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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 2/12/26.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
New claim 21 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
163
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant it is unclear what is defined by the term “along a fixing-to-fixing axis span”.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown above, it is unclear if the term requires that all those portions are spanning on the axis, as shown in view (A), or just that the portions are located along the axis span, as shown in view (B).
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction, explanation or affirmation 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040053826 to Lim as modified by DE 10201600674 to Gokturk.
PNG
media_image3.png
543
1429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 14-19, Lim discloses a striker apparatus for a latching system of a vehicle. The latching system is configured to secure a tailgate of the vehicle (10, fig 3).
The striker apparatus comprises a displaceable portion (at 30) to which a striker (40, 42 and 44) is connected; a bridge adjacent to the displaceable portion and a rigid portion adjacent to the bridge and opposite the displaceable portion.
Lim fails to disclose that the striker apparatus comprises a deformable slotted portion on one lateral side of the displaceable portion, that comprises a slot demarcating the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
Lim discloses that the striker apparatus is configured to deform to enable the displaceable portion to displace relative to the rigid portion while remaining connected to the rigid portion, as a result of one of the striker apparatus or a latch apparatus of the latching system being translated in a vehicle-inboard direction relative to the other of the striker apparatus or the latch apparatus while the striker is latched to the latch apparatus (depending on the crash forces and other factors of a collision).
PNG
media_image4.png
511
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gokturk teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a striker apparatus defining a deformable slotted portion (by 7 and 8) that comprises a slot, defined by a bridge. that demarcates the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
325
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus described by Lim with a slotted portion, as taught by Gokturk, in order to aid in allowing the apparatus to deform during a collision in a balanced and even way.
As to claim 2, Lim illustrates that the displaceable slotted portion and the rigid portion are adjacent portions of a layer of material.
As to claim 3, Lim illustrates that the displaceable slotted portion is centrally located between the rigid portion and another rigid portion.
As to claim 5, Gokturk illustrates that a thickness of the deformable slotted portion is substantially the same as a thickness of the displaceable slotted portion and of the rigid portion.
As to claim 6, Gokturk illustrates that the deformable slotted portion comprises material bridging the slot, the material configuring how far the displaceable portion can displace while remaining connected to the rigid portion.
As to claim 7, in combination, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the deformable slotted portion is configured to enable the displacement to comprise rotation out-of-plane relative to the rigid portion (Lim illustrates that the displaceable portion is at an angle relative to the rigid portion).
As to claim 8, in combination, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the deformable slotted portion is configured so that the rotation is at least 12 degrees without fracture of the striker apparatus.
As to claim 9, in combination, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the deformable slotted portion is configured as a hinge formation to enable the rotation.
As to claim 10, in combination, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the deformable slotted portion is configured to enable the displacement to comprise rotation out-of-plane relative to the rigid portion, the deformable slotted portion is configured as a hinge formation to enable the rotation, and the hinge formation bridges the slot, demarcating the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
As to claim 11, in combination, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the striker apparatus is configured to be secured to the tailgate, wherein the hinge formation is to a vehicle-outboard side of the striker apparatus.
As to claim 12, Lim illustrates that the rigid portion comprises a fixing portion configured to enable the striker apparatus to be secured to the vehicle.
As to claim 13, Lim illustrates that the fixing portion comprises a fixing aperture.
As to claim 20, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, is capable of providing the width of the bridge greater than the length of the slot.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 21, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, teaches that the displaceable portion, the bridge and the rigid portion are disposed along a “fixing-to-fixing axis span”, i.e. that the portions are spanning with respect to the axis, and wherein the bridge is the narrowest point along the fixing-to-fixing axis and positioned at a distance along the fixing-to-fixing axis from a range between approximately 15% and approximately 40% of the total span of the fixing-to-fixing axis.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 11,199,030 to Bejune et al (Bejune) in view of DE 10201600674 to Gokturk.
PNG
media_image6.png
724
1489
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 14-19, Bejune discloses a striker apparatus (242) for a latching system of a vehicle. The latching system is configured to secure a tailgate of the vehicle.
The striker apparatus comprises a displaceable portion to which a striker (280) is connected; and a rigid portion. The striker assembly can be positioned on either a lower or upper tailgate, depending on where the latching system is located.
Bejune apparatus is capable to deform to enable the displaceable portion to displace relative to the rigid portion while remaining connected to the rigid portion, as a result of one of the striker apparatus or a latch apparatus of the latching system being translated in a vehicle-inboard direction relative to the other of the striker apparatus or the latch apparatus while the striker is latched to the latch apparatus (depending on the crash forces and other factors of a collision).
Bejune fails to disclose that the striker apparatus comprises a deformable slotted portion on one lateral side of the displaceable portion, that comprises a slot defined by a bridge adjacent to the rigid portion and the displaceable portion, demarcating the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
Bejune illustrates that the striker apparatus defines a bridge located between the rigid portion and the displaceable portion.
PNG
media_image7.png
467
820
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Gokturk teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a striker apparatus defining a deformable slotted portion (by 7 and 8), defined by a bridge, that comprises a slot that demarcates the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
PNG
media_image8.png
481
1086
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus described by Paskonis with a slotted portion, as taught by Gokturk, in order to aid in allowing the apparatus to deform during a collision in a balanced and even way.
As to claim 2, Bejune illustrates that the displaceable portion and the rigid portion are adjacent portions of a layer of material.
As to claim 3, Bejune illustrates that the displaceable portion is centrally located between the rigid portion and another rigid portion.
As to claim 5, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that a thickness of the deformable slotted portion is substantially the same as a thickness of the displaceable slotted portion and of the rigid portion.
As to claim 6, Bejune illustrates that the deformable slotted portion comprises material bridging the slot, the material configuring how far the displaceable portion can displace while remaining connected to the rigid portion.
As to claim 7, in combination, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, is configured to provide the deformable slotted portion to enable the displacement to comprise rotation out-of-plane relative to the rigid portion (depending on the crash forces and other factors of a collision).
As to claim 8, in combination, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, is configured to provide the deformable slotted portion configured so that the rotation is at least 12 degrees without fracture of the striker apparatus.
As to claim 9, in combination, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, is configured to provide the deformable slotted portion as a hinge formation to enable the rotation.
As to claim 10, in combination, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the deformable slotted portion is configured to enable the displacement to comprise rotation out-of-plane relative to the rigid portion, the deformable slotted portion is configured as a hinge formation to enable the rotation, and the hinge formation bridges the slot, demarcating the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
As to claim 11, in combination, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, illustrates that the striker apparatus is configured to be secured to the tailgate, wherein the hinge formation is to a vehicle-outboard side of the striker apparatus.
As to claim 12, Bejune illustrates that the rigid portion comprises a fixing portion configured to enable the striker apparatus to be secured to the vehicle.
As to claim 13, Bejune illustrates that the fixing portion comprises a fixing aperture.
As to claim 20, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, is capable of providing the width of the bridge greater than the length of the slot.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 21, Bejune, as modified by Gokturk, teaches that the displaceable portion, the bridge and the rigid portion are disposed along a “fixing-to-fixing axis span”, i.e. that the portions are spanning along or on the axis, and wherein the bridge is the narrowest point along the fixing-to-fixing axis and positioned at a distance along the fixing-to-fixing axis from a range between approximately 15% and approximately 40% of the total span of the fixing-to-fixing axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that in view of the illustration presented by the examiner, Lim, as modified by Gokturk, fails to disclose that the slot is directly adjacent to the displaceable portion and that it is illustrated that the slot cut the displaceable portion.
First, that illustration is just a formality to demonstrate the combination, is not at scale. It is just to show how is combined the limitations.
As clearly shown by Lim, there is a space after the end of the displaceable portion and the rigid portion. That space is the “bridge” portion. That space is directly adjacent to the displaceable portion and to the rigid portion. Gokturk teaches a slot defined by a bridge portion.
As to new claim 20, a rejection has been made on the record.
As to new claim 21, a new 112 2nd paragraph rejection has been made on the record since it is unclear what is referring to the term “fixing-to-fixing axis span”.
In view of the new claim and the different interpretations, a new rejection has been placed on the record in view of Bejune, as modified by Gokturk.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Since the arguments are not persuasive and the examiner will not change the position shown above, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can file an appeal brief to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights