches that it is well known in the art for parts of a vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly to be made of metal (see paragraphs 0003, 0043, and 0099). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Iacobucci into Keskin at least because doing so would provide suitable material for the desired strength and weight of the assembly. Regarding claim 25, Keskin does not explicitly disclose: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the retaining handle is made from a lightweight high strength material. However, Iacobucci teaches that it is well known in the art for parts of a vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly to be made from a lightweight high strength material (see paragraphs 0003, 0043, and 0099). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Iacobucci into Keskin at least because doing so would provide suitable material for the desired strength and weight of the assembly. Regarding claim 26, Keskin does not explicitly disclose: The vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the retaining handle is made from a composite material. However, Iacobucci teaches that it is well known in the art for parts of a vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly to be made from a composite material (see paragraphs 0043 and 0099). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Iacobucci into Keskin at least because doing so would provide suitable material for the desired strength and weight of the assembly. Regarding claim 27, Keskin in view of Iacobucci discloses: The vehicle galley compartment retention assembly according to claim 26, wherein the composite material is cured directly onto the shaft. [Note: The italicized limitation recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, only the end result. See MPEP 2113. Since Keskin in view of Iacobucci teaches a vehicle galley compartment retaining handle assembly made from a composite material, the end result is the same regardless of the method used to produce the assembly]. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the cavity 302 is a part of the handle 300 and not the mounting block, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mounting block of Keskin comprises both the handle and the shaft, including the spring 310. Additionally, Examiner did not acknowledge that Keskin does not disclose an adjustable mechanism. See rejection of claim 13 in the Non-final rejection. Lastly, Applicant’s argument that Keskin does not disclose the adjustment of the biasing force of the spring, Examiner notes that’s as the spring is stretched/compressed, the biasing force it applies is adjusted as seen in figs 3a-d of Keskin. Therefore, rejection is maintained. 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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30. 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 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. /Y.S./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 16, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601210
DOOR HANDLE SYSTEM FOR A SAFETY DOOR, ESPECIALLY FOR A SLIDING DOOR OR A SWING DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590480
COMPACT POWERED DOOR LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577807
VERTICALLY ADJUSTABLE STRIKE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577808
GATE LATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559991
MINIMALIST SECONDARY BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 198 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