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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12, and 13, the cancellation of claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 11, and the addition of new claim 14 filed May 22, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 7, 16, 17, 24, and 25, each instance of the phrase “the door” should be changed to “the pivotably mounted door” so as to coincide with the language used in line 2 of claim 1 and the language used in claim 10, in lines 25 and 26, the phrase “is properly closed” should be changed to “is properly closed in the closed position” so as to clearly relate the proper closing to the closed position of the pivotably mounted door, and in lines 27 and 28, commas should be inserted before and after the phrase “due to tolerances and deformations of the container when loaded.”
In regards to claim 3, line 3, the phrase “that point” should be changed to “a point,” and in line 4, the phrase “the door” should be changed to “the pivotably mounted door” and the phrase “the center” should be changed to “a center.”
In regards to claim 6, lines 5 and 6, the phrase “the hook, that is into the closed position” should be changed to “the at least one hook when the pivotably mounted door is in the closed position” since the closed position is that of the pivotably mounted door and not the at least one hook.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US-5630630) in view of Schwarz (EP 1197621 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Price et al. discloses a container (Col. 1, lines 7-9) comprising a pivotably mounted door 66 and a locking device (Figure 2) for locking the pivotably mounted door of the container, the locking device comprising: a housing 62, at least one hook 38 pivotably mounted on the housing about an axis of rotation (axis through pin 90, Figures 2 and 5-7) for hooking onto a retaining member 73 arranged on the container in a closed position of the pivotably mounted door (Figure 5), an operating handle 21 pivotably spring-mounted on the housing about an axis of rotation for unhooking the at least one hook hooked in the closed position from the retaining member (the axis of rotation for the operating handle is the axis through pin 90, the operating handle is pivotably spring-mounted on pin 90 coupled with spring 112, and the operating handle unhooks the at least one hook as shown in Figure 6), wherein the axis of rotation for the at least one hook and the axis of rotation for the operating handle are arranged coaxially (Figures 2 and 5-7, with both the operating handle and the at least one hook being pivotably mounted on the same pin 90), the at least one hook is actuated by the operating handle via at least one catch 34 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 (Col. 4, lines 24-41), and wherein the operating handle is freely pivotable through a predetermined angle range before the at least one hook is unhooked from the retaining member (the operating handle is freely pivotable through a predetermined angle range before the catch abuts sidewall 44 of component 36, Col. 4, lines 24-41) and the at least one hook comprises an oblong hole 36 for receiving the at least one catch (the cavity 36 is considered oblong because it has a shape longer than it is wide, Figure 7), wherein the at least one hook comprises a latching protrusion 54 for hooking onto the retaining member in the closed position of the pivotably mounted door, such that the latching protrusion at least partially encloses the retaining member when the pivotably mounted door is properly closed in the closed position (Figure 5), and the latching protrusion is designed in such a way that changes of position of the retaining member, due to tolerances and deformations of the container when loaded, are compensated (as shown in Figure 5 below, there is space above, below, and to the left of the retaining member within the confines of the at least one hook when the retaining member is at least partially enclosed by the latching protrusion, therefore, movement of the retaining member within the at least one hook can be compensated since there is space within the at least one hook in which the retaining member can move, but also still be located within the at least one hook). Price et al. further discloses that the pivotably mounted door can have an incomplete locked state (state between the at least one hook being completely engaged with the retaining member in Figure 5 and the completely unhooked state in Figure 6), and that the operating handle includes at least one lateral outer surface (side surface at the indicator line for reference character 18, Figure 2), with the at least one lateral outer surface being arranged essentially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the operating handle (Figure 2) and the at least one lateral outer surface being visible when the pivotably mounted door is in the incompletely locked state (state between Figures 5 and 6, with the handle being pivoted away from the surface of the pivotably mounted door, such that the at least one lateral outer surface is visible like in Figure 6). Price 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 pivotably mounted door. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
937
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, although Price et al. does not specifically disclose that the predetermined angle range through which the operating handle is freely pivotable 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, Price et al. discloses a distance from the axis of rotation of the at least one hook to a point near the at least one hook which, in the closed position of the pivotably mounted door, corresponds to a center of the retaining member (apparent from Figure 5 that a distance from the axis of rotation of the at least one hook to a point on the latching protrusion that corresponds or is related to the center of the retaining member located within the confines of the at least one hook in the closed position of the pivotably mounted door is present). Although Price et al. does not specifically disclose that this distance is between 24 mm and 35 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 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 6, Price et al. discloses a space formed between the operating handle and the at least one hook by the oblong hole in the at least one hook and by the at least one catch when the operating handle is moved in the direction of the at least one hook when the pivotably mounted door is in the closed position (the interaction of the at least one catch and the oblong hole provides a space between at least portion 18 of the operating handle and the at least one hook, Figure 5).
In regards to claim 10, Price et al. fails to disclose that the locking device is used with a container that is part of an overhead luggage compartment, with the pivotably mounted door of the container being a luggage compartment door. Schwarz teaches a container as part of an overhead luggage compartment, with the container including a luggage compartment door (pivotable or hinged lid in Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Computer Generated Translation) that is locked and unlocked by a locking device (Figures 1 and 2). 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 of Price et al. be used with a door and container of an overhead luggage compartment, with reasonable expectation of success, since the locking device of Price et al. would yield the predictable result of locking and unlocking a door of a container of an overhead luggage compartment in the same manner that the locking device locks the door of the container as disclosed by Price et al.
In regards to claim 12, although Price et al. does not specifically disclose that the predetermined angle range through which the operating handle is freely pivotable 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 Price 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.
In regards to claim 14, although Price et al. does not specifically disclose that changes of position of the retaining member due to tolerances and deformations of the container when loaded are between +1 mm and -6 mm are compensated, 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 changes in position range of the retaining member, 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.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. The new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Price et al. (US-5630630) in view of Schwarz (EP 1197621 A1) have been made in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
16. In light of applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims, the objections to the specification, the objections to the claims, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new claim objections are set forth in the current Office Action.
Conclusion
17. 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.
18. 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 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights