Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/751,985

CANCELLATION DEVICE FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE FEATURE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 24, 2024
Examiner
JIMENEZ, ANTHONY R
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Strattec Security Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
950 granted / 1077 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1104
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1077 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsinistidis et al. (German Pat. No. DE102018115330 A1, hereinafter “Tsinistidis”). Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Tsinistidis discloses a cancellation device for an automotive feature on a vehicle (Abstract, and e.g., Fig. 1 of the attached English translation), the cancellation device comprising a lever (3) configured to be manually moved relative to the vehicle from a first, neutral position (6; ¶ [0041], Fig. 5b) to a second, non-neutral position (5; Fig. 5b) to actuate the automotive feature, an element (4; Fig. 5b) coupled to the lever (3) and configured to move when the lever (3) is moved from the first, neutral position (6) to a second, non-neutral position (5), and an actuator (e.g., springs or magnets; not shown but disclosed at ¶ [0029]) configured to move the element (4) to release the lever (3) from the second, nonneutral position (6; ¶ [0029]). Regarding Claim 2, Tsinistidis discloses that the element (4) is a detent plunger (4) (Fig. 5b, ¶ [0026]). Regarding Claim 3, Tsinistidis discloses that the detent plunger (4) is a spring-biased detent plunger (4; Fig. 5b, ¶ [0026]). Regarding Claim 4, Tsinistidis discloses a detent profile having a first detent (D1; Fig. 5b, reproduced and annotated below) corresponding to the first, neutral position (6) and a second detent (17) corresponding to the second, non-neutral position (5; Fig. 5b), wherein the spring-biased detent plunger (4) is biased toward the detent profile and is configured to be in the first detent (D1) in the first, neutral position (6) and is configured to move into the second detent (17) in the second, non-neutral position (5; Fig. 5b). PNG media_image1.png 766 658 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 5, Tsinistidis discloses that the actuator is a solenoid (¶ [0029] discloses the use of magnets, and a solenoid is a type of electromagnet that generates a controlled magnetic field). Regarding Claim 6, Tsinistidis discloses that the solenoid is configured to move the spring-biased plunger (4) away from the detent profile to release the lever (3) from the second, nonneutral position (inherently disclosed at ¶ [0029]). Regarding Claim 7, Tsinistidis discloses a centering spring (10; Fig. 5b), wherein the centering spring (10) is configured to return the lever (3) back to the first, neutral position (6) after the lever (3) has been released from the second, non-neutral position (5; upon actuator 12 moving movable element against spring 10; Fig. 5b). Regarding Claim 8, Tsinistidis discloses that the actuator is a solenoid (¶ [0029] discloses the use of magnets, and a solenoid is a type of electromagnet that generates a controlled magnetic field). Regarding Claim 9, Tsinistidis discloses a centering spring (10; Fig. 5b), wherein the centering spring (10) is configured to return the lever (3) back to the first, neutral position (6) after the lever (3) has been released from the second, non-neutral position (5; upon actuator 12 moving movable element against spring 10; Fig. 5b). Regarding Claim 10, Tsinistidis discloses that the element (4) is a spring-biased detent plunger (4) configured to move linearly relative to the lever (4; Fig. 5b, ¶ [0026]). Regarding Claim 11, Tsinistidis discloses that the lever (3) is a stalk on a steering wheel (¶ [0032]). Regarding Claim 12, Tsinistidis discloses that the element (4) is a release pawl (Fig. 5b). 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. Claims 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsinistidis in view of Rudolph (German Pat. No. DE10037760 A1). Tsinistidis discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed (i) motor, as recited in Claims 13 and 20, (ii) controller, as recited in Claim 14, and (iii) sensor, as recited in Claim 15. However, Rudolph discloses that (i) the actuator is an electric motor (51; p. 5, the second paragraph of the attached English machine translation, Fig. 7), as recited in Claims 13 and 20, (ii) a controller (32) coupled to the electric motor (Fig. 7), as recited in Claim 14, (iii) a sensor (29), wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating whether a turn has been completed (p. 5, the last paragraph, of the attached English machine translation), as recited in Claim 15. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rudolph with those of Tsinistidis to provide automated positioning detection and positioning. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsinistidis in view of Rudolph. The combination of Tsinistidis and Rudolph discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed gears, yoke, pawl, and Scotch yoke. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design to utilize such claimed elements to effect motor movement and switch positioning. It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Tsinistidis discloses the use of a transmission and threaded rod, 52 and 53 (Fig. 7), respectively, to effect motor movement and switching positioning. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm. 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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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. /ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599529
FOOT CONTROLLER FOR DENTAL UNIT CHAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603235
SWITCH ASSEMBLY COMPRISING AN ON-LOAD TAP CHANGER AND A DRIVE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603236
KEY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603241
CIRCUIT BREAKER AND OPERATING MECHANISM THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586739
HYBRID CIRCUIT BREAKER WITH IMPROVED CURRENT CAPACITY PER DEVICE SIZE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1077 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