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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7-8, filed 21 Nov. 2025, with respect to the objections to the specification and the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, filed 21 Nov. 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 21 Nov. 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Mitchell, Applicant argues that rod 235 of Mitchell does not have the features of the “first rod” recited in claim 1. However, the rejection under § 102(a)(1) does not rely on the rod 235 of Mitchell to teach the claimed first rod. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Mitchell discloses a pin 212 that is structured as a rod; Applicant does not provide a reason that the pin 212 of Mitchell cannot correspond to the claimed first rod. As shown below, the pin 212 disclosed by Mitchell corresponds to the claimed first rod.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Takamura, Applicant argues that rod 23 of Takamura does not have the features of the first rod recited by claim 1. However, the rejection under § 102(a)(1) does not rely on the rod 23 of Takamura to teach the claimed first rod. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Takamura discloses a pin 31 that is structured as a rod; Applicant does not provide a reason that the pin 31 of Takamura cannot correspond to the claimed first rod. As shown below, the pin 31 disclosed Takamura corresponds to the claimed first rod.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Taurasi, Applicant argues Taurasi does not teach the first rod is connected to the second lever, the first rod is engaged with the first lever. However, Taurasi discloses the first rod (38) is connected to the second lever (32) ([0068] “a release lever link 38 bridging and operably connecting the actuator lever 32 to the release lever 36”).
Applicant also argues the second rod of Taurasi is not connected to the first rod because the second rod is connected to a third lever pushing the first rod. However, Taurasi discloses the second rod (84) is connected to the first rod (38) ([0074] “actuation of the backup actuation lever 82 causes the backup link arm 84 and backup release lever 80 to pivot the release lever link 38”). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the second rod being directly connected with the first rod) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the prior art does not recognize the advantageous results achieved by embodiments of the present invention, specifically that the present invention provides “a reliable and direct transfer of motion, while also allowing for a manual override that cleanly separates the first and second levers” (p. 12-13). Applicant also argues the claimed arrangement “provides improved reliability and safety in the event of actuator failure” (p. 13). As noted by Applicant, Mitchell, Takamura, and Taurasi each disclose latch assemblies with safety override features (p. 12). The asserted advantages are not sufficient to overcome the rejection(s) of record, because Applicant does not show how the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations but does not have the same resulting advantages. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not suggest any motivation to modify Mitchell, Takamura, or Taurasi to achieve the specific configuration of claim 1. However, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, no question of obviousness is present and every aspect of the claimed invention is taught by the cited reference, either explicitly or impliedly. MPEP 2120(III). The claim is anticipated by each reference and the references are not modified in order to meet the claims. Therefore, Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claims 1 and 4-15 remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell et al., US 2010/0117379 A1.
Claim 1: Mitchell discloses an electric latch for an opening panel of a motor vehicle, said latch comprising:
a bolt (30) pivoting around a first axis (42) and intended to cooperate with a striker (35),
a release device (32, 60, 230 form a release device) movable between an initial position and a release position, said release device being configured to block a pivoting of the bolt from a closed position in order to avoid the release of the striker ([0091]),
an electric actuating device (16d, [0103]) configured to move the release device from its initial position to its release position,
wherein said electric actuating device comprises:
a first lever (211) pivoting around a second axis (203) between a first position and a second position (Figs. 15a-b), said first lever comprising a first contact zone with the release device (Fig. 15b; the first lever contacts the tab 228a), a pivoting of the first lever from its first position to its second position pushing the release device from its initial position to its release position ([0103]),
a second lever (202) pivoting between a first position and a second position around the same second axis as the first lever (Fig. 12, Fig. 14), said second lever being moved by an actuator (150) between its first position and second position (Figs. 15a-b),
a first rod (212) connected to the second lever and being moved angularly around the second axis by the second lever (Figs. 15a-b), said first rod being also engaged with the first lever in order to transfer the pivoting of the second lever from its first position to its second position to the first lever in order to pivot said first lever from its first position to its second position ([0101]),
a second rod (235) comprising a handling means (120d) configured to be manipulated from the outside of the electric latch ([0104]), said second rod being also connected to the first rod in order to disengage the first rod from the first lever when manipulated ([0105]).
Claim 6: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 1, wherein it comprises an elastic means (238) connected to the first lever in order to pivot back said first lever from its second position to its first position when the first rod is disengaged ([0105]).
Claim 10: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 1, wherein the second axis of the first and second levers is perpendicular to the first axis of the bolt (shown in Fig. 8A, Fig. 12).
Claim 12: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 1, wherein the release device comprises:
a pawl (32) pivoting around a third axis (52) between a releasing position and a blocking position ([0091]), said pawl comprising a second stopper intended to be engaged with the bolt in the blocking position of the pawl in order to prevent a pivoting of said bolt, in its releasing position, the pawl is disengaged from the bolt ([0092]), and
a third lever (230) pivoting around a fourth axis between a first position to a second position ([0103]), said third lever also comprising a third stopper (228a) in contact with the first contact zone of the first lever ([0103]), the pivoting of the first lever from its first position to its second position causing the pivoting of the third lever from its first position to its second position ([0103]),
the pawl and the third lever are connected so that a pivoting of the third lever from its first position to its second position causes a pivoting of the pawl from its blocking position to its releasing position ([0103]; the pawl and third lever are connected via the secondary pawl 60).
Claim 13: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 12, further comprising a first elastic means (58) connected to the pawl in order to pivot back said pawl to its blocking position ([0092]).
Claim 14: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 12, further comprising a second elastic means (233) connected to the third lever in order to pivot back said third lever to its first position when the first lever is in its first position ([0103-04]).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takamura, US 6,499,776 B2.
Claim 1: Takamura discloses an electric latch for an opening panel of a motor vehicle, said latch comprising:
a bolt (6) pivoting around a first axis (8) and intended to cooperate with a striker (Fig. 9),
a release device (7, 25 form a release device) movable between an initial position and a release position, said release device being configured to block a pivoting of bolt from a closed position in order to avoid the release of the striker (col. 4 ln. 9-17),
an electric actuating device (2) configured to move the release device from its initial position to its release position (col. 3 ln. 58-63),
wherein said electric actuating device comprises:
a first lever (21) pivoting around a second axis (19) between a first position and a second position (col. 5 ln. 39-42), said first lever comprising a first contact zone (29a) with the release device (col. 6 ln. 20-29), a pivoting of the first lever from its first position to its second position pushing the release device from its initial position to its release position (col. 6 ln. 40-45),
a second lever (20) pivoting between a first position and a second position around the same second axis as the first lever (col. 4 ln. 37-46), said second lever being moved by an actuator (3) between its first position and second position (col. 5 ln. 14-29),
a first rod (31) connected to the second lever and being moved angularly around the second axis by the second lever (shown in Figs. 4-5), said first rod being also engaged with the first lever in order to transfer the pivoting of the second lever from its first position to its second position to the first lever in order to pivot said first lever from its first position to its second position (col. 5 ln. 56-62),
a second rod (23) comprising a handling means configured to be manipulated from the outside of the electric latch (col. 6 ln. 16-19), said second rod being also connected to the first rod in order to disengage the first rod from the first lever when manipulated (col. 6 ln. 11-16).
Claim 4: Takamura discloses the electric latch according to claim 1, wherein the first rod and the second rod comprise a curved pivot-sliding link (32) in order to permit the angular movement of the first rod with the second lever when said second lever pivots around the second axis (col. 7 ln. 13-21; shown by Figs. 6-7).
Claims 1, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taurasi et al., US 2019/0161996A1.
Claim 1: Taurasi discloses an electric latch for an opening panel of a motor vehicle, said latch comprising:
a bolt (44) pivoting around a first axis (54) and intended to cooperate with a striker ([0069]),
a release device (40, 42 form a release device) movable between an initial position and a release position, said release device being configured to block the pivoting of the bolt in a closed position in order to avoid the release of the striker ([0068]),
an electric actuating device (18) configured to move the release device from its initial position to its release position ([0068]),
wherein said electric actuating device comprises:
a first lever (36) pivoting around a second axis between a first position and a second position ([0074]; Figs. 5-6), said first lever comprising a first contact zone with the release device (Fig. 5), a pivoting of the first lever from its first position to its second position pushing the release device from its initial position to its release position (claim 1),
a second lever (32) pivoting between a first position and a second position around the same second axis as the first lever (Figs. 5-6), said second lever being moved by an actuator (86) between its first position and second position ([0073]),
a first rod (38) connected to the second lever ([0074] “link 38 is configured to operably communicate the actuator lever 32 with the release lever 36” so the first rod 38 is connected to the second lever 32; [0068]) and being moved angularly around the second axis by the second lever (shown in Figs. 5-6), said first rod being also engaged with the first lever in order to transfer the pivoting of the second lever from its first position to its second position to the first lever in order to pivot said first lever from its first position to its second position ([0074] “link 38 is configured to operably communicate the actuator lever 32 with the release lever 36” so the first rod 38 is engaged with the first lever 36; [0068]),
a second rod (82, 84 form a second rod) comprising a handling means (101) configured to be manipulated from the outside of the electric latch ([0076], Fig. 11B), said second rod being also connected to the first rod in order to disengage the first rod from the first lever when manipulated ([0074] “backup link arm 84 and backup release lever 80 to pivot the release lever link 38” so second rod 84 is connected to the first rod 38).
Claim 5: Taurasi discloses the electric latch according to claim 1, wherein the second rod comprises a pivot link at a first extremity (Fig. 2), and wherein the handling means is placed between said pivot link and the connection of the second rod with the first rod (shown in Fig. 2A annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
855
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Taurasi discloses the electric latch according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a housing (50), the handling means being placed on a face of the housing and the handling means is configured to be accessible from outside of the opening panel (Figs. 11-11B).
Claim 8: Taurasi discloses the electric latch according to claim 7, wherein the housing comprises a front face intended to be placed in front of the striker (Fig. 2B depicts a front face), said front face comprising a guide slot (52) in which the striker can slide and be guided to the bolt ([0069]), and wherein the handling means is placed on said front face ([0076]).
Claim 9: Taurasi discloses the electric latch according to claim 7, wherein the handling means is a pushing zone ([0076] (“key 100 may push backup actuation lever”)) and the housing comprises an opening placed in front of said pushing zone ([0076] (“Backup actuation lever 82 is accessible through an access port or aperture in the housing face 50b”)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomaszewski et al., US 8,141,916 B2.
Claim 11: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 1. Although Mitchell discloses the second lever comprises a toothed extremity cooperating with a spur actuated by the actuator (Fig. 12), Mitchell is silent to the toothed extremity cooperating with a worm screw actuated by the actuator.
However, a worm screw actuated by an actuator that cooperates with a toothed extremity is well known in the art. Tomaszewski teaches a lever comprising at least one toothed extremity (202) cooperating with a worm screw (200) actuated by an actuator (196). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Mitchell to alternatively utilize a worm screw actuated by an actuator such that the toothed extremity cooperates with the worm screw, as taught by Tomaszewski. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique to the device disclosed by Mitchell and the results would have been predictable, namely an electric latch comprising a second lever comprising at least one toothed extremity cooperating with a worm screw actuated by the actuator.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lai et al., CN 114687621 A (refer to attached machine translation).
Claim 15: Mitchell discloses the electric latch according to claim 12, but is silent to wherein the third lever comprises an extremity intended to be linked to a manual actuating system in order to pivot said third lever from its first position to its second position.
Lai teaches an electric latch comprising a lever (16), that causes a pivoting of a pawl (17), comprising an extremity intended to be linked to a manual actuating system (Fig. 4 depicts an extremity linked to a manual actuating system including pull member 31) in order to pivot said lever from its first position to its second position ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third lever disclosed by Mitchell to further include an extremity intended to be linked to a manual actuating system in order to pivot the third lever from its first position to its second position, as taught by Lai, in order to provide a manual override from the interior of the vehicle if the electric actuating device fails so the passenger can leave the vehicle (Lai [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 2-3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675