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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed June 19, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the objections to the specification and claims have been overcome by amendment. Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the previous objections.
Applicant has argued that, with respect to claim 1, that Ide’s “connecting members 16 are not taught as being accessed from within the alleged engine compartment of Ide.” Instead, the “connecting members 16 are outside the engine compartment 2 and spaced from both upper opening 3 to the engine compartment 2 and the front opening 4 to the engine compartment 2” (Remarks, bottom of Page 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In claim 1, the phrase “opening a hood to access a compartment of the vehicle” implies that anything uncovered by the hood is part of the compartment. Ide’s connecting members 16 are initially covered by the hood and therefore are part of the compartment and are “within the compartment.” While applicant states that “the rejection improperly equates the boundaries of an engine compartment with what is covered by a hood in a closed position,” examiner asserts that this interpretation is not improper, but is consistent with the claim language “opening a hood to access a compartment of the vehicle.”
Regarding claim 11, this claim merely requires that the grille latch is “accessible” from within the engine compartment. Ide’s connecting members are at least “accessible” from within the engine compartment (further evidenced by the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, applicant argues that “Ide identifies, as an express advantage of its design, that the ventilating grille ‘cannot be opened unnecessarily even though a special lock is not required.’ Ide achieves this result precisely because the connecting members 16 are hidden beneath the front end of the hood and must be removed before the grille can be moved. Ide thus presents the absence of a dedicated latching or locking mechanism as a benefit of its structure. Replacing Ide's hidden, removable connecting members with a latch would eliminate the very feature Ide holds out as advantageous and would defeat Ide's stated purpose of ensuring that the grille ‘cannot be opened unnecessarily’” (Remarks, Page 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. When replacing Ide’s connecting members with Palmer’s latch, the latch would still be hidden under the hood. This preserves Ide’s goal that the grilled “cannot be opened unnecessarily.” Also, a latch is not a “special lock.” A latch is a connection means that is readily releasable via user input. A lock is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a fastening (as for a door) operated by a key or a combination.” Palmer’s latch does not require a key or a combination, but is readily releasable. Thus, adding Palmer’s latch maintains Ide’s desire to not require any “special lock.”
Finally, applicant argues that “the Office Action reasons that ‘a latch would provide a more convenient method of unlocking the grille’ and would permit release ‘with a single motion.’ Neither Ide nor Palmer states or suggests any such rationale. That reasoning appears for the first time in the Office Action and is drawn from Applicant's own disclosure. An obviousness rejection cannot stand on a motivation gleaned only from the application being examined. Moreover, the asserted ‘convenience’ rationale is at odds with Ide itself, because making the grille easier to open with a ‘single motion’ directly undermines Ide's stated objective that the grille not be ‘opened unnecessarily.’ Even if the single motion were demonstrated as an advantage, that single motion would be performed outside the compartment, not from ‘within the compartment’ as is claimed” (Remarks, bottom of page 8 to top of page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Motivation to combine prior art references does not need to come exclusively from the text of the references themselves. The examiner is required to provide a “a reasoned explanation” which may rely on “common sense or ordinary ingenuity.” It is simply part of ordinary engineering knowledge that a latch is a mechanism that is easier to release than a nut-and-bolt connection, which may require tools and two hands. Additionally, a latch does not “undermine Ide’s stated objective that the grille not be ‘opened unnecessarily.’” The latch would be positioned under the hood in the location of Ide’s connecting members 16. The presence of the hood is what prevents the unnecessary opening. Finally, as to applicant’s statement that the unlatching would be performed outside the compartment, not from “within the compartment,” examiner also disagrees. The latching and unlatching occurs within the compartment, since everything uncovered by the hood is part of the engine compartment (as stated in the previous paragraph). The claim does not require that any part of the operator is positioned within the engine compartment when operating the latch.
With regard to dependent claim 13, applicant argues that “Siedlecki’s bumper 16 is a resilient overslam member fixedly mounted to a hood release 14 (which is in turn mounted to the vehicle frame) that merely ‘resiliently contact[s]’ a grille. The bumper is not connected to the grille; it abuts the grille to cushion impact during closing of the hood. Furthermore, in Siedlecki the grille is mounted on the hood and does not move between an operational position and an access position by release of a grille latch, as recited in parent claims 11 and 12. Siedlecki's overslam bumper therefore neither teaches the recited damper nor is shown to perform the recited function in the recited arrangement” (Remarks, Page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Siedlecki’s “overslam bumper” dampens the impact of closure, and therefore is a “damper.” Furthermore, Siedlecki’s damper, when incorporated into Ide, is at least indirectly connected to both Ide’s grille and the “another portion” of the vehicle, by virtue of being mounted on the same vehicle frame.
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that “Siedlecki's handle 20 is a hood release handle that pulls a cable to unlatch the hood; it is not an actuator of a grille latch, and Siedlecki discloses no grille latch at all. Siedlecki further locates its secondary release handle adjacent the front edge of the vehicle for actuation from the front, not within the engine compartment. The rejection's rationale-that ‘it is necessary to provide some means for the user to interact with the latch’ does not supply an actuator of a grille latch positioned within the engine compartment. Claim 14 is patentable for at least this additional reason” (Remarks, bottom of Page 9 to top of Page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues as if Siedlecki was applied under 35 U.S.C. 102, rather than 103. Ide in view of Palmer teaches the grille latch. Siedlecki is cited simply as teaching an actuator for the latch. Furthermore, when Siedlecki’s actuator is incorporated into Ide in view of Palmer, the actuator would be provided adjacent the latch, which is already located under the hood and thus in the engine compartment. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant has argued that the new claims are patentable for similar reasons as discussed above. Examiner disagrees, and the new claims stand rejected as well.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (US 4,485,882, hereinafter Ide) in view of Palmer et al. (US 2018/0226861, hereinafter Palmer).
With regard to claim 1, Ide discloses (see Fig. 1, provided below) a vehicle component access method, comprising:
unlatching a hood latch of a vehicle (“the front end of the hood 12 is adapted to be locked to the automobile body 1 by a known latch mechanism (not shown), which is manually released or remotely controlled from the interior of the automobile”);
opening a hood to access a compartment of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 below, showing the hood 12 open for access to the engine compartment—note that anything which becomes accessible via opening the hood is considered part of the compartment);
detaching a grille latch from within the compartment (the “connecting members 16” must be removed for the grille 14 to be opened—also, note that the connecting members 16 are accessed by opening the hood and thus are considered being located within the compartment); and
moving a grille to access a component aft of the grille (Fig. 1 below shows the grille 14 in the position where it has been moved for access to a component behind it).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ide teaches removing the connecting members 16 to detach the grill, rather than unlatching the grill.
Palmer teaches the functional equivalence of various connection mechanisms by stating that “fasteners 74 preferably comprise bolts, though it is foreseen that any one or more of a variety of fasteners or other connection types—for example, buckles, clamps, clasps, clips, latches, nails, pins, rings, straps, welds and/or friction fits” (paragraph 0044).
Thus, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ide by utilizing a latch in place of the connection members 16, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Palmer shows that such a modification would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known fastening means for another to achieve a predictable result. Furthermore, a latch would provide a more convenient method of unlocking the grille, rather than removing multiple “connecting members.”
With regard to claim 3, Ide teaches that unlatching of the hood latch is from within a passenger compartment of the vehicle (“the front end of the hood 12 is adapted to be locked to the automobile body 1 by a known latch mechanism (not shown), which is manually released or remotely controlled from the interior of the automobile”).
With regard to claim 8, Ide teaches that the compartment is an engine compartment (see Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 9, Ide teaches that the component is a radiator (6).
With regard to claim 11, Ide teaches a vehicle component access system, comprising:
a hood (12) that can move between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 1), the hood in the closed position covering an opening to an engine compartment of a vehicle such that the engine compartment (see engine 5, positioned within the compartment) is inaccessible through the opening (Fig. 2), the engine compartment accessible through the opening when the hood is in the open position (Fig. 1 position);
a grille (14) that can move between an operational position (Fig. 2) and an access position (Fig. 1); and
a grille fastener (16) that holds the grille in the operational position when the grille fastener is engaged, the grille movable from the operational position to the access position when the grille fastener is disengaged (“the upper end of the ventilating grill 14 is detachably fastened to the front frame 1a with connecting members 16”), the grille fastener accessible from within the engine compartment (the grille fasteners 16 are only accessible when the hood 12 is open, which uncovers the engine compartment).
Ide fails to teach a grille latch. Instead, Ide teaches connecting members 16 which have to be removed in order to move the grille 14.
Palmer teaches the functional equivalence of various connection mechanisms by stating that “fasteners 74 preferably comprise bolts, though it is foreseen that any one or more of a variety of fasteners or other connection types—for example, buckles, clamps, clasps, clips, latches, nails, pins, rings, straps, welds and/or friction fits” (paragraph 0044).
Thus, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ide by utilizing a latch in place of the connection members 16, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Palmer shows that such a modification would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known fastening means for another to achieve a predictable result. Furthermore, a latch would provide a more convenient method of unlocking the grille with a single motion, rather than having to remove multiple “connecting members.”
With regard to claim 12, Ide teaches that the grille (14) is pivotably coupled to another portion of the vehicle (via hinges 15).
With regard to claim 15, Ide, as modified by Palmer, teaches that the grille latch (members 16 have been replaced with a latch according to the modification in claim 11 above) is accessible from within the engine compartment when the hood is in the open position (members 16 of Ide are blocked by the hood 12 when it is in the closed position shown in Fig. 2, and this would be the same when members 16 are replaced by a latch).
With regard to claim 17, Ide teaches a component (engine 5 and radiator 6) aft of the grille, the component accessible when the grille is in the access position (see Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 19, Ide teaches that the component is a radiator (6).
With regard to claim 20, Ide teaches an actuator for a hood latch, the actuator disposed within a passenger compartment of the vehicle (“the front end of the hood 12 is adapted to be locked to the automobile body 1 by a known latch mechanism (not shown), which is manually released or remotely controlled from the interior of the automobile”).
With regard to claim 23, Ide in view of Palmer fails to teach that unlatching the hood latch comprises actuating a virtual actuator presented on a smartphone or a key fob.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ide in view of Palmer such that the hood latch could be actuated through a virtual actuator on a smartphone or a key fob, as examiner hereby takes Official Notice that integrating standard vehicle functions (such as opening a hood) into a smartphone or key fob was well known in the art at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 14, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide in view of Palmer as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Siedlecki et al. (US 2008/0088155, hereinafter Siedlecki).
With regard to claim 7, Ide, as modified by Palmer, teaches that the grille latch is inaccessible from outside the compartment (the “connection members 16,” which have been replaced by a latch due to the modification in claim 1, are inaccessible from outside the compartment, at least when the hood 12 is closed—see Fig. 2 of Ide, which shows the hood 12 covering elements 16).
However, Ide in view of Palmer fails to teach that the grille latch has an actuator.
Siedlecki teaches a vehicle latch (14) that has an actuator handle (20).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the latch of Ide in view of Palmer by providing an actuator handle as shown by Siedlecki, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that it is necessary to provide some means for the user to interact with the latch. Note: In combining the teachings of Ide, Palmer, and Siedlecki, one of ordinary skill would locate Siedlecki’s latch actuator handle in the same location as the latch of Ide in view of Palmer, which would be under the hood and thus in the engine compartment.
With regard to claim 13, Ide in view of Palmer fails to teach at least one damper connected to the grille and the other portion of the vehicle.
Siedlecki teaches a hood / grille assembly, where a damper (16) is provided between a grille (40) and other portions of the vehicle (i.e. 14, 20, and 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ide in view of Palmer by providing the damper of Siedlecki, in order to “prevent slamming of the grille against the radiator,” and to “prevent vibration of grille 40” “during movement of the vehicle” (Siedlecki, paragraph 0032).
With regard to claim 14, Ide in view of Palmer fails to teach an actuator of the grille latch, the actuator within the engine compartment. However, it is noted that the connection members 16 of Ide, which have been replaced by a latch according to the modification in claim 11, are located in the engine compartment, i.e. under the hood 12.
Siedlecki teaches a vehicle latch (14) that has an actuator handle (20).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the latch of Ide in view of Palmer by providing an actuator handle as shown by Siedlecki, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that it is necessary to provide some means for the user to interact with the latch.
With regard to claim 21, Ide in view of Palmer teaches that the grille latch is inaccessible while the hood is closed (given that Ide’s connection members 16—which have been replaced with Palmer’s latch—are disposed under the hood and thus are inaccessible when the engine is closed).
However, Ide in view of Palmer fails to teach a grille latch actuator that is also inaccessible when the hood is closed.
Siedlecki teaches a vehicle latch (14) that has an actuator handle (20).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the latch of Ide in view of Palmer by providing an actuator handle as shown by Siedlecki, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that it is necessary to provide some means for the user to interact with the latch. Note: In combining the teachings of Ide, Palmer, and Siedlecki, one of ordinary skill would locate Siedlecki’s latch actuator handle in the same location as the latch of Ide in view of Palmer, which would be under the hood and thus in the engine compartment.
With regard to claim 22, Ide in view of Palmer and Siedlecki teaches returning the grille to an operational position after accessing the component, and re-engaging the grille latch to retain the grille in the operational position (Ide, column 1, line 35; “the ventilating grill can be opened and closed. Note that the inclusion of Palmer’s latch into Ide naturally means that the latch would be re-engaged when the grille is closed).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide in view of Palmer, Siedlecki, and Zagoroff (US 2005/0023856).
With regard to claim 24, Ide teaches a vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising:
a body (1) defining a passenger compartment (i.e. behind the windshield shown in Fig. 1) and an engine compartment forward of the passenger compartment (engine compartment is everything covered by the hood 12);
a hood (12) pivotably coupled to the body and movable between a closed position (Fig. 2 position) covering the engine compartment and an open position (Fig. 1 position) exposing the engine compartment (note how elements 2 and 1a are visible in Fig. 1, with the hood open);
a hood latch configured to retain the hood in the closed position (“known latch mechanism”, column 2, line 17);
a hood latch actuator disposed within the passenger compartment and configured to release the hood latch (column 2, lines 13-20; “The front end of the hood 12 is adapted to be locked to the automobile body 1 by a known latch mechanism (not shown), which is manually released or remotely controlled from the interior of the automobile”);
a grille (14) pivotably coupled to the body (via hinge 15) at a front end of the vehicle and movable, independently of the hood, about a lower edge of the grille (see Fig. 1, which shows the grille 14 pivoted by hinge 15 at the lower edge of the trille) between an operational position (Fig. 2) in which the grille guides a flow of air to a radiator (6) disposed aft of the grille and an access position in which the radiator is accessible (Fig. 1 position); and
a grille connecting means (16) configured to retain the grille in the operational position and re-engageable to return the grille to the operational position after the grille has been moved to the access position (connecting members 16 can be reinserted when the grill is moved from the open position back to the closed position).
Ide fails to teach that the grille is engaged in the operational position by a latch. Instead, Ide teaches connecting members such as bolts and clips.
Palmer teaches the functional equivalence of various connection mechanisms by stating that “fasteners 74 preferably comprise bolts, though it is foreseen that any one or more of a variety of fasteners or other connection types—for example, buckles, clamps, clasps, clips, latches, nails, pins, rings, straps, welds and/or friction fits” (paragraph 0044).
Thus, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ide by utilizing a latch in place of the connection members 16, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Palmer shows that such a modification would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known fastening means for another to achieve a predictable result. Furthermore, a latch would provide a more convenient method of unlocking the grille, rather than removing multiple “connecting members.”
Ide, as modified by Palmer, fails to teach a grille latch actuator disposed within the engine compartment and configured to release the grille latch, the grille latch actuator being inaccessible when the hood is in the closed position and accessible when the hood is in the open position.
Siedlecki teaches a vehicle latch (14) that has an actuator handle (20).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the latch of Ide in view of Palmer by providing an actuator handle as shown by Siedlecki, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that it is necessary to provide some means for the user to interact with the latch. Note: In combining the teachings of Ide, Palmer, and Siedlecki, one of ordinary skill would locate Siedlecki’s latch actuator handle in the same location as the latch of Ide in view of Palmer, which would be under the hood and thus in the engine compartment.
Ide in view of Palmer and Siedlecki fails to teach at least one lift support coupled between the grille and the body and configured to support the grille in the access position and to control movement of the grille between the operational position and the access position.
Zagoroff discloses (see especially Fig. 8B) a fold-down vehicle element (in this case a pickup truck tailgate 60) that comprises at least one lift support (67) which controls the movement of the tailgate 60 between the operational position (Fig. 8A) and an access position (Fig. 8B).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ide in view of Palmer and Siedlecki by providing the lift support of Zagoroff, in order to control the rate of descent of the grille (Zagoroff, paragraph 0033) in order to prevent damage to the grille and neighboring vehicle parts.
With regard to claim 25, Ide in view of Palmer, Siedlicki, and Zagoroff discloses that the grille latch actuator comprises a release lever (Siedlicki, latch actuator element 20 is a release lever).
With regard to claim 26, Ide in view of Palmer, Siedlicki, and Zagoroff discloses that the at least one lift support comprises a damper (Zagoroff, element 67 is a gas cylinder damper).
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 ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights