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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12523071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 16 of ‘256 has all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 of the instant applicant, but also contains additional limitations.
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of claim 1 of ‘256.
Claims 2-14 is rejected on the grounds of claims 3-15 of ‘256.
Claim 15 is rejected on the grounds of claim 16 of ‘256.
Claim 16-19 is rejected on the grounds of claims 17-19 of ‘256.
Claim 20 is rejected on the grounds of claim 20 of ‘256.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190292817 to Tomaszewski.
Regarding claim 1, Tomaszewski discloses:
A vehicle latch assembly (fig 3), comprising: a remote cinching actuator (30); and a vehicle latch (fig 3), the vehicle latch comprising: a latch housing (18); a claw (60) pivotally mounted to the latch housing (fig 3); a cinching lever (50) pivotally mounted to the latch housing (fig 3); a push out lever (104) pivotally mounted to the cinching lever; and wherein the remote cinching actuator is operably coupled the cinching lever by a cable (32), wherein actuation of the remote cinching actuator causes rotation of the cinching lever and during rotation of the cinching lever, the push out lever travels in one of a bypass path (fig 8 to fig 9) wherein the push out lever does not contact the claw (fig 9) and a push out path (fig 9-13) wherein the push out lever contacts the claw and provides an opening force to the claw (see figs 10-13).
Regarding claim 15, Tomaszewski discloses:
A method (fig 15) opening a vehicle latch (fig 3) of a vehicle latch assembly (fig 2), comprising: actuating a remote cinching actuator (30) of the vehicle latch assembly when a pawl (62) of the vehicle latch is in a disengaged position (fig 10) with respect to a claw (60) of the vehicle latch and the claw of the vehicle latch is in a latched position (fig 10), wherein the remote cinching actuator is operably coupled a cinching lever (50) of the vehicle latch by a cable (32) and actuation of the remote cinching actuator causes rotation of the cinching lever (see movement between figs 9-13) and during rotation of the cinching lever, a push out lever (104) rotatably mounted to the cinching lever travels in a push out path (figs 10-13) wherein the push out lever contacts the claw and provides an opening force to the claw (see movement of figs 10-13).
Regarding claim 16, Tomaszewski discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein actuation of the remote cinching actuator when the pawl of the vehicle latch is in an engaged position (fig 5) with respect to the claw of the vehicle latch causes rotation of the cinching lever and during rotation of the cinching lever, the push out lever rotatably mounted to the cinching lever travels in a bypass path (figs 4-5) wherein the push out lever does not contact the claw (fig 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190292817 to Tomaszewski in view of US 20120098279 to Singh.
Regarding claim 2, Tomaszewski does not explicitly disclose:
The vehicle latch assembly as in claim 1, wherein the push out lever is spring biased towards the bypass path by a push out lever spring. The vehicle latch assembly as in claim 1, wherein the push out lever is spring biased towards the bypass path by a push out lever spring.
However, Singh teaches that it is well known in the art for a push out lever (42) to be spring biased (via 52). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh into Tomaszewski at least because doing so would provide additional safety by biasing the lever in a favorable position to prevent accidental actuation of the lever.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 and 17-20 are rejected under double patenting, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675