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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 was amended in a preliminary amendment dated February 4, 2025 to include the limitation reciting that the at least one hook comprises an oblong hole for receiving at least one catch. This feature is specific to the embodiment shown in Figures 6A and 6B, in which the oblong hole 8 forms an element of the device, such that the embodiment in Figures 6A and 6B do not include the spacer recited in claims 7 and 8. The spacer of claims 7 and 8 are specific to the embodiment of Figures 2-5B, and the specification does not set forth an embodiment including the oblong hole of Figures 6A and 6B as well as the spacer of Figures 2-5B. Therefore, claim 1 is no longer generic and claims 7 and 8 cannot depend from it. For examination purposes, claims 7 and 8 will be considered as withdrawn, but it is strongly suggested that these claims be canceled based on applicant’s preliminary amendment to claim 1 reciting the specific features of the embodiment in Figures 6A and 6B, since claims 7 and 8 in their current states could never be rejoined with claim 1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The various sections of the specification should include titles, such as “Background of the Invention,” “Summary of Invention,” etc., and in accordance with the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below, each instance of the phrase “retaining axis” should be changed to “retaining member.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 10, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 1, the phrase “Locking device” should be changed to “A locking device,” in lines 2 and 3, the phrase “a container having a housing” should be changed to “a container, the locking device comprising: a housing,” in lines 4 and 5, the phrase “for hooking into a retaining axis” should be changed to “for hooking onto a retaining member,” in line 5, the phrase “in the closed position” should be changed to “in a closed position of the door,” in line 7, the phrase “for unlocking the at least one hook hooked in the closed position” should be changed to “for unhooking the at least one hook from the retaining member,” in line 10, the phrase “can be actuated” should be changed to “is actuated,” in line 12, the phrase “is moved via the at least one catch” should be changed to “is pivoted,” in lines 12 and 13, the phrase “can be moved out of the closed position” should be changed to “is pivoted to unhook from the retaining member via the at least one catch,” in line 14, the phrase “with at least one indicator” should be changed to “wherein at least one indicator,” in line 18, the phrase “the second axis of rotation” should be changed to “the axis of rotation of the operating handle,” in line 19, the phrase “is freely movable around” should be changed to “freely pivotable through,” and in line 20, the phrase “can be unlocked” should be changed to “is unhooked from the retaining member.”
In regards to claim 2, line 1, the phrase “Locking device” should be changed to “The locking device,” in line 2, the word “about” should be changed to “through,” and in line 3, the word “movable” should be changed to “pivotable.”
In regards to claim 3, line 1, the phrase “Locking device” should be changed to “The locking device,” and in line 3, the phrase “the axis of rotation” should be changed to “the axis of rotation of the at least one hook.”
In regards to claim 4, the claim should read as follows: “The locking device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one hook comprises a latching protrusion for hooking onto the retaining member in the closed position of the door, such that the latching protrusion at least partially encloses the retaining member when the door is properly closed.”
In regards to claim 10, the claim should read as follows: “An overhead luggage compartment with a fixed container and a luggage compartment door pivotable via at least one hinge and the locking device according to claim 1 for locking the luggage compartment door in the closed position.”
In regards to claim 12, line 1, the phrase “Locking device” should be changed to “The locking device” and the word “about” should be changed to “through,” and in line 2, the word “movable” should be changed to “pivotable.”
In regards to claim 13, line 1, the phrase “Locking device” should be changed to “The locking device” and the phrase “wherein oblong hole” should be changed to “wherein the oblong hole.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 1, the preamble recites a locking device for locking a pivotably mounted door of a container with the pivotably mounted door of a container recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim contains positive recitations of the door and the container. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the locking device or the locking device in combination with the pivotably mounted door of the container. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the subcombination based on claim 10 and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
In regards to claim 11, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, claim 1 is drawn to the subcombination of the locking device and not the locking device in combination with the door and luggage compartment, therefore, any limitations regarding the door and the luggage compartment are considered as intended use.
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 1-4 and 6-13 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.
In regards to claim 1, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “axis” in the phrase “retaining axis” in the claim is used by the claim to mean “member” or a physical structure, while the accepted meaning is “a straight line about which a body or a geometric figure rotates or may be supposed to rotate.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Specifically, an axis is an imaginary line, and therefore, it is unclear how the at least one hook can hook into an imaginary line. It is understood from the specification and drawings that the “retaining axis” is a physical member onto which the at least one hook hooks, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the closed position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear from the claim language whether the closed position refers to the door or the locking device. For examination purposes, the closed position will be examined as a position of the door. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “unlocking” of the at least one hook, as recited in line 7, and the “hooking onto” of the at least one hook, as recited in lines 4 and 5, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification and drawings that the operating handle causes unhooking of the at least one hook from the retaining member, and will be examined as such. The claim should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “can be” in line 10 are included in the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as positively reciting these limitations. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, 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, the claim recites the broad recitation “when the operating handle is moved,” and the claim also recites “an operating handle pivotably spring-mounted on the housing” 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. Furthermore, the phrase “when the operating handle is moved via the at least one catch” suggests that the operating handle is moved or pivoted by the at least one catch, which is not supported by the specification. It is understood from the specification that the operating handle is pivoted such that the at least one hook is pivoted to unhook from the retaining member via the at least one catch, i.e. the catch causes pivoting of the at least one hook and not the operating handle. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the objections above.
In regards to claim 1, lines 12 and 13, it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “can be” are included in the claimed invention. Assuming that the limitations following the phrase “can be” are meant to be included in the claimed invention, then 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, the claim recites the broad recitation “the at least one hook can be moved,” and the claim also recites “at least one hook pivotably mounted on the housing” 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. Furthermore, it is understood from the preceding lines of the claim that the closed position is that of the door and not the at least one hook. For examination purposes, this portion of the claim will be examined as reciting that the at least one hook is pivoted to unhook from the retaining member via the at least one catch. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “second axis of rotation,” as recited in line 18, and the “axis of rotation” of the operating handle, as recited in line 6, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification and the other language of the claim that the “second axis of rotation” is equivalent to the “axis of rotation” of the operating handle, and will be examined as such. The claim should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, 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, the claim recites the broad recitation “the operating handle is freely movable around,” and the claim also recites “an operating handle pivotably spring-mounted on the housing” 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. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the operating handle is freely pivotable through a predetermined angle range. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “can be” in line 20 are included in the claimed invention. Furthermore, the relationship between the “unlocking” language in line 20 and the “hooking onto” language of lines 4 and 5 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the at least one hook is unhooked from the retaining member, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 2, it is unclear how the operating handle is “movable,” when claim 1 sets forth that the operating handle is “pivotable.” For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 3, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim with the phrase “and that point, which in the close position, corresponds to the retaining axis.” Specifically, the language seems to suggest that the axis of rotation of the at least one hook corresponds or aligns with a center of the retaining axis or member, however, this never occurs during operation of the device. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined without this limitation.
In regards to claim 4, it is unclear how many hooks applicant intends to claim. Specifically, claim 1 recites “at least one hook,” which suggest one or more hooks, whereas, claim 4 recites “each hook,” which suggests more than one hook. Furthermore, the language of claim 4 does not align with that of claim 1, and it is unclear how the latching protrusion of the at least one hook encloses or completely surrounds the retaining member, when it is clear from the figures that the latching protrusion of the at least one hook at least partially encloses the retaining member when the door is properly closed. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 6, this claim suggests that the device includes at least one element in addition to the oblong hole now recited in claim 1. It is understood from the specification that the oblong hole forms the at least one element, not that the embodiment Figure 6A and 6B, to which claim 1 is now referring, includes at least one element in addition to the oblong hole. Since claim 9 recites that the element is formed by the oblong hole, it is suggested that claim 6 be canceled.
In regards to claim 9, it is unclear how this claim further limits claim 1, if examining claim 9 as depending from claim 6. The term “element” does not provide any details or further structure to the locking device already claimed in claim 1, and it is suggested that this claim be canceled.
In regards to claim 10, the relationship between the “closed state” recited in claim 10 and the “closed position” recited in claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “closed state” is equivalent to the “closed position,” and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 12, it is unclear how the operating handle is “movable,” when claim 1 sets forth that the operating handle is “pivotable.” For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claims 11 and 13, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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.
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) 1-4, 6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welsh et al. (US-6957979) in view of Schwarz (EP 1197621 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 6, 9, and 11, Welsh et al. discloses a locking device comprising a housing 102, at least one hook 104 pivotably mounted on the housing about an axis of rotation (axis extending through element 114, Figure 18) for hooking onto a retaining member 14 arranged on a component in a closed position of a movable panel 30, an operating handle 108 pivotably spring-mounted on the housing about an axis of rotation (axis extending through element 114, Figure 18) for unhooking the at least one hook from the retaining member (Figure 19), wherein the axis of rotation for the at least one hook and the axis of rotation for the operating handle are arranged coaxially (Figure 18), the at least one hook is actuated by the operating handle via at least one catch 116 non-rotatably connected to the operating handle in such a way that, when the operating handle is pivoted, the at least one hook is pivoted to unhook from the retaining member via the at least one catch (Figures 17-19), wherein the operating handle is freely pivotable through a predetermined angle range before the at least one hook is unhooked from the retaining member (Figures 17-19) and the at least one hook comprises an oblong hole 156 for receiving the at least one catch. Welsh et at. further discloses that the operating handle includes at least one lateral outer surface (surface at the indicator line for reference character 174 in Figure 7A and the surface on the opposite side of the handle from the surface at the indicator line for reference character 174, Figures 7B and 7C), with the at least one lateral outer surface being arranged essentially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the operating handle and the at least one surface being visible when the panel is in an incompletely locked state (Figures 18 and 19). Welsh et al. fails to disclose at least one indicator arranged on the at least one lateral outer surface to indicate the incompletely locked state of the panel. Schwarz teaches a locking device comprising an operating handle 2 pivotably mounted to a housing 7, such that when the locking device is in an incompletely locked state (Figure 1), at least one lateral outer surface of the operating handle having at least one indicator S is visible (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include at least one indicator, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to provide a clear indication when the panel, and thereby the locking device, is in an incompletely locked state. In regards to the recitation in the preamble that the locking device is “for locking a pivotably mounted door of a container,” the examiner would like to note that this phrase is an intended use recitation and has been treated as such.
In regards to claim 2, although Welsh et al. does not specifically disclose that the predetermined angle range through which the operating handle is freely movable is 1° to 10°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the predetermined angle range, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 3, although Welsh et al. does not specifically disclose that the at least one hook comprises a length between 24 mm and 35 mm from the axis of rotation of the at least one hook, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the length range of the at least one hook, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 4, Welsh et al. discloses that the at least one hook comprises a latching protrusion 152A for hooking onto the retaining member in the closed position of the panel (Figure 17), such that the latching protrusion at least partially encloses the retaining member when the panel is properly closed (Figure 17).
In regards to claim 10, Welsh et al. discloses that locking devices like that disclosed in Welsh et al. can be used to latch or lock doors relative to a stationary structure (Col. 1, lines 16-31), but fails to specify that the locking device is used on an overhead luggage compartment with a fixed container and a luggage compartment door pivotable via at least one hinge to the closed position. Schwarz teaches a locking device used on an overhead luggage compartment with a fixed container and a luggage compartment door pivotable via at least one hinge to a closed position (Paragraphs 1, 3, and 6 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the locking device be used on a pivotable door of an overhead luggage compartment, with reasonable expectation of success, since the locking device of Welsh et al. is capable of locking a pivotable door.
In regards to claim 12, although Welsh et al. does not specifically disclose that the predetermined angle range through which the operating handle is freely movable is 2° to 5°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the predetermined angle range, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 13, although Welsh et al. does not specifically disclose that the oblong hole comprises a height between 4 mm and 12 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the height range of the oblong hole, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 February 15, 2026