DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected “aircraft compartment” and “aircraft”, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear when “the lever to contact the cam surface”. Nowhere in the apparatus operation does the lever (206) contact the cam surface (208). Nowhere in the apparatus operation does the roller (210) lose contact with the cam surface (208). It is unclear what the applicant requires structurally and functionally as what is currently claimed does not appear physically possible. For purposes of examination the recitation will be interpreted broadly until otherwise clarified.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stache (US 4,834,326).
Regarding claim 1, Stache discloses a door latch comprising:
a lever (8) operatively coupled to a gear (13), the lever to rotate based on rotation of the gear;
a worm screw (12) operatively coupled to the gear; and
a cam surface (7) opposite the lever and fixed relative to the lever, the lever to contact the cam surface when the door latch is in a latched condition (first condition retracted), the lever to disengage the cam surface when the door latch is in an unlatched condition (second condition extended).
Regarding claim 2, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 1, wherein the lever includes a roller (9) rotationally coupled to an end of the lever (Fig.3), the roller to contact the cam surface when the door is in the latched condition (roller is in contact with cam Fig.3).
Regarding claim 3, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 1, wherein the gear is operatively coupled to the lever via a torque tube (10).
Regarding claim 5, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 1, further comprising a bracket (lever 8 mounted to bracket Fig.3) rotationally coupled to the lever.
Regarding claim 6, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 5, wherein the lever is to contact the cam surface between a first rotational position (reattracted position) and a second rotational position (Extended position), the second rotational position different from the first rotational position, and wherein the bracket includes a stop (where 8 contacts 16) to contact the lever when the lever is in the second rotational position, the stop to contact the lever at an end of the lever opposite an axis of rotation of the lever.
Regarding claim 7, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 6, wherein the cam surface( 7) is angled (lambda, Fig.3) relative to the lever (8) when the lever is in the second rotational position such that a contact force of the cam surface is directed towards at least one of the axis of rotation or the stop.
Regarding claim 8, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 1, wherein the worm screw includes an interface (11, any portion may receive a tool) to receive a tool and transfer a torque from the tool to the worm screw (such as a flat blade screw driver can be introduced to turn the mechanism).
Regarding claim 9, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 1, wherein the lever is a first lever (8) and the cam surface(7) is a first cam surface (dual sided, first and second), and the door latch further includes a second lever operatively coupled to the gear, the second lever to contact a second cam surface (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 9, wherein the gear(13) is disposed between the first lever and the second lever (Fig.3).
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stache (US 4,834,326) in view of Meyer et al. (11,060,566).
Regarding claim 4, Stache discloses the door latch of claim 3, wherein the torque tube (10) includes a joint between a first end of the torque tube and a second end of the torque tube, the first end to rotate about a first axis and the second end to rotate about a second axis (Fig.3).
Stache does not disclose: a universal joint .
Meyer et al. teaches a universal joint (402, Meyer et al.) for the purpose of alleviating strain on a torque tube assembly from system flex and misalignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stache with Stache as taught by Meyer et al.) for the expected benefit of alleviating strain on a torque tube assembly from system flex and misalignment.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of Application No. (US 18/999,890). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. (US 18/999,890) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the claimed structure is identical as follows;
A lever, a gear, a worm screw, a cam surface of the instant application (US 18/806,314).
A worm gear, a worm wheel, a worm screw, a lever, a cam surface application (US 18/999,890).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 1 April 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Regarding double patenting, there is no structural distinction between Application No. (US 18/999,890) and the instant application. The double patenting rejection remains appropriate.
Regarding claim 1 see 112 rejection as at no point does the applicant show the lever in contact with the cam surface.
Regarding Claim 1 Stanche clearly discloses a roller (9) mounted on lever (8) which is in contact with cam surface (7), the disclosure of Stanche includes all of the structure of the instant application and is perfectly capable of the movement of an element in a first and second position. Arguments concerning the disc of Stanche does not disqualify that the disc provides the cam surface that the applicant claims. The argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 571.272.7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights