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 3-14 and the cancellation of claim 2 filed December 2, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “further comprising a plunger that operates on the release lever, wherein during the electromotive actuation of the release lever, operation of the linear drive moves the plunger to actuate the release lever, and during the manual actuation of the release lever, operation of the Bowden cable moves the release lever.” 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.
Claim 12 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.
In regards to claim 12, it is unclear how the operation of the Bowden cable moves the plunger of the linear drive, when it is understood from the specification that the release lever is separately actuated by the plunger of the linear drive and the Bowden cable, and therefore, the Bowden cable moves the release lever and not the plunger and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johann et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0226247 A1) in view of Distefano et al. (US-10890018 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Johann et al. discloses a hood lock for a motor vehicle, the door lock comprising: a locking mechanism with a rotary latch 40 and a pawl 56, a lock holder 22 cooperating with the locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism is unlocked by a first actuation (Figures 32A and 32B) and a second actuation (Figures 33A and 33B) of the pawl, the locking mechanism is transferred from a main latch position (Figure 30A) into a support position (Figure 32A) after the first actuation of the pawl, and the locking mechanism is transferred into a release position (Figure 33A) after the second actuation of the pawl, and a closure drive (Figure 29) and at least one switch (sensors 39), wherein the locking mechanism is transferred from the support position into the main latch position by operation of the closure drive (Figures 36-37), and wherein at least one position of the rotary latch or the pawl is detectable by the at least one switch (Paragraphs 67, 102, and 110), and wherein the pawl is both manually and electromotively actuatable, so as to allow the locking mechanism to be manually and electrically unlocked (manually actuatable by release handle 14 and connecting cable 18 and electromotively actuatable as shown in Figures 31A-33B, with the electromotive actuator operating on a lever arm 52 of the pawl), wherein the pawl is manually actuatable for the first actuation and the second actuation to manually unlock the locking mechanism without requiring electromotive actuation (Paragraphs 66 and 68). Johann et al. fails to disclose a release lever that acts directly on the pawl. Distefano et al. teaches a release lever 100 that acts directly on a pawl 114 to actuate the pawl between various positions (portion of release lever acts directly on portion of pawl, see Figure 7 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a release lever cooperating with the pawl, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is known to include release levers between actuators and pawls in the latch art and since the use of the release lever between the pawl and the manually and electromotive actuators would yield the predictable result of transferring actuation of the release lever from the manually and electromotive actuators to actuation of the pawl.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Johann et al. in view of Distefano et al. teaches a linear drive (the electromotive actuator considered as a linear drive because portion 348 moves along a line to push on the lever arm 52 of the pawl or the release lever of the combination, Figures 31A, 32A, and 33A of Johann et al.).
In regards to claim 4, Johann et al. discloses that the linear drive comprises a spindle drive (since the linear drive includes spindle 320, the linear drive is considered as a spindle drive).
In regards to claim 5, Johann et al. discloses a reinforcing plate 322, wherein the linear drive is fastened to the reinforcing plate (Figure 29).
In regards to claim 7, Johann et al. in view of Distefano et al. teaches that the reinforcing plate simultaneously serves as a bearing point for the closure drive, the release lever, and the pawl (Figure 29 of Johann et al.).
In regards to claim 8, Johann et al. discloses that the reinforcing plate serves as a bearing point for a lifting device 306 for lifting a hood of the motor vehicle.
In regards to claim 9, Johann et al. in view of Distefano et al. teaches that the release lever abuts the linear drive in a spring-biased manner (the release lever of Distefano et al. is spring-biased by spring 118 so as to be located to cooperate with an actuator 35 and the pawl of Johann et al. is spring-biased by a pawl biasing mechanism or member so as to be located to cooperate with the linear drive in Figures 31A, 32A, and 33A and Paragraph 69, and therefore, combination would cooperate with the linear drive in a spring-biased manner).
In regards to claim 13, Johann et al. discloses that the closure drive includes a closure lever 328 that operates on the locking mechanism to transfer the locking mechanism from the support position to the main latch position (Figures 36 and 37).
In regards to claim 14, Johann et al. discloses that the closure lever has an extension (end with portion 342, Figure 37) that engages with a protruding member 392 on the rotary latch to transfer the locking mechanism from the support position to the main latch position.
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johann et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0226247 A1) in view of Distefano et al. (US-10890018 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Lindholm et al. (US-4961601 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Johann et al. in view of Distefano et al. teaches a cable (cable 18 of Johann et al. and cable 33 of Distefano et al.), wherein the release lever is manually actuatable by operation of the cable. Johann et al. and Distefano et al. fail to specify that the cable is a Bowden cable. Lindholm et al. teaches the use of a Bowden cable 28 for actuating a mechanical component of a latch (Col. 4, lines 61-63). 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 cable is a Bowden cable, with reasonable expectation of success, since Bowden cables are known types of cables used in the latch art.
In regards to claim 10, Johann et al. in view of Lindholm et al. teaches a lock case (frame plate on which locking mechanism is located, Paragraph 67), wherein the lock case operates as a bearing for the Bowden cable (operates as a bearing since the cable is connected to the pawl, Figure 29 of Lindholm et al.).
In regards to claim 11, Johann et al. in view of Distefano et al. teaches a linear drive (the electromotive actuator considered as a linear drive because portion 348 moves along a line to push on the lever arm 52 of the pawl or the release lever of the combination, Figures 31A, 32A, and 33A of Johann et al.) for electromotively actuating the release lever, a reinforcing plate 322, wherein the linear drive is fastened to the reinforcing plate (Figure 29), a cable (cable 18 of Johann et al. and cable 33 of Distefano et al.), wherein the release lever is manually actuatable by operation of the cable, and a lock case (frame plate on which locking mechanism is located, Paragraph 67), wherein the lock case operates as a bearing for the cable (operates as a bearing since the cable is connected to the pawl, Figure 29 of Lindholm et al.), wherein the lock case is fastened to the reinforcing plate (Paragraph 111 of Johann et al.). Johann et al. and Distefano et al. fail to specify that the cable is a Bowden cable. Lindholm et al. teaches the use of a Bowden cable 28 for actuating a mechanical component of a latch (Col. 4, lines 61-63). 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 cable is a Bowden cable, with reasonable expectation of success, since Bowden cables are known types of cables used in the latch art.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Distefano et al. (US-10890018 A1) in view of Strole et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0293059 A1), and further in view of Yokohama-shi (JP 02101976 U1).
In regards to claim 1, Distefano et al. discloses a hood lock for a motor vehicle, the door lock comprising: a locking mechanism with a rotary latch 108 and a pawl 114, a lock holder 22 cooperating with the locking mechanism, a release lever 100 that acts directly on the pawl (see Figure 7 on Page 5 of the current Office Action), wherein the locking mechanism is unlocked by a first actuation (Figures 5-8) and a second actuation (Figures 12-14) of the release lever, the locking mechanism is transferred from a main latch position (Figure 5) into a support position (Figure 9) after the first actuation of the release lever, and the locking mechanism is transferred into a release position (Figure 14) after the second actuation of the release lever, and the release lever is electromotively actuatable, so as to allow the locking mechanism to be electrically unlocked (electromotively actuatable by actuator 35).
Distefano et al. fails to disclose a closure drive and at least one switch, wherein the locking mechanism is transferred from the support position into the main latch position by operation of the closure drive, and wherein at least one position of the rotary latch or the pawl is detectable by the at least one switch. Strole et al. teaches a locking mechanism including a rotary latch 26, with the locking mechanism having a main latch position (Figure 5A) and a support position (Figure 3A), wherein the locking mechanism is transferred from the support position into the main latch position by operation of a closure drive 66, 72, 82 (Figures 4A and 5A), and wherein at least one position of the rotary latch is detectable by at least one switch (Paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a closure device and associated at least one switch, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to cinch the locking mechanism to the main latch position, thereby pulling the panel or hood closed.
Distefano et al. fails to disclose that the release lever is both manually and electromotively actuatable, so as to allow the locking mechanism to be manually and electrically unlocked, wherein the release lever is manually actuatable for the first and second actuation to manually unlock the locking mechanism without requiring electromotive actuation. Yokohama-shi teaches a lever component 24 that is manually actuatable (manually operated by cable 52, Paragraph 28 of the Computer Generated Translation) and is also electromotively actuatable (electromotively actuatable by electromotive actuator 7, Paragraphs 15, 17, and 18 of the Computer Generated Translation), with the manual actuation occurring without requiring electromotive actuation. 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 release lever is both manually and electromotively actuatable, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a user to manually operate the release lever as an alternative to the electromotive actuation.
In regards to claim 3, Distefano et al. in view of Yokohama-shi teaches a linear drive 7 (Figure 4 of Yokohama-shi).
In regards to claim 5, Distefano et al. in view of Yokohama-shi teaches a reinforcing plate (plate 102 of Distefano et al. and plate of Yokohama-shi shown in Figure 3), wherein the linear drive is fastened to the reinforcing plate (Figure 3 of Yokohama-shi).
In regards to claim 7, Distefano et al. in view of Strole et al. teaches that the reinforcing plate simultaneously serves as a bearing point for the closure drive (plate 14 of Strole et al., Figure 5A), the release lever (Figure 3 of Distefano et al.), and the pawl (Figure 3 of Distefano et al.).
In regards to claim 8, Distefano et al. discloses that the reinforcing plate serves as a bearing point for a lifting device 106, 136, 140 (Figure 3) for lifting a hood of the motor vehicle.
In regards to claim 9, Distefano et al. discloses that the release lever abuts the linear drive in a spring-biased manner (the release lever of Distefano et al. is spring-biased by spring 118 so as to be located to abut with cable 33 of an actuator 35).
In regards to claim 13, Strole et al. teaches that the closure drive includes a closure lever 66 that operates on the locking mechanism to transfer the locking mechanism from the support position to the main latch position (Figures 4A and 5A).
In regards to claim 14, Strole et al. teaches that the closure lever has an extension 78 that engages with a protruding member 90 on the rotary latch to transfer the locking mechanism from the support position to the main latch position.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Distefano et al. (US-10890018 A1) in view of Strole et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0293059 A1), and further in view of Yokohama-shi (JP 02101976 U1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Zambelli Technik (DE 20202000157 U1). Yokohama-shi does not specify that the linear drive comprises a spindle drive. Zambelli Technik teaches that a linear drive can be a spindle drive (Paragraph 32 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify that the linear drive is a spindle drive, with reasonable expectation of success, since spindle drives are known types of linear drives.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Distefano et al. (US-10890018 A1) in view of Strole et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0293059 A1), and further in view of Yokohama-shi (JP 02101976 U1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Lindholm et al. (US-4961601 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Distefano et al. discloses a cable 33, with the release lever being manually actuatable by operation of the cable, as taught by Yokohama-shi. Distefano et al. fails to specify that the cable is a Bowden cable. Lindholm et al. teaches the use of a Bowden cable 28 for actuating a mechanical component of a latch (Col. 4, lines 61-63). 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 cable is a Bowden cable, with reasonable expectation of success, since Bowden cables are known types of cables used in the latch art.
In regards to claim 10, Distefano et al. in view of Lindholm et al. teaches a lock case 102 (Distefano et al.), wherein the lock case operates as a bearing for the Bowden cable (Figure 4 of Distefano et al.).
In regards to claim 11, Distefano et al. in view of Yokohama-shi teaches a linear drive 7 (Yokohama-shi) for electromotively actuating the release lever, a reinforcing plate 104 (Distefano et al.), wherein the linear drive is fastened to the reinforcing plate (Figure 3 of Yokohama-shi), a cable 33, wherein the release lever is manually actuatable by operation of the cable (as taught by Yokohama-shi), and a lock case 103 (Distefano et al.), wherein the lock case operates as a bearing for the cable (Figure 4 of Distefano et al.), wherein the lock case is fastened to the reinforcing plate (Figure 4). Distefano et al. fails to specify that the cable is a Bowden cable. Lindholm et al. teaches the use of a Bowden cable 28 for actuating a mechanical component of a latch (Col. 4, lines 61-63). 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 cable is a Bowden cable, with reasonable expectation of success, since Bowden cables are known types of cables used in the latch art.
In regards to claim 12, Distefano et al. in view of Yokohama-shi teaches a plunger 71 (Yokohama-shi) that operates on the release lever, wherein during the electromotive actuation of the release lever, operation of the linear drive moves the plunger to actuate the release lever (Paragraphs 15, 17, and 18 of the Computer Generated Translation of Yokohama-shi), and during the manual actuation of the release lever, operation of the Bowden cable actuates the release lever (manually operated by cable 52, Paragraph 28 of the Computer Generated Translation of Yokohama-shi).
Response to Arguments
Based on applicant’s amendments to the claims, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims, the drawing objections and specification objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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 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 March 18, 2026