Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/491,250

VEHICLE GLOVE BOX LATCH

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Examiner
MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Southco Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
655 granted / 1014 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1053
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 7 and 10-21, the cancellation of claims 30-32, and the addition of new claims 33-37 filed January 20, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 22-29 are withdrawn. Claim Objections Claims 11, 14, 17, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 11, line 19, the phrase “during assembly of the spring to the rotor” should be inserted after the phrase “positioned into a second spring mounting recess formed on the rotor.” In regards to claim 14, line 3, the phrase “can be inserted” should be changed to “is inserted” so as to ensure that the limitation following the phrase “can be” is positively recited. In regards to claim 17, line 3, the phrase “a door having an opening and a hole” should be changed to “a door having the opening to which the housing of the vehicle glove box latch is mounted and a hole” since the opening of claim 17 is equivalent to the opening of claim 11, and in line 6, the phrase “wherein a fastener that is configured” should be changed to “wherein a fastener is configured.” In regards to claim 36, line 2, the phrase “one or more barbs” should be changed to “barbs,” and in line 3, the phrase “one or more slots” should be changed to “slots.” 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 7, 10-21, and 33-37 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 11, lines 18 and 19, it is unclear when the second leg of the spring is movable relative to the rotor to be positioned into the second spring mounting recess. Specifically, the remainder of the claim, such as the rotor being pivotably connected to the rotor mounting portion of the housing, refers to an assembled state of the vehicle glove box latch for operation, whereas, it is understood from the specification that the second leg of the spring being movable relative to the rotor to be positioned into the second spring mounting recess occurs during assembly of the spring to the rotor. This portion of the claim must recite that the moving of the second leg occurs during assembly, such that it is clear that this movement does not occur during operation of the latch or after the spring has already been assembled to the rotor. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above. In regards to claim 35, the term “heel shaped” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heel shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the term heel refers to either “the back of the human foot below the ankle and behind the arch,” “the part of the hind limb of other vertebrates that is similar in structure to the human heel,” “the part (as of a shoe) that covers the human heel,” “a solid attachment of a shoe or boot forming the back of the sole under the heel of the foot,” etc., however, none of these definitions evoke one or a specific shape such that one can ascertain the shape to which applicant refers in the claim. It is suggested that the phrase “heel shaped” be removed from the claim. In regards to claim 36, there is no support in the specification for the rotor being held on the housing by a single barb and a single slot, as suggested by the phrases “one or more barbs” and “one or more slots.” It is understood from the specification that the rotor is held on the housing by a plurality of barbs being received in a plurality or equal number of slots, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above. In regards to claims 7, 10, 12-21, 33, 34, and 37, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 11. Allowable Subject Matter The claims were examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above. Claims 7, 10-21, and 33-37 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. 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 claimed invention. In regards to claim 11, Suzuki (JP 2015200064 A) fails to disclose a spring disposed on the rotor and configured to bias the rotor toward a direction, with the spring having a first leg positioned into a first spring mounting recess extending tangentially from an annular recess of the rotor and a second leg movable relative to the rotor to be positioned into a second spring mounting recess formed on the rotor during assembly of the spring to the motor. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Suzuki without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device. Response to Arguments In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, most of the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn. An objection to claim 17 has been maintained since the claim language of claim 17 must make it clear that the opening of claim 17 is equivalent to the opening of claim 11. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and corresponding claim objections are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments. 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 February 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 20, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 05, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 20, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595691
DECLUTCHING SYSTEM FOR A HANDLE ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584334
MOTOR VEHICLE DOOR ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565795
ELECTROMECHANICAL LOCKSET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559976
DOOR LOCK DETECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546151
DEADBOLT DOOR LOCKING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+31.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month