Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/113,733

POSITION SENSING SYSTEM FOR A LATCH USING A COMMON SENSOR

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Feb 24, 2023
Examiner
WILLIAMS, MARK A
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Magna Automotive Parts (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
912 granted / 1175 resolved
+25.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1199
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1175 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurasi et al., US Patent Application Publication 2014/0091581A1. Regarding claim 1, Taurasi provides the great major of the claimed invention, including a latch for a closure panel of a vehicle comprising a housing; a ratchet 24 pivotally mounted the housing for moving between an open position and a primary position; a pawl 44 pivotally mounted on the housing, the pawl biased towards the ratchet for holding the ratchet in a secondary position and in the primary position (see [0033]), the secondary position located between the open position and the primary position; and a position sensor 140. Regarding claim 1, Taurasi provide this claimed invention except clear explicit teaching of a sensor for detecting the position of the rachet, including the primary and secondary positions of the rachet, as claimed. However, the examiner servers Official Notice that the use of sensors in such latching arrangement for determining the operational states of various components of the device, including pawl and rachet position, is a well-known concept in the art, for providing means of monitoring the status of the latching or locking device. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made for one having ordinary skill in the art o have modified the device in this way for the purpose of providing means of monitoring the status of the latching or locking device, as well known in the art. Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 21-30 are rejected with the same or similar reasoning of the prior Office Action. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7, as best understood, 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. Applicant's arguments filed 3-17-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner with respect to the sensor is inappropriate for an anticipatory rejection. However, without conceding this point, the examiner has modified the art rejection to a 103-rejection based on common well-known structure in the art. Thus, the rejection is considered proper and maintained. Conclusion This action is non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday. 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. /MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 09, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597306
ELECTRIC LOCK AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595695
ADHESIVE DOOR STOPPER INSTALLATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590472
SECURITY SYSTEM AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579910
VARIABLE PATTERN SHIELD PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR A TAMPER-EVIDENT CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560008
LOCKING APPARATUSES AND A METHOD OF PROVIDING ACCESS CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1175 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