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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 3, 2026 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-18 and the cancellation of claims 2 and 5.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 7 and 8, the phrase “a pre-latching position” should be changed to “the pre-latching position,” and in line 19, the phrase “corresponding to the pre-latching position of the rotary latch” should be inserted after the phrase “when the pawl is in a pawl pre-latching position.”
In regards to claim 4, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “the pawl position” should be changed to “the pawl pre-latching position.”
In regards to claim 17, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the first switch and the second switch are non-actuated in the main latching position of the rotary latch, wherein the second switch is only actuated when the pawl releases the rotary latch to the pre-latching position and the pawl reaches the pawl pre-latching position and the first switch is actuated when the rotary latch is in the pre-latching position.”
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-18 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.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “pre-latching position” recited in lines 7 and 8 and the “pre-latching position” recited in line 6 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “pre-latching position” recited in lines 7 and 8 is equivalent to the “pre-latching position” recited in line 6, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the pawl pre-latching position of the pawl and the pre-latching position of the rotary latch. It is understood from the specification that when the pawl is in the pawl pre-latching position, the rotary latch is in the pre-latching position or that the pawl pre-latching position corresponds to the pre-latching position and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 4, the relationship between the “pawl position” recited in claim 4 and the “pawl pre-latching position” recited in claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “pawl position” of claim 4 is equivalent to the “pawl pre-latching position” of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 17, it is unclear how claim 17 further limits claim 1 since claim 1 recites that the second switch is “only” actuated when the pawl is in the pawl pre-latching position, whereas, claim 17 recites “wherein the second switch is actuated when the pawl releases the rotary latch.” For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above such that the language of claim 17 corresponds to that of claim 1.
In regards to claim 17, it is unclear how the first switch is actuated when the 12. rotary latch is in the pre-latching position or the release position. Specifically, as discussed on Page 14, lines 19-27, the first switch 26 detects the pre-latching position of the rotary latch, and not the release position, as suggested by the claim language, and switch 27 detects the release position. Therefore, not a single switch detects both the pre-latching position and the release position of the rotary latch, as suggested by the claim language. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above, based on the specification.
In regards to claims 3, 6-16, and 18, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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, 4, 6-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ney et al. (US-11441337) in view of Shimura (U-6048003), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20190063319 A).
In regards to claim 1, Ney et al. discloses a hood lock for a motor vehicle, the hood lock comprising: a locking mechanism having a rotary latch 14, 16 (as a unit) and a pawl 12, a lock holder (inherent striker engaged by the rotary latch) interacting with the locking mechanism, wherein the rotary latch is transferred from a main latching position (Figure 3) into a pre-latching position (Figure 5) after a first actuation of the pawl (first actuation shown in movement from Figure 3 through Figure 5), and the rotary latch is moved into a release position (Figure 7) from the pre-latching position after a second actuation of the pawl (second actuation shown in movement from Figure 5 to Figure 7), a control lever 17, wherein the control lever directly engages the rotary latch (directly engages component 34 of the rotary latch) and is biased to move as a result of the rotary latch moving from the main latching position to the release position (the control lever is biased or urged by component 34 to move as a result of movement of the rotary latch from the main latching position to the release position, Figures 3-7). Ney et al. further discloses that the pawl has a pawl pre-latching position (Figure 5) corresponding to the pre-latching position of the rotary latch. Ney et al. fails to disclose a release lever that cooperates with the pawl to unlock the rotary latch in the main latching position and the pre-latching position, a closing drive, with the rotary latch moved by the closing drive from the pre-latching position into the main latching position, and a second switch that is only actuated when the pawl is in the pawl pre-latching position.
Shimura teaches a rotary latch 5 locked by a pawl 6, with the pawl being moved by a release lever 10, and a second switch 9 that is only actuated when the pawl is in a pawl pre-latching position (half latch position, Col. 5, lines 26-36). 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, such that the release lever and the pawl move through first and second actuations, as disclosed by Ney et al., and to include a second switch, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the manner in which the pawl is actuated, since it is known in the art to utilize release levers to actuate pawls, and in order to aid in monitoring the various components and states of the device.
Kim et al. teaches a rotary latch 490 being moved by a closing drive (600, 610, 630, 650, 670, 300, 370, and lever portion having component 410, Figures 5 and 6) to a main latching position (Figure 6). 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 closing drive, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in moving the rotary latch from the release position to the main latching position, through the pre-latching position.
In regards to claim 3, Shimura teaches that the pawl is actuated electrically via the release lever (electrically actuated by electric closure 2).
In regards to claim 4, Shimura teaches that the pawl pre-latching position is determined via detecting a position of the release lever, when the release lever actuates the second switch (actuates the second switch via components 7 and 8).
In regards to claim 6, Ney et al. discloses that the control lever directly engages a contour on the rotary latch (the contour being the outer surface of component 34, Figures 3-7).
In regards to claim 7, Kim et al. teaches a closing lever 370, wherein a contour (surface of bolt 410, Figure 5) on the rotary latch is brought into engagement with the closing lever (brought into engagement when moved into position in Figure 5). 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 closing lever of Kim et al. cooperate or engage with the contour of Ney et al., with reasonable expectation of success, in the same manner that the closing lever of Kim et al. cooperates or engages with a contour on the rotary latch to move the rotary latch to the main latching position.
In regards to claim 8, Ney et al. discloses a third switch 20, wherein the control lever engages at least one of the first switch and the third switch as the rotary latch moves between the release position and the main latching position (movement from Figure 7 back to Figure 3).
In regards to claim 9, Kim et al. teaches a closing lever (lever portion of rotary latch having component 410, Figure 5) and a reinforcement plate 200 that supports the locking mechanism (Figure 1), wherein the closing lever is guided by the reinforcement plate (guided to move parallel to the reinforcement plate from Figure 5 to Figure 6 because the closing lever is pivotally mounted on the reinforcement plate).
In regards to claim 10, Ney et al. in view of Shimura teaches that the release lever and the control lever are pivotably accommodated on an electrical component carrier (carrier or plate 26 in Ney et al. and carrier or plate 3 in Shimura).
In regards to claim 11, Ney et al. discloses that the contour is on a bolt 34 of the rotary latch.
In regards to claim 15, Kim et al. teaches a closing lever (lever portion of rotary latch having component 410, Figure 5), wherein the closing drive includes an electromotive drive 600 and a drive lever 370 that acts on the closing lever.
In regards to claim 16, Ney et al. discloses a third switch 20 that is actuated by the control lever.
In regards to claim 17, Ney et al. in view of Shimura teaches that the first switch and the second switch are non-actuated in the main latching position of the rotary latch (Figure 3 of Ney et al. and Figure 2 of Shimura), wherein the second switch is only actuated when the pawl releases the rotary latch to the pre-latching position and the pawl reaches the pawl pre-latching position (Col. 5, lines 26-36 of Shimura) and the first switch is actuated when the rotary latch is in the pre-latching position (Figure 5).
In regards to claim 18, Ney et al. discloses a third switch 20 actuated by the control lever, wherein the third switch is actuated when the rotary latch is in the release position (Figure 7).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ney et al. (US-11441337) in view of Shimura (U-6048003), further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20190063319 A) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of D’Urso (EP 2434077 A1).
In regards to claim 12, Ney et al. fails to disclose a transmission lever that is in contact with the rotary latch in the main latching position and engages with the pawl when the rotary latch is released to the release position to position the pawl when the rotary latch is in the release position. D’Urso teaches a transmission lever 10 that is in contact with a rotary latch 4 in a main latching position (Figure 1) and engages with a pawl 1 when the rotary latch is released to a release position (Figure 5) to position the pawl when the rotary latch is in the release position (the transmission lever holds the pawl in Figure 5). 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 transmission lever, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the pawl in a position in which the pawl does not interfere with movement of the rotary latch.
In regards to claim 13, Ney et al. discloses that in the main latching position of the rotary latch, the control lever is in engagement with the contour on the rotary latch (Figure 3), but fails to disclose a spring element that preloads the control lever into engagement with the contour. D’Urso teaches a control lever 10 that cooperates with a rotary latch 4, with the control lever having a spring element that preloads the control lever into engagement with the rotary latch (Paragraph 32). 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 spring element to preload the control lever, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the control lever cooperates with the rotary latch.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ney et al. (US-11441337) in view of Shimura (U-6048003), further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20190063319 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Myslicki et al. (US-5150933). Ney et al. fails to disclose a positioner and a tension spring that provides a force on the lock holder in an opening direction. Myslicki et al. teaches a positioner 114 and a tension spring 126 that provides a force on a lock holder 40 in an opening direction (Figure 5). 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 positioner and a tension spring, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in moving the lock holder out of the locking mechanism and thereby, aiding in moving the panel to which the lock holder is attached.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, most of the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Shimura (U-6048003) are set forth in the current Office Action.
Conclusion
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 February 17, 2026