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 cancellation of claims 1-29 and the addition of new claims 30-48 filed May 12, 2026. Newly submitted claims 42-49 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 42-49 are drawn to a method of assembling a closure latch assembly. The originally filed claims do not include any claims drawn to a method of assembly a closure latch assembly. Also, applicant elected without traverse on September 13, 2022 the examination of the claims drawn to the closure latch assembly, therefore, the elected invention is a closure latch assembly, as recited in new claims 30-41.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 42-49 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 30, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 30, line 16, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “the drive gear.”
In regards to claim 35, line 2, the phrase “the printed circuit board (PCB)” should be changed to “a printed circuit board (PCB),” and in line 3, the phrase “the latch housing” should be changed to “the cover.”
In regards to claim 36, line 3, the phrase “the hall sensor” should be “the Hall sensor.”
In regards to claim 39, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “wherein the pinion gear is coupled to the drive gear that is a power release gear” should be changed to “wherein the drive gear is a power release gear,” and in line 3, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a drive pin.”
In regards to claim 40, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the latch mechanism includes a ratchet and a pawl, wherein the pawl is operable in a ratchet holding position to hold the ratchet in a striker capture position, corresponding to the first state of the latch mechanism, and is operable in a ratchet releasing position to permit the ratchet to move to a striker release position, corresponding to the second state of the latch mechanism, and wherein an axis of rotation of the pinion gear driven by the electric motor is substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of the pawl.”
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 35, 39, and 40 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 35 recites the limitation "the printed circuit board (PCB)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 35, it is unclear how the latch housing 30 includes the plurality of upstanding enclosure segments, when it is understood from the specification and drawings that the cover includes these segments and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 39, it is unclear from the phrase “the pinion gear is coupled to the drive gear that is a power release gear” whether the pinion gear is considered as a power release gear or the drive gear is considered as a power release gear. Furthermore, the phrase “the pinion gear is coupled to the drive gear” is a broader recitation of the connection between the pinion gear and the drive gear than that recited in claim 30, which recites that the drive gear is meshed with the pinion gear. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the drive gear is a power release gear. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 40, the relationship between the striker capture position and the first state of the latch mechanism recited in claim 30 and the relationship between the striker release position and the second state of the latch mechanism recited in claim 30 are unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification and claim 39 that the striker capture position corresponds to the first state of the latch mechanism and that the striker release position corresponds to the second state of the latch mechanism, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 30-32, 34, 37, 38, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualam et al. (FR 2794164 A1) in view of Dupont (FR 2775016 A1).
12. In regards to claim 30, Boualam et al. discloses a closure latch assembly, comprising: a latch module (Figure 1) including a latch housing B defining a latch module interior (space 3 in which latch mechanism components 4, 5, and 9 are located in Figure 1 and space 15 between cover 12 and the one side of the latch housing in which at least latch mechanism components 23 and 11 are located in Figure 3) and enclosing within the latch module interior a latch mechanism 4, 5, 9, 11, 23 operable in a first state (state shown in Figure 2 in which the ratchet 4 is held by the pawl 5) and in a second state (state in which the pawl is moved to release the ratchet, Lines 253-260 of the Computer Generated Translation); and an actuator module 12, 21 attached to the latch module, the actuator module including a plate segment 47 having a first side facing the latch module (side facing the motor 16 and at least a portion of latch module located to the right of the motor when assembled to the latch housing B, Figure 3) and an opposite second side (side facing pinion gear 17, Figure 7), the actuator module comprising: a power actuator (Figure 7) configured to shift the latch mechanism from the first state into the second state, the power actuator comprising: an electric motor 16 configured to rotate a motor shaft 38; a pinion gear 17 supported on the motor shaft and driven to rotate by the electric motor; a drive gear 18 meshed with the pinion gear; and a carrier plate 56 configured to support the electric motor, the drive gear, and the pinion gear (Figure 7); wherein the carrier plate extends in a plane parallel to the plate segment to support the electric motor (the carrier plate includes at least portion 61 that includes a surface extending parallel to the plate segment, Figure 7) and to support the drive gear and the pinion gear (Figure 7).
Boualam et al. further discloses a cover 12, but fails to disclose that the opposite second side enclosed by the cover defining an actuator module interior, such that the electric motor is supported within the actuator module interior and the drive gear and the pinion gear are supported within the latch module interior. Dupont teaches a cover 52 that encloses a second side of an electric motor (side of the motor at the indicator line for reference character 40, Figure 1) and its associated mounting structure (structures located above and below the motor 40 and pinion 41, Figure 1), with the cover defining an actuator module interior (space within the cover in which at least the electric motor is located, Figure 1), such that the electric motor is supported within the actuator module interior and associated gearing 41, 42, 43, 44 is supported within a latch module interior (space between the cover and body 51, 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 extend the cover 12 of Boualam et al. to cover the motor and its associated mounting structure, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide protection to the motor and its cooperating components.
13. In regards to claim 31, Boualam et al. discloses that the carrier plate includes a motor mount segment 62 for mounting the electric motor to the carrier plate, and a gear support segment 54 having a pivot shaft 31 for rotatably support the drive gear to the carrier plate (Figure 7).
14. In regards to claim 32, Boualam et al. discloses that the drive gear is rotatably mounted on a pivot rivet extending from the gear support segment defining the pivot shaft (per Paragraph 63 of the publication, US Pub. No. 2020/0224464, of the current application, the terms “pivot shaft” and “pivot rivet” are interchangeable without describing any differing structure, therefore, the pivot shaft of Boualam et al. is also a pivot rivet).
15. In regards to claim 34, Boualam et al. in view of Dupont teaches that the carrier plate includes a bumper mount segment 30 (Boualam et al., with the carrier plate including the bumper mount segment via portion 47 of the housing of the motor, Figures 5-7) configured to support a gear stop bumper 30b (Boualam et al.) within the latch module interior for engaging with the drive gear (Figure 6).
16. In regards to claim 37, Boualam et al. in view of Dupont teaches that the carrier plate is encapsulated with the plate segment (the carrier plate and the plate segment are encapsulated or enclosed together by the cover taught by Dupont).
17. In regards to claim 38, Boualam et al. discloses that the drive gear includes an actuation feature (shaft 31 which connects the worm gear 19 to the drive gear, Figure 7) configured for operably communication with the latch mechanism within the latch module (operably communicates with the latch mechanism via gears 19 and 22) such that rotation of the drive gear from a first position to a second position via energization of the electric motor results in shifting of the latch mechanism from the first state into the second state (Lines 253-260 of the Computer Generated Translation).
18. In regards to claim 41, Boualam et al. in view of Dupont teaches that the motor shaft is configured to extend from the first side to the opposite second side (Figure 7) through a sealed port 57 of the plate segment (the port is considered to be sealed, since it is enclosed by the latch module and the cover as taught by Dupont).
19. Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualam et al. (FR 2794164 A1) in view of Dupont (FR 2775016 A1) as applied to claims 30-32, 34, 37, and 38 above, and further in view of Taurasi et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0230426 A1). Boualam et al. in view of Dupont teaches that the cover of the actuator module includes a plurality of upstanding enclosure segments (see portion of Figure 1 below) for enclosing at least one electrical connector (connector elements shown in Figure 1 of Dupont) and the electric motor (Figure 1 of Dupont). Dupont teaches that the cover can accommodate other components, as shown in Figure 1. Boualam et al. fails to disclose that the actuator module includes a printed circuit board (PCB) and a backup power device. Taurasi et al. teaches a closure latch assembly including a printed circuit board 34 and a backup power device 40 accommodated within a cover 26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a printed circuit board and a backup power device, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the electric motor can be electrically controlled and powered in the event of a vehicle power failure.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
20. Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualam et al. (FR 2794164 A1) in view of Dupont (FR 2775016 A1) as applied to claims 30-32, 34, 37, and 38 above, and further in view of Wu (CN 107091021 A). Boualam et al. fails to disclose that the actuator module includes a control unit having a Hall sensor, wherein the drive gear comprises a magnet associated with the Hall sensor. Wu teaches a closure latch assembly having a control unit (Paragraph 35 of the Computer Generated Translation) having a Hall sensor (one of sensors A, B, C, or D, Paragraph 34 of the Computer Generated Translation), with a gear comprising a magnet associated with the Hall sensor (Paragraph 34 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 include a control unit having a Hall sensor and associated magnet on the drive gear, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to monitor the position of the drive gear.
Allowable Subject Matter
21. Claim 33 is 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.
23. Claims 39 and 40 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.
24. 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 33, 39, and 40.
25. In regards to claim 33, Boualam et al. (FR 2794164 A1) fails to disclose that the electric motor is mounted to the motor mount segment using a pair of screws. The device of Boualam et al. uses snap connections to mount the electric motor, and the examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Boualam et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
26. In regards to claim 39, Boualam et al. (FR 2794164 A1) fails to disclose that the actuation feature is a drive pin. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Boualam et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
27. In regards to claim 40, Boualam et al. (FR 2794164 A1) discloses that the latch mechanism includes a ratchet 4 and a pawl 5, wherein the pawl is operable in a ratchet holding position to hold the ratchet in a striker capture position, corresponding to the first state of the latch mechanism (Figure 2), and is operable in a ratchet releasing position to permit the ratchet to move to a striker release position, corresponding to the second state of the latch mechanism (rotation of the pawl to release the ratchet to release the striker), but fails to disclose that an axis of rotation of the pinion gear driven by the electric motor is substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of the pawl. The axis of rotation of the pinion gear of Boualam et al. is substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the pawl (Figure 3). The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Boualam et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
28. In light of applicant’s cancellation of the previously examined claims and addition of new claims, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 and corresponding claim objections are set forth in the current Office Action.
29. In light of applicant’s cancellation of the previously examined claims, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are moot.
Conclusion
30. 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.
31. 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 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights