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 amendments to the specification and the claims have overcome very objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6 Jan. 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., US 2017/0058583 A1.
Claim 1: Kim discloses a hatch locking device for a cargo door or for an aircraft or spacecraft hatch ([0002]), the hatch locking device comprising:
an actuation lever (16) for actuating the hatch locking device, wherein the actuation lever is rotatable about a pivot axis (axis A) and comprises a protruding section (portion of the lever at axis B);
a latch (51) which is hinged rotatable about a hinge axis (axis B; [0023]) at a frame of the cargo door or of the aircraft or spacecraft hatch ([0021], [0023] (the latch is mounted with a hinge axis at a panel, corresponding to the latch being structured to be rotatable about a hinge axis that is positioned at a frame of a cargo door or aircraft or spacecraft hatch)) and configured to be engageable with a corresponding latch counter part (90) of a fuselage frame ([0023]); and
a connector (13, 52, 53 form a connector) which mechanically connects the protruding section and the latch ([0028]), such that a rotation of the actuation lever causes a rotation of the latch ([0026]) wherein the connector comprises an adjustable length for adjusting a distance between the latch and the protruding section of the actuation lever ([0030]);
wherein one end of the connector and the latch form a first contact point (where the shaft 52 meets the grip 51 forms a first contact point);
wherein another end of the connector and the protruding section form a second contact point (bushing 18 contacts the slot 28 at one end of the connector and the protruding section and corresponds to a second contact point); and
wherein a center of the second contact point is on an opposite side of an imaginary connection line between the pivot axis and a center of the first contact point in a locked position (Fig. 3 illustrates an imaginary connection line C and the center of the second contact point is off set below the line) in relation to the second contact point in an unlocked position (Fig. 5 depicts the unlocked position, the center of the second contact point is on the opposite side, above the line).
Claim 4: Kim discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 1, comprising a locking member (17) for securing the latch in a locked position ([0055]; Fig. 3; the trigger 17 secures the handle in the closed position and secures the latch in a locked position as a result), wherein the locking member is rotatable about a locking shaft axis (rotates about axis of fastener 41), which is substantially parallel to the hinge axis (Fig. 6).
Claim 8: Kim discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 1, wherein the latch is configured as a latching hook (Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landholt, US 2,750,217 A, in view of Kim et al., US 2017/0058583, as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 9: Landholt discloses an aircraft hatch (col. 1 ln. 17) comprising: a hatch frame (17); and at least one hatch locking device (1), which is mounted to the hatch frame (col. 3 ln. 12-14), wherein the latch is rotatably hinged at the hatch frame (Figs. 1-2). However, Landholt does not explicitly disclose the hatch locking device of claim 1.
Kim teaches a hatch locking device according to claim 1 (shown above with respect to claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft hatch disclosed by Landholt to utilize the hatch locking device according to claim 1 taught by Kim to provide a compact latching device with higher strength and durability (Kim [0022], [0061]).
Claim 10: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the aircraft hatch according to claim 9. Landholt, in view of Kim, further teaches a plurality of latches (Landholt col. 2 ln. 62-70) but is silent to specifically four to twelve hatch locking devices. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide four to twelve hatch locking devices taught by Landholt, in view of Kim, in order to secure the hatch at multiple points around the opening and avoid releasing the hatch due to a latch malfunctioning. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided four to twelve latches by known methods and the outcome would be predictable, namely an aircraft hatch secured by four to twelve latches. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim 11: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the aircraft hatch according to claim 9, wherein the at least one hatch locking device comprises a locking member (Kim 17) for securing the latch in a locked position (Kim [0055]; Kim Fig. 3; the trigger 17 secures the handle in the closed position and secures the latch in a locked position as a result), wherein the locking member is rotatable about a locking shaft axis (Kim: rotates about axis of fastener 41), which is substantially parallel to the hinge axis (Kim Fig. 6), the aircraft hatch comprising:
a rotatable locking shaft, which is mechanically coupled to the locking member and extends along a locking shaft axis; or
an actuation shaft (Kim 38), which is mechanically coupled to the actuation lever and extends along the pivot axis (Kim [0028]; Kim Fig. 6).
Claim 13: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches an aircraft (Landholt col. 2 ln. 55-62) comprising the aircraft hatch according to claim 9 (shown above).
Claim 14: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the aircraft according to claim 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the aircraft hatch as a cargo door as matter of design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an aircraft hatch is structurally capable of being used as a cargo door and have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the aircraft hatch with the hatch locking device as a door to a cargo hold without structural modification.
Claim 15: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the aircraft according to claim 13, comprising a latch counterpart (Kim 90), which is configured to receive the latch (Kim [0046]). Landholt, in view of Kim, further teach the latch counterpart is provided at a structure next to the hatch and hatch locking device (Kim [0046] and Landholt col. 2 ln. 69-72, Fig. 8). Landholt, in view of Kim, do not explicitly teach a fuselage frame, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the latch counterpart taught by Landholt, in view of Kim, to a fuselage frame with a reasonable expectation of success in order to close and secure the hatch on the fuselage.
Claim 16: Landholt discloses a hatch (col. 1 ln. 17) comprising: a hatch frame (17); and at least one hatch locking device (1), which is mounted to the hatch frame (col. 3 ln. 12-14), wherein the latch is rotatably hinged at the hatch frame (Figs. 1-2). However, Landholt does not explicitly disclose the hatch locking device of claim 1.
Kim teaches a hatch locking device according to claim 1 (shown above with respect to claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hatch disclosed by Landholt to utilize the hatch locking device according to claim 1 taught by Kim to provide a compact latching device with higher strength and durability (Kim [0022], [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the term “spacecraft hatch” as an intended use of the assembly on a spacecraft. However, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations for the claim. See MPEP 2114. Additionally, Applicant should note that the disclosure does not suggest use with a spacecraft, rather than an aircraft, results in structural or functional differences or modifications.
Claim 17: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the spacecraft hatch according to claim 16. Landholt, in view of Kim, further teaches a plurality of latches (Landholt col. 2 ln. 62-70) but is silent to specifically four to twelve hatch locking devices. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide four to twelve hatch locking devices taught by Landholt, in view of Kim, in order to secure the hatch at multiple points around the opening and avoid releasing the hatch due to a latch malfunctioning. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided four to twelve latches by known methods and the outcome would be predictable, namely a spacecraft hatch secured by four to twelve latches. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim 18: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the spacecraft hatch according to claim 16, wherein the at least one hatch locking device comprises a locking member (Kim 17) for securing the latch in a locked position (Kim [0055]; Kim Fig. 3; the trigger 17 secures the handle in the closed position and secures the latch in a locked position as a result), wherein the locking member is rotatable about a locking shaft axis (Kim: rotates about axis of fastener 41), which is substantially parallel to the hinge axis (Kim Fig. 6), the spacecraft hatch comprising:
a rotatable locking shaft, which is mechanically coupled to the locking member and extends along a locking shaft axis; or
an actuation shaft (Kim 38), which is mechanically coupled to the actuation lever and extends along the pivot axis (Kim [0028]; Kim Fig. 6).
Claim 19: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the spacecraft hatch according to claim 16, but are silent to a spacecraft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spacecraft hatch on a spacecraft in order to provide a compact latching device with higher strength and durability (Kim [0022], [0061]).
Claim 20: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the spacecraft according to claim 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the spacecraft hatch as a cargo door as matter of design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an aircraft hatch is structurally capable of being used as a cargo door and have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the spacecraft hatch with the hatch locking device as a door to a cargo hold without structural modification.
Claim 21: Landholt, in view of Kim, teaches the spacecraft according to claim 20, comprising a latch counterpart (Kim 90), which is configured to receive the latch (Kim [0046]). Landholt, in view of Kim, further teach the latch counterpart is provided at a structure next to the hatch and hatch locking device (Kim [0046] and Landholt col. 2 ln. 69-72, Fig. 8). Landholt, in view of Kim, do not explicitly teach a fuselage frame, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the latch counterpart taught by Landholt, in view of Kim, to a fuselage frame with a reasonable expectation of success in order to close and secure the hatch on the fuselage of the spacecraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 22-23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 5-7 and 22-23.
Regarding claim 5, Kim fails to disclose the protruding section and the locking member each comprise a protrusion which are configured to face each other when the latch is secured by the locking member and wherein a distance between the facing protrusions is shorter than a perpendicular distance between the center of the second contact point and the imaginary connection line in the locked position. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the hatch locking device disclosed by Kim to have the above-mentioned features without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 22-23, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 5 from which the claims depend.
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (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 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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights