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 supplemental amendment filed on 2/12/26 and original amendment filed on 1/6/26.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 21-25 are 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.
Claim 1 now requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
145
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, it is impossible for a mechanical device to generate no impact noise. If there is a mechanical connection, there is a certain level of noise.
Furthermore, the specification is limited on explaining how there is no noise or “less” and with respect to what the applicant can claim “less noise”.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required.
Claim 10 requires that the power release gear is configured to trigger a first snow load sensor to indicate when the power release gear is in the first snow load actuated position.
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since there is no support for the claimed imitation.
As described and illustrated, the snow load sensor 74 is actuated by a magnet 72 on the switch lever 47.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claim will be interpreted and examined as that, that there is a magnet on a switch lever, that will trigger the snow load sensor. Correction is required.
Also, it is unclear if this snow load sensor is part or not of the sensor arrangement already claimed in claim 1 and also there is no antecedent of basis for the limitation.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a snow load sensor that is part of the sensor arrangement”. Correction is required.
Claim 13 requires a snow load position. At the instant, as described, without the switch lever 47, there is no snow load position as claimed. Is not only the gear, it is also the switch lever 47 and sensors that actually create this position claimed. Correction is required.
New claim 25 requires the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
150
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the instant, it is unclear if this reset sensor is part or not of the sensor arrangement already claimed in claim 1.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a reset sensor that is part of the sensor arrangement”. Correction is required.
Claims 11 and 25 require a switch lever and the switch lever movements. However, the claim fails to establish how it moves, since the switch lever does not move by itself.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the switch lever being moved by the power release gear. Correction is required.
Claims 21-24 requires that the power release gear is configured to trigger a sensor to control the power release actuator.
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since there is no support for the claimed imitation.
As described and illustrated, the snow load sensor 74 is actuated by a magnet 72 on the switch lever 47. The power release gear will actuate or move the switch lever so as to have the magnet actuating the sensors. Correction 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) 1-4 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 7,234,736 to Kachouh in view of US Pat No 8,533,998 to Nishikibe et al (Nishikibe).
PNG
media_image3.png
720
915
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kachouh discloses a power latch assembly for a closure panel of a motor vehicle.
The assembly comprises a pawl (2) moveable from a ratchet holding position (bold, fig 1), whereat a ratchet (1) is maintained in a striker capture position, whereat the ratchet is in latched engagement with a striker (1’) to maintain the closure panel in a closed position, to a ratchet releasing position (fig 1, dash lines), whereat the ratchet is moved to a striker release position out of latched engagement from the striker to allow the closure panel to be moved from the closed position to an open position. The pawl is urged by a bias of a spring (3) toward the ratchet holding position.
A power release actuator (11) arranged to move a power release gear (13) from a rest position, whereat the pawl is in the ratchet holding position (bold, fig 1), in a first direction to a first release actuated position, whereat the pawl is moved to the ratchet releasing position (fig 1, dash lines), and to move the power release gear from the first release actuated position in the first direction to a first reset actuated position, whereat the pawl is free to return in the direction toward the ratchet holding position by the spring (3) acting on the pawl.
When the power release actuator stops the power release gear at the 1st reset actuated position, the assembly is capable of providing minimal impact noise generated.
Kachouh fails to disclose that the assembly further comprises a sensor arrangement configured to control the operation of the power release actuator. Kachouh discloses another embodiment (fig 2) that only uses a switch (27) to detect the position of the ratchet.
PNG
media_image4.png
367
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nishikibe teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a power latch assembly that comprises a sensor arrangement (31-35) configured to control the operation of the power release actuator (11).
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 assembly described by Kachouh with a sensor arrangement, as taught by Nishikibe, in order to control the assembly depending on the position of each element.
As to claim 2, Kachouh discloses that the power release gear moves in the first direction about 180 degrees or less from the rest position to the first reset actuated position.
As to claim 3, Kachouh discloses that the power release actuator is arranged to move the power release gear from the first reset actuated position, whereat the pawl is in the ratchet holding position (fig 1, bold), in the first direction to a second release actuated position, whereat the pawl is moved to the ratchet releasing position (second, if after the pawl releases the ratchet, and if the striker is re-enter, the gear will move the pawl again to the release position, a second time, during a full rotation of the power release gear about the axis).
As to claim 4, Kachouh fails to disclose that the power release gear has 1st and 2nd release cogs that are circumferentially offset from one another.
In this embodiment, Kachouh discloses 3 cogs. However, as seen in fig 2, Kachouh teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a power release gear (13) that comprises
1st and 2nd release cogs (17) that are circumferentially offset from one another.
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 gear with 1st and 2nd release cogs that are circumferentially offset from one another, as taught by the other embodiment, in order to simplify the mechanism.
As to claims 21-24, Nishikibe teaches that the power release gear (24) interacts with at least one sensor (34, 35) to control the power release actuator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are allowed.
Claim 11, as interpreted above, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12-15 will also be allowed since the claims depend from claim 11 above.
Claim 25, as interpreted above, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-10 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claim 25 above.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claims 1 and 16, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
However, in view of the current amendment, a new 112 2nd paragraph rejection has been made on the record.
With respect to the previous 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claims 5 and 18, the current amendment, cancelling the claims, overcomes the previous issue.
However, with respect to claim 13, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the previous 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claims 6 and 19, the current amendment, cancelling the claims, overcomes the previous issue.
However, with respect to claim 10, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the previous 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claim 11, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
However, in view of the current amendment, a new 112 2nd paragraph rejection has been made on the record.
As to applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejection to the claims, the arguments 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.
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 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights