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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 29, 2025 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-6 and 11-16 and the cancellation of claims 19 and 20. Claims 7-10, 17, and 18 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 9 and 10, the phrase “can be actuated by a rod or a cable” should be changed to “is actuatable by the rod or the cable,” and in line 22, the phrase “the inside release leaver” should be changed to “the inside release lever.” 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 1-6 and 11-16 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, line 9, it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase “can be” is included in the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the limitations following the phrase “can be.” See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “rod” and the “cable” recited after the phrase “can be actuated” and the “rod” and the “cable” recited after the word “either” is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the second instance of the “rod” or “cable” is equivalent to the first instance, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2-6 and 11-16, 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) 1-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumura et al. (US-7874599) in view of Gleason et al. (US-6629711).
In regards to claim 1, Suzumura et al. discloses a vehicle latch, comprising: a retention plate 53; a housing 51; a cover 52, the retention plate being secured to the housing and the housing is secured to the cover (Figure 2); a claw 22 pivotally mounted to the retention plate; a pawl 24 pivotally mounted to the retention plate; an outside handle lever 32 having a configuration common for being coupled to an outside door handle, such that the outside handle lever is actuatable by the coupling located outside of the housing of the latch (Col. 7, lines 21-30); an inside release lever 35 that is pivotally mounted to the housing via a pivot 71, the pivot being integrally formed with the housing such that the pivot and the housing are formed as a single component (Figure 7), wherein the cover includes two retaining features to hold the inside release lever in position on the pivot (Figure 7), a first one (see Figure 7 below) of the two retaining features is located proximate to a tip of the pivot and a second one (see Figure 7 below) of the two retaining features is located at an opposite side of the tip of the pivot such that portions of the release lever are rotationally received between the two retaining features (see Figure 7 below); an inside release bypass lever 34 rotatably received on the pivot (Figure 7) and the inside release lever is rotatably received on the inside release bypass lever (the inside release lever rotatably received on top of the inside release bypass lever, Figure 7), the inside release bypass lever is integrally formed with a boss 34b extending from the inside release bypass lever, the inside release bypass lever and the boss being formed as a single component (Figure 7) and the inside release lever is rotatably received on the boss of the inside release bypass lever (the inside release lever rotatably received on top of the boss of the inside release bypass lever, Figure 7); and a fastener 6 for securing the cover to the housing (Figure 7).
Suzumura et al. fails to specify the coupling between the outside handle lever and the outside door handle is a rod. Gleason et al. teaches the use of a rod to connect an outside handle to a lever 20 via a component 74 (Col. 2, lines 54-61). 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 coupling is a rod, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is known in the art to utilize a rod to connect a handle to a movable component, such as a lever. Furthermore, the outside handle lever of Suzumura et al. is coupled to the coupling via the rod lever 32b (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the term “lever” as “a projecting piece by which a mechanism is operated or adjusted,” and therefore, component 32b is considered as a rod lever because it is a projecting piece by which at least the outside handle lever 32 is operated), with the coupling capable of including a rod or a cable, as taught by Gleason et al. Col. 2, lines 54-61 of Gleason et al. teaches that rods and cables are known in the art as interchangeable couplings between handles and movable components, and therefore, the outside handle lever has a configuration common for being selectively coupled to a transmitting member, such as a rod or a cable, in which the elected embodiment includes the rod.
PNG
media_image1.png
1236
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Suzumura et al. in view of Gleason et al. teaches that the rod is coupled to the outside handle lever with a rod lever 32b (Suzumura et al.) (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the term “lever” as “a projecting piece by which a mechanism is operated or adjusted,” and therefore, component 32b is considered as a rod lever because it is a projecting piece by which at least the outside handle lever 32 is operated) pivotally mounted to the retention plate (pivotally mounted via the connection of the housing with the retention plate, Figure 2 of Suzumura et al.).
In regards to claims 3 and 6, Suzumura et al. discloses that the outside handle lever is operatively coupled to a lock lever 33 and the lock lever is operatively coupled to a pawl lifter 31, which is in turn coupled to the pawl (Figure 5).
In regards to claims 4 and 5, Suzumura et al. discloses that the outside handle lever is spring biased a spring 32c.
In regards to claim 11, Suzumura et al. discloses that the inside release lever is operatively coupled to a lock lever 33 such that movement of the inside release lever will cause the desired movement of lock lever and accordingly operation of the latch.
In regards to claim 12, Suzumura et al. discloses a spring 26 for providing a biasing force to the inside release lever (the spring providing at least some biasing force to the inside release lever by biasing the pawl lift 31, the lock lever 33, and thereby, the inside release lever 35 after the inside release lever is actuated to cause these components to move back to their original positions, Col. 9, lines 26-40).
In regards to claim 13, Suzumura et al. in view of Gleason et al. teaches a central door lock sector 36 (Suzumura et al.) that is configured for use with the rod.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumura et al. (US-7874599) in view of Gleason et al. (US-6629711) as applied to claims 1-6 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US-5125701).
In regards to claim 14, Suzumura et al. discloses a mechanical child lock mechanism, the mechanical child lock mechanism includes a child lock lever 38 that is rotatably mounted to the housing (mounted to the housing via the cover 52, Figure 6), a portion of the child lock lever extending through a slot in the housing (the slot being the opening through which the child lock lever extends in Figure 4, with the slot being within the confines of the housing when the cover is assembled to the housing, Figures 4 and 6) which operably coupled the child lock lever to a child lock link 37 such that movement of the child lock lever will cause a corresponding movement of the child lock link (Col. 7, line 55 – Col. 8, line 11 and Col. 9, line 62 – Col. 10, line 14), and the child lock lever includes an extension (portion at reference character 38, Figure 4) that extends from the child lock lever, the extension extends outwardly from the cover of the latch so that the child lock lever may be manipulated without a tool or key (the extension capable of being grasped by a user, Figure 4). Suzumura et al. fails to disclose that the child lock lever includes a slot that allows a key or tool to be inserted into the slot. Hayakawa et al. teaches a component 31 having a slot 33 that allows a key 34 to be inserted into the slot so as to rotate component 31 for actuating a mechanical child lock mechanism. 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 slot that allows the insertion of a key to actuate the child lock lever, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to aid a user in actuating the child lock lever.
In regards to claim 15, Suzumura et al. in view of Gleason et al. teaches that the rod is coupled to the outside handle lever with a rod lever 32b (Suzumura et al.) (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the term “lever” as “a projecting piece by which a mechanism is operated or adjusted,” and therefore, component 32b is considered as a rod lever because it is a projecting piece by which at least the outside handle lever 32 is operated) pivotally mounted to the retention plate (pivotally mounted via the connection of the housing with the retention plate, Figure 2 of Suzumura et al.).
In regards to claim 16, Suzumura et al. discloses that the outside handle lever is operatively coupled to a lock lever 33 and the lock lever is operatively coupled to a pawl lifter 31, which is in turn coupled to the pawl (Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
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.
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 November 13, 2025