Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/979,523

SELF-CLOSING DOUBLE-OPENING LOCK

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 12, 2024
Examiner
GARDNER, NICOLE
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Zhejiang Chuangge Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
314 granted / 457 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
524
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 457 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: lock rod 11 from ¶ 41-42. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In ¶ 35 “connecting plate 221” should likely read “coupling plate 221”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 1, line 3 “the other end” should likely read “an other end”. In Claim 6, line 5 “the top surface” should likely read “a top surface”. 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 2-14 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. Claim 2 fails to list the claim from which it depends. Therefore this claim is unclear. For purposes of examination Claim 2 will be interpreted as depending from Claim 1. Claim 2 recites the limitation “a top end” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the top end of line 6 is either one of “one end” or “an other end” from Claim 1, or a different end of the rotating shaft. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolden et al (US 3827671) in view of Hudson et al (US 5758684). Regarding Claim 1, Bolden et al disclose a self-closing double-opening lock (Figure 1 generally with self closing spring 96 and locks 86). The lock comprising a rotating shaft (18), a reset spring (96; Col 5, lines 45-49) and a hand-opening head (80), one end of the rotating shaft is fixed with a lock head (68), and the other end of the rotating shaft is coaxially connected with the hand-opening head (80) after passing through a support seat (78 shown in Figure 4); the reset spring (96) is sleeved outside the rotating shaft (Figure 1) and is able to realize the reset of the rotating shaft (Col 5, lines 45-49) by an elastic force (Col 5, lines 45-49), but fails to expressly disclose where wherein the rotating shaft is drivable by a motor to rotate. Hudson et al teach a rotary valve (Figure 11; with Figure 6 showing the components of the modular actuator) with a rotating shaft (536), and hand operating head (585) and wherein the rotating shaft is drivable by a motor (112 shown in Figure 6 as incorporated in the valve actuator of Figure 11) to rotate. 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 apparatus of Bolden et al with the motor as taught by Hudson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using a motor to rotate a rotating shaft) to yield predictable results (to rotate the shaft). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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. /NICOLE GARDNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601244
FLEXIBLE PIPE CONNECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12565970
SAFETY DEVICE FOR A TANK INTENDED TO CONTAIN A PRESSURIZED GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12529434
SUPPORT BRACKET FOR FLUID CONDUIT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12516738
VALVE WITH INTEGRATED PRESSURE REGULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12498067
PIPING MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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
69%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 457 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