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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocci (US 20130221690 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rocci teaches a safety latch mechanism for a vehicle door handle and locking system, the safety latch mechanism moveable from a first position to a second position, the vehicle door handle and locking system having a handle moveable from a first position to a second position and a biasing member for biasing the safety latch mechanism in the first position when the handle is in the first position, the biasing member having a biasing force, the safety latch mechanism including:
a body (18) having a first end (distal end of 24), a second end (distal end of 22), and a mass having a first portion (24) and a second portion (22), the first portion of the mass of the body being greater than the second portion of the mass of the body;
a first post (top of shaft 20 as viewed in fig. 4) extending from the body at a location closer to the second end of the body than to the first end of the body;
a second post (bottom of shaft 20 as viewed in fig. 4) extending from the body at a location closer to the second end of the body than to the first end of the body;
an opening (annotated fig. 1) extending through the second portion of the mass of the body;
wherein the first portion of the mass of the body is located between the first post, the second post, and the first end of the body, and the second portion of the mass of the body is located between the first post, the second post, and the second end of the body (fig. 3);
wherein the safety latch mechanism remains in the first position upon movement of the handle from the first position to the second position and moving the handle from the first position to the second position permits the vehicle door to be opened (moving handle forward from fig. 1 during normal operation);
wherein applying force to the safety latch mechanism sufficient to overcome the biasing force of the biasing member moves the safety latch mechanism from the first position to the second position and prevents opening the vehicle door (fig. 2).
Rocci does not explicitly teach wherein the safety latch mechanism automatically returns to the first position under the biasing force of the biasing member when the force is no longer applied to the safety latch mechanism.
Kiekert teaches a similar safety latch mechanism utilizing an inertial mass and a return spring arrangement wherein the safety latch mechanism automatically returns to the first position under the biasing force of the biasing member when the force is no longer applied to the safety latch mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rocci with those of Kiekert in order to utilize an automatic return to normal operation. Providing an automatic return to normal operation utilizing the return spring allows the handle to be used immediately following an emergency situation saving time in a possible medical emergency. By not including the retaining structure taught by Rocci and utilizing the automatic return taught by Keikert the handle easily provides an automatic return. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches wherein the first portion of the mass of the body and the second portion of the mass of the body lie substantially in a common plane (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches wherein the first portion of the mass of the body and the second portion of the mass of the body have substantially the same width (please note the term substantially provides ambiguity, and since the two widths are similar the examiner is interpreting them as substantially the same).
Regarding claim 4, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches wherein the first portion of the mass of the body has a width, and the first portion of the mass of the body is solid across its width form the first and second posts to the first end of the body (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches wherein the body is substantially linear from the first end to the second end (please note the instant applicant’s body includes curves and rounded edges which are not considered linear, therefore Rocci’s body is being considered linear in the same manner that the instant applicant’s is.)
Regarding claim 6, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches wherein the opening is located at least partially between the first post and the second post (the opening identified in annotated figure 1 is located towards the center of the body, between the two sides where the posts are located which is being interpreted as at least partially between the first and second post).
Regarding claim 7, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches further including a spring (19) for biasing the safety latch mechanism into a first position (rest position).
Regarding claim 8, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 1, Rocci further teaches wherein the first and second posts are integrally formed with the body (fig. 4 shows one integral part).
Regarding claim 9, Rocci teaches a safety latch mechanism for a vehicle door handle and locking system, the safety latch mechanism moveable from a first position to a second position, the vehicle door handle and locking system having a handle moveable from a first position to a second position and a biasing member for biasing the safety latch mechanism in the first position when the handle is in the first position, the biasing member having a biasing force, the safety latch mechanism including:
a body (18) having a first end (distal end of 24), a second end (distal end of 22), and a mass having a first portion (24) and a second portion (22), the first portion of the mass of the body being greater than the second portion of the mass of the body, the first portion of the mass of the body and the second portion of the mass of the body lying substantially in a common plane (fig. 3);
a first post (top of shaft 20 as viewed in fig. 4) extending from the body at a location closer to the second end of the body than to the first end of the body;
a second post (bottom of shaft 20 as viewed in fig. 4) extending from the body at a location closer to the second end of the body than to the first end of the body; and
wherein the first portion of the mass of the body is located between the first post, the second post, and the first end of the body, and the second portion of the mass of the body is located between the first post, the second post, and the second end of the body (fig. 3);
wherein the safety latch mechanism remains in the first position upon movement of the handle from the first position to the second position and moving the handle from the first position to the second position permits the vehicle door to be opened (moving handle forward from fig. 1 during normal operation);
wherein applying force to the safety latch mechanism sufficient to overcome the biasing force of the biasing member moves the safety latch mechanism from the first position to the second position and prevents opening the vehicle door (fig. 2).
Rocci does not explicitly teach wherein the safety latch mechanism automatically returns to the first position under the biasing force of the biasing member when the force is no longer applied to the safety latch mechanism.
Kiekert teaches a similar safety latch mechanism utilizing an inertial mass and a return spring arrangement wherein the safety latch mechanism automatically returns to the first position under the biasing force of the biasing member when the force is no longer applied to the safety latch mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rocci with those of Kiekert in order to utilize an automatic return to normal operation. Providing an automatic return to normal operation utilizing the return spring allows the handle to be used immediately following an emergency situation saving time in a possible medical emergency. By not including the retaining structure taught by Rocci and utilizing the automatic return taught by Keikert the handle easily provides an automatic return. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 9, Rocci further teaches further including an opening (annotated fig. 1) extending through the second portion of the mass of the body.
Regarding claim 11, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 10, Rocci further teaches wherein the opening is located at least partially between the first post and the second post (the opening identified in annotated figure 1 is located towards the center of the body, between the two sides where the posts are located which is being interpreted as at least partially between the first and second post).
Regarding claim 12, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 9, Rocci further teaches wherein the first portion of the mass of the body and the second portion of the mass of the body have substantially the same width (please note the term substantially provides ambiguity, and since the two widths are similar the examiner is interpreting them as substantially the same).
Regarding claim 13, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 9, Rocci further teaches wherein the first portion of the mass of the body has a width, and the first portion of the mass of the body is solid across its width from the first and second posts to the first end of the body (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 9, Rocci further teaches wherein the body is substantially linear from the first end to the second end (please note the instant applicant’s body includes curves and rounded edges which are not considered linear, therefore Rocci’s body is being considered linear in the same manner that the instant applicant’s is).
Regarding claim 15, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 9, Rocci further teaches further including a spring (19) for biasing the safety latch mechanism into a first position (rest position).
Regarding claim 16, Rocci in view of Kiekert teaches the safety latch mechanism according to Claim 9, Rocci further teaches wherein the first and second posts are integrally formed with the body (fig. 4 shows one integral part).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments pertaining to the newly amended independent claims 1 and 9, the applicant asserts that Rocci does not teach an automatic return to the first position after the safety latch mechanism is actuated. The examiner agrees, and points to the updated rejection above in view of Kiekert which teaches an automatic return to the first position.
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 JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights