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 RCE filed on 10/22/25.
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 5-19 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_image1.png
277
490
media_image1.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 and a rigid portion adjacent 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_image2.png
423
760
media_image2.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 that demarcates the displaceable portion from the rigid portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
325
644
media_image3.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.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing objection and 112 2nd paragraph rejection, the current amendment to the language, changing “connected” to -adjacent- overcomes the previous issues.
With respect to the prior art rejection under 102a1 in view of Lim, the current amendment overcomes the rejection.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Ishii, as modified by Burciaga, the current amendment overcomes the previous rejection.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Lim, as modified by Gokturk, the arguments are still not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
The current amendment is adding the limitations of previous claim 4 into claim 1. As previously mentioned in the last action, Lim failed to disclose that the deformable portion is a slot. Gokturk teaches that is well known in the art to provide a deformable slotted portion configured to aid during a collision.
Therefore, since no argument is persuasive and the examiner will be maintaining this position, the rejection to the claims is maintained.
Conclusion
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
November 7, 2025