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 and 3-21 and the cancellation of claim 2 filed February 24, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 6, the phrase “an axis of movement” should be changed to “an axis of rotation,” and in line 20, the phrase “the axis of movement” should be changed to “the axis of rotation.”
In regards to claim 11, line 5, the phrase “an axis of movement” should be changed to “an axis of rotation,” and in line 8, the phrase “the axis of movement” should be changed to “the axis of rotation.”
In regards to claim 18, line 7, the phrase “an axis of movement for the hood” should be changed to “an axis of rotation for the hood latch.”
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 and 3-21 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, 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 “an axis of movement,” and the claim also recites that the hood latch is rotatable 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 an axis of rotation instead of an axis of movement, so as to coincide with the rotation of the hood latch. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 3, the relationship between the transverse dimensions of claim 3 and the transverse dimensions of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It appears that the transverse dimensions of claim 3 are equivalent to the transverse directions of claim 1, and will be examined as such.
In regards to claim 11, 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 “an axis of movement,” and the claim also recites that the hood latch is rotatable 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 an axis of rotation instead of an axis of movement, so as to coincide with the rotation of the hood latch. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, 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 “an axis of movement,” and the claim also recites that the hood latch is rotatable 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 an axis of rotation instead of an axis of movement, so as to coincide with the rotation of the hood latch. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, line 7, it is unclear how the axis of rotation (see rejection in Paragraph 9 above) is for the hood, when it is understood from the specification and the remaining language of the claim that the axis of rotation is for the hood latch and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 3-10, 12-17, and 19-21, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1, 11, and 18.
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, 6-12, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 100528592 B1) in view of Ford (GB 1414735 A), and further in view of Cho (KR 20030060709 A).
In regards to claim 1, Han discloses a hood latch mechanism for a hood of a vehicle, the hood latch mechanism comprising: a base plate 1; a rivet 2 extending through the base plate; a hood latch 3 receiving the rivet such that the rivet extends therethrough (Figure 2), the hood latch being rotatable about an axis of rotation (see Figure 2, Version 3 below) between a first position (Figure 3), in which the hood latch engages the hood to inhibit opening of the hood, and a second position (Figure 4), in which the hood latch is disengaged from the hood to allow opening of the hood; wherein the hood latch includes: a retainer configured as an indentation (see Figure 1 below, with the indentation receiving a second end of biasing member 4); a washer (see Figure 2, Version 1 below) receiving the rivet such that the rivet extends therethrough, wherein the washer includes a pair of flanges each having an annular configuration (see Figure 2, Version 1 below) and defining transverse cross-sectional dimensions along a reference axis extending in generally orthogonal relation to the axis of rotation (see Figure 2, Version 3 below), wherein one of the flanges is positioned between the base plate and the hood latch to reduce friction therebetween and support movement of the hood latch between the first position and the second position (Figure 2); and a biasing member 4 receiving the rivet such that the rivet extends therethrough, the biasing member biasing the hood latch towards the first position (Figures 2 and 3), wherein the biasing member includes: a first end (see Figure 1 below) extending to the base plate; and a second end (see Figure 1 below) extending to the hood latch such that the second end of the biasing member is received by the indentation (Figure 1).
Han fails to disclose that the transverse cross-sectional dimensions are approximately equal. Ford teaches a washer 22 that includes a pair of flanges (see Figure 4 below) that have approximately equal transverse cross-sectional dimensions (see Figure 4 below). 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 transverse cross-sectional dimensions be approximately equal, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance ease of manufacture and assembly of the washer to the hood latch and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, wherein a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Han fails to disclose that the hood latch includes a first anti-rotation feature, and that the washer includes a second anti-rotation feature configured for engagement with the first anti-rotation feature to fixedly connect the hood latch and the washer and thereby inhibit relative rotation between the hood latch and the washer such that the hood latch and washer rotate in unison. Cho teaches a hood latch 12 including a first anti-rotation feature 112 and a washer 14 that includes a second anti-rotation feature 113 configured for engagement with the first anti-rotation feature to fixedly connect the hood latch and the washer and thereby inhibit relative rotation between the hood latch and the washer such that the hood latch and the washer rotate in unison (Paragraphs 38-40 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 first and second anti-rotation features on the hood latch and the washer of Han, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the hood latch and washer rotate together, ensuring that no metal to metal contact occurs between the hood latch and the rivet and ensuring that the rotation of the hood latch is smooth.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
421
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
508
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
280
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Han discloses that the pair of flanges define a channel (see Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) therebetween receiving the hood latch and the flanges include generally equivalent transverse dimensions (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 6, Han discloses that the base plate includes a first aperture having a first transverse cross-sectional dimension (see Figure 2, Version 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
646
832
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Han discloses that the hood latch includes a second aperture having a second transverse cross-sectional dimension (see Figure 2, Version 2 above) larger than the first transverse cross-sectional dimension (see Figure 2, Version 2 above).
In regards to claim 8, Han discloses that the washer is positioned within the second aperture (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 9, Han discloses that the rivet includes: a stem (see Figure 2, Version 2 above) defining a third transverse cross-sectional dimension less than the first transverse cross-sectional dimension such that the stem is received by the first aperture (apparent from Figure 2 that the stem has a third transverse cross-sectional dimension less than the first transverse cross-sectional dimension, such that the stem is received by and located in the first aperture); a post (see Figure 2, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action) extending from the stem and defining a fourth transverse cross-sectional dimension larger than the third transverse cross-sectional dimension but less than the second transverse cross-sectional dimension such that the stem is received by the second aperture (apparent from Figure 2 that the post has a fourth transverse cross-sectional dimension less than the second transverse cross-sectional dimension, such that the post is received by and located in the second aperture); and a trunk (see Figure 2, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action) extending from stem and defining fifth transverse cross-sectional dimension larger than the fourth transverse cross-sectional dimension (see Figure 2, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 10, Han discloses that the rivet further includes: a shoulder (see Figure 2, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action) extending radially outward from the trunk so as to render the biasing member captive to the hood latch mechanism.
In regards to claim 11, Han discloses a hood latch mechanism for a hood of a vehicle, the hood latch mechanism comprising: a base plate 1; a hood latch 3 connected to the base plate, wherein the hood latch is rotatable about an axis of rotation (see Figure 2, Version 3 on Page 9 of the current Office Action); and an anti-friction member (washer shown in Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) fixedly including a pair of flanges each having an annular configuration (see Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) and defining transverse cross-sectional dimensions along a reference axis extending in generally orthogonal relation to the axis of rotation see Figure 2, Version 3 on Page 9 of the current Office Action), wherein one of the flanges is positioned between the base plate and the hood latch in order to support movement of the hood latch in relation to the base plate (Figures 2-4).
Han fails to disclose that the transverse cross-sectional dimensions are approximately equal. Ford teaches a washer 22 that includes a pair of flanges (see Figure 4 on Page 9 of the current Office Action) that have approximately equal transverse cross-sectional dimensions (see Figure 4 on Page 9 of the current Office Action). 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 transverse cross-sectional dimensions be approximately equal, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance ease of manufacture and assembly of the washer to the hood latch and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, wherein a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Han fails to disclose that the hood latch includes a first anti-rotation feature and that the anti-friction member includes a second anti-rotation feature configured for engagement with the first anti-rotation feature to fixedly connect the hood latch and the anti-friction member and thereby inhibit relative rotation between the hood latch and the anti-friction member such that the hood latch and the anti-friction member rotate in unison. Cho teaches a hood latch 12 including a first anti-rotation feature 112 and a washer 14 that includes a second anti-rotation feature 113 configured for engagement with the first anti-rotation feature to fixedly connect the hood latch and the washer and thereby inhibit relative rotation between the hood latch and the washer such that the hood latch and the washer rotate in unison (Paragraphs 38-40 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 first and second anti-rotation features on the hood latch and the washer of Han, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the hood latch and washer rotate together, ensuring that no metal to metal contact occurs between the hood latch and the rivet and ensuring that the rotation of the hood latch is smooth.
In regards to claim 12, Han discloses that the pair of flanges define a channel (see Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) therebetween receiving the hood latch such that the hood latch extends into the anti-friction member (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 15, Han discloses a rivet 2 extending through the anti-friction member and the hood latch and into the base plate such that the rivet indirectly connects the hood latch to the base plate (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 16, Han discloses a biasing member 4 positioned concentrically in relation to the rivet (Figures 1 and 2), wherein the biasing member biases the hood latch toward a normal position (Figure 3) in which the hood latch inhibits the hood from opening.
In regards to claim 17, Han discloses that the biasing member is configured as a torsion spring (Figures 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 18, Han discloses a method of assembling a hood latch mechanism for a hood of a vehicle, the method comprising: connecting a washer (see Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) to a hood latch 3 configured for engagement with the hood, wherein the washer includes a pair of flanges each having an annular configuration (see Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) and defining transverse cross-sectional dimensions along a reference axis extending in generally orthogonal relation to an axis of rotation for the hood latch (see Figure 2, Version 3 on Page 9 of the current Office Action); inserting a rivet 2 through a biasing member 4 (Figure 2); inserting the rivet through the washer and through the hood latch such that the hood latch is rotatable about the rivet between a locked position (Figure 3), in which the hood latch engages the hood to inhibit opening of the hood, and an unlocked position (Figure 4), in which the hood latch is disengaged from the hood to allow opening of the hood; and inserting the rivet through a base plate 1 such that the washer is positioned between the base plate and the hood latch in order to reduce friction therebetween and support rotation of the hood latch between the locked position and the unlocked position (Figure 2).
Han fails to disclose that the transverse cross-sectional dimensions are approximately equal. Ford teaches a washer 22 that includes a pair of flanges (see Figure 4 on Page 9 of the current Office Action) that have approximately equal transverse cross-sectional dimensions (see Figure 4 on Page 9 of the current Office Action). 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 transverse cross-sectional dimensions be approximately equal, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance ease of manufacture and assembly of the washer to the hood latch and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, wherein a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Han fails to disclose that the washer is fixedly connected to the hood latch via engagement of a first anti-rotation feature on the hood latch with a second anti-rotation feature on the washer so as to inhibit relative rotation between the washer and the hood latch such that the washer and the hood latch rotate in unison. Cho teaches a hood latch 12 including a first anti-rotation feature 112 and a washer 14 that includes a second anti-rotation feature 113 configured for engagement with the first anti-rotation feature to fixedly connect the hood latch and the washer and thereby inhibit relative rotation between the hood latch and the washer such that the hood latch and the washer rotate in unison (Paragraphs 38-40 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 first and second anti-rotation features on the hood latch and the washer of Han, with reasonable expectation of success, such that the hood latch and washer rotate together, ensuring that no metal to metal contact occurs between the hood latch and the rivet and ensuring that the rotation of the hood latch is smooth.
In regards to claim 19, Han discloses that connecting the washer to the hood latch includes fixedly connecting the washer to the hood latch (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 20, Han discloses that fixedly connecting the washer to the hood latch includes nesting the hood latch within a channel (see Figure 2, Version 1 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) defined between the pair of flanges.
In regards to claim 21, Cho teaches that the first anti-rotation feature and the second anti-rotation feature include a notch 112 and a detent 113.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 100528592 B1) in view of Ford (GB 1414735 A), and further in view of Cho (KR 20030060709 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-12, and 15-21 above, and further in view of Joung (KR 100694236 B1). Han discloses the hood latch mechanism as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to specify that the washer is non-metallic in construction and includes at least one plastic material. Joung teaches a washer 40 that is non-metallic in construction and includes at least one plastic material (Paragraph 8, lines 17 and 18 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 washer of Han include at least one plastic material or is non-metallic in construction so as to enhance the ability of the washer to reduce friction between the hood latch and the base plate.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 100528592 B1) in view of Ford (GB 1414735 A), and further in view of Cho (KR 20030060709 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-12, and 15-21 above, and further in view of Torres (US-3610654). Han discloses the hood latch mechanism as applied to claim 11 above, with the anti-friction member defining an aperture (aperture or opening in which the post of the rivet is located, see Figure 2, Version 2 on Page 10 of the current Office Action), but fails to disclose that the anti-friction member includes at least one expansion joint to allow for thermal loading during movement of the hood latch, with the at least one expansion joint extending radially outward from the aperture. Torres teaches an elastic/elastomeric member or seal 101 that includes an aperture (middle aperture or opening of the O-ring shape of the member, Figure 5 and Col. 5, lines 11-26) having at least one expansion joint 111 to allow for thermal loading during operation of a device (Col. 5, lines 53-56), with the at least one expansion joint extending radially outward from the aperture (Figure 5). 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 expansion joint in the anti-friction member of Han, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate thermal expansion of the anti-friction member during operation of the device when the anti-friction member is subjected to heat.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth in the current Office Action with Han (KR 100528592 B1) in view of Ford (GB 1414735 A), and further in view of Cho (KR 20030060709 A) based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
35. 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.
36. 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 May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights