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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0040, “connection rod 103” should be --connection rod 104--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 5 of claim 1, “a hatch frame of the” should likely be --a frame of the cargo door or the--
in line 5 of claim 5, “a center” should be --the center--
in line 1 of claim 13, “The aircraft or spacecraft” should be --An aircraft or spacecraft--
in line 1 of claim 13 “an aircraft or spacecraft hatch” should be --the aircraft or spacecraft hatch--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 and 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a range of about 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm,” and the claim also recites “about 1 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a range of about 1.5 mm to 4.0 mm,” and the claim also recites “about 2.5 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, the term “about” in claims 6-7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the locking member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-5, and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starman, US 2016/0201364 A1.
Claim 1: Starman discloses a hatch locking device for a cargo door or for an aircraft or spacecraft hatch, the hatch locking device comprising:
an actuation lever (Fig. 4) for actuating the hatch locking device, wherein the actuation lever is rotatable about a pivot axis (1h) and comprises a protruding section (3d);
a latch (3a) which is hinged rotatable about a hinge axis (3b) at a hatch frame of the aircraft or spacecraft hatch (cargo door 2 corresponds to a hatch frame) and configured to be engageable with a corresponding latch counter part (4a) of a fuselage frame (door frame 4 corresponds to a fuselage frame); and
a connector (3g) which mechanically connects the protruding section (Fig. 2; [0054]) and the latch such that a rotation of the actuation lever causes a rotation of the latch ([0064-65]).
Claim 3: Starman discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 1, wherein one end of the connector and the latch form a first contact point (Fig. 3, annotated below), wherein another end of the connector and the protruding section form a second contact point (Fig. 3, annotated below), and wherein a center of the second contact point is on an opposite side of an imaginary connection line (7a) between the pivot axis and a center of the first contact point in a locked position (shown in Figs. 2-3) in relation to the second contact point in an unlocked position ([0058], [0064]: in the unlocked position the second contact point is located above the center of the pivot axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Starman discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 3, comprising a locking member (5) for securing the latch in a locked position ([0057]), wherein the locking member is rotatable about a locking shaft axis (axis of shaft 1d), which is substantially parallel to the hinge axis (Fig. 2).
Claim 5: Starman discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 4, wherein the protruding section and the locking member each comprise a protrusion (Fig. 2, annotated below), which are configured to face each other when the latch is secured by the locking member (depicted in Fig. 2), wherein a distance between 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 distance between facing protrusions is zero, which is shorter than the distance between the second contact point and imaginary connection line).
PNG
media_image2.png
671
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Starman discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 1, wherein the latch is configured as a latching hook (Fig. 2).
Claim 9: Starman discloses an aircraft or spacecraft hatch ([0040]), comprising:
a hatch frame (2); and
at least one hatch locking device according to claim 1 (shown above), which is mounted to the hatch frame (Fig. 2), wherein the latch is hinged rotatable at the hatch frame (Fig. 2; [0052]).
Claim 10: Starman discloses the aircraft or spacecraft hatch according to claim 9, wherein the at least one hatch locking device comprises four to twelve hatch locking devices ([0051]).
Claim 11: Starman discloses the aircraft or spacecraft hatch according to claim 9, comprising a rotatable locking shaft (1d), which is mechanically coupled to the locking member (5) and extends along a locking shaft axis (Fig. 2 depicts the shaft extends along a locking shaft axis).
Claim 12: Starman discloses the aircraft or spacecraft hatch according to claim 9, comprising an actuation shaft (1c), which is mechanically coupled to the actuation lever ([0056]) and extends along the pivot axis (depicted in Fig. 4).
Claim 13: Starman discloses an aircraft or spacecraft with the aircraft or spacecraft hatch according to claim 9 ([0003]; Starman discloses the hatch according to claim 9 as shown above).
Claim 14: Starman discloses the aircraft or spacecraft according to claim 13, wherein the aircraft or spacecraft hatch is configured as a cargo door ([0048]).
Claim 15: Starman discloses the aircraft or spacecraft according to claim 14, comprising a fuselage frame (4) with a latch counter part (4a), which is configured to receive the latch ([0052]).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henrichs, US 2,904,141 A.
Claim 1: Henrichs discloses a hatch locking device for a cargo door or for an aircraft or spacecraft hatch (col. 1 ln. 15-17; the manner in which the claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from the device disclosed by Henrichs), 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 (15) and comprises a protruding section (17);
a latch (35) which is hinged rotatable about a hinge axis (22) at a hatch frame of the aircraft or spacecraft hatch (Figs. 1-2; col. 1 ln. 55-59) and configured to be engageable with a corresponding latch counter part (10-12) of a fuselage frame (5); and
a connector (23-28 form a connector) which mechanically connects the protruding section and the latch such that a rotation of the actuation lever causes a rotation of the latch (col. 3 ln. 15-22).
Claim 2: Henrichs discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 1, wherein the connector comprises an adjustable length for adjusting a distance between the latch and the protruding section of the actuation lever (col. 2 ln. 21-24; col. 3 ln. 23-38).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starman, US 2016/0201364 A1, as applied to claim 5 above, alone.
Claim 6: Starman discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 5. Starman does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the facing protrusions is in a range of about 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm, or wherein the distance between the facing protrusions is about 1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance between the facing protrusions to be in a range of about 0.5-2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to achieve an optimal clearance between the facing protrusions to prevent excessive friction and wear. Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim 7: Starman discloses the hatch locking device according to claim 5. Starman does not explicitly teach the perpendicular distance between the center of the second contact point and the imaginary connection line in the locked position is in a range of about 1.5 mm to 4.0 mm, or wherein the perpendicular distance between the center of the second contact point and the imaginary connection line in the locked position is about 2.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the perpendicular distance between the center of the second contact point and the imaginary connection line in the locked position to be in a range of 1.5-4 mm in order to position the actuation lever in an over-centered position for reliably securing the device (see Starman [0061]). Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vauchel (US 2006/0138785 A1) is related to a locking device comprising an actuation lever connected to a connector and a latch connected to the connector, wherein the contact point between the lever and connector is on an opposite side of a line between the lever axis and contact point between the latch and connector in the locked position in relation to an unlocked position, but the latch and lever are rotatable about the same pivot axis.
Do (US 2011/0227350 A1) is related to a connector between a lever and a latch that has an adjustable length.
Bourne et al. (US 5620212 A) is related to a connector between a lever and a latch that has an adjustable length and a second contact point is movable and positioned on a side of the imaginary line between the pivot axis and center of a first contact point in a locked position.
Hernandez (US 10173782 B2) is related to a latching device comprising a lever rotatable about a pivot axis and a latch rotatable about a hinge axis.
Bourne et al. (US 4318557 A) is related to a first contact point between a connector and latch and a second contact point between the connector and a lever, wherein the second contact point moves across an imaginary line between a latch axis and the first contact point between locked and unlocked positions.
Bourne et al. (US 4602812 A) is related to a locking device with a connector that has an adjustable length.
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