1111131DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 31 December 2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Cetnar (US 2023/0079726).
Regarding claim 1, Cetnar discloses a latch assembly for a closure panel, comprising:
a housing member (30);
a ratchet (36) configured for movement relative to said housing member between a striker capture position (Fig.2) and a striker release position (Fig. 4B) and biased (58) toward said striker release position;
a pawl (38)
configured for movement relative to said housing member between a ratchet holding position (Fig. 4D), whereat said pawl maintains said ratchet in said striker capture position, and a ratchet releasing position (Fig.4B), whereat said pawl releases said ratchet for movement of said ratchet to said striker release position; and
a pawl sensor assembly (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35)) configured for communication with an electronic control unit, the pawl sensor assembly having a first sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35) fixed relative to said housing member and a second sensor member (interchangeable Hall elements) configured for communication with the first sensor member, the second sensor member being movable from a first position to a second position, when in said first position, said pawl sensor assembly indicates said pawl in said ratchet holding position, and when in said second position, said pawl sensor assembly indicates said pawl in said ratchet releasing position, said second sensor member moveable relative to said pawl and said housing member, wherein said second sensor member is coupled to the pawl in a lost motion ([0012) coupling, such that movement of the second sensor member to the second position does not cause a corresponding movement of the pawl to the ratchet releasing position.
Regarding claim 11, Cetnar discloses the latch assembly of Claim 1, wherein said first sensor member is a Hall sensor [0067] l.30-35.
Regarding claim 12, Cetnar discloses a method of constructing a latch assembly for a closure panel, comprising:
providing a housing member (30);
supporting a ratchet (36) for movement relative to said housing member between a striker capture position (Fig.2) and a striker release position (Fig.4B) and biased (58) toward said striker release position;
supporting a pawl (38) for movement relative to said housing member between a ratchet holding position(Fig. 4D), whereat said pawl maintains said ratchet in said striker capture position, and a ratchet releasing position (Fig.4B), whereat said pawl releases said ratchet for movement of said ratchet to said striker release position; and
fixing a first sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35) of a pawl sensor assembly relative to said housing member; and
supporting a second sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35) of the pawl sensor assembly for movement relative to said first sensor member from a first position to a second position, such that when said second sensor member is in said first position, said pawl sensor assembly indicates said pawl is in said ratchet holding position, and when said second sensor member is in said second position, said pawl sensor assembly indicates said pawl is in said ratchet releasing position.
Note: interchangeability of Hall elements as discussed [0063], l.30-35 of stationary and movable elements.
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 2-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cetnar (US 2023/0079726) in view of Patane et al. (US 2021/0372169).
Regarding claim 2, Cetnar discloses the latch assembly of Claim 1.
Cetnar is silent: a biasing member configured to bias said second sensor member toward said first position.
Patane et al. teaches a pawl spring (62) for the purpose of urging the pawl to an engaged position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar with a biasing member configured to bias said second sensor member toward said first position as taught by Cetnar for the expected benefit of urging the pawl to an engaged position.
Regarding claim 3 Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 2, wherein said second sensor member (sensor/magnet; Cetnar) biases said pawl toward said ratchet holding position under the bias imparted by said biasing member (62; Patane et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 3, further including, whereupon said second sensor member communicates with said first sensor member to indicate said pawl is in said ratchet releasing position.
Cetnar is silent: a pawl release lever (150, Cetnar) moveable from a non-deployed position, whereat said pawl is in said ratchet holding position, to a deployed position, whereat said pawl is moved conjointly with said second sensor member against the bias imparted by said biasing member to said ratchet releasing position
Patane et al. teaches a pawl release lever (80, arm; Patane et al.) moveable from a non-deployed position, whereat said pawl is in said ratchet holding position, to a deployed position, whereat said pawl is moved conjointly with said second sensor member against the bias imparted by said biasing member to said ratchet releasing position for the purpose of releasing the pawl and operating the latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar with a pawl release lever moveable from a non-deployed position, whereat said pawl is in said ratchet holding position, to a deployed position, whereat said pawl is moved conjointly with said second sensor member against the bias imparted by said biasing member to said ratchet releasing position as taught by Patane et al. for the expected benefit of releasing the pawl and operating the latch.
Regarding claim 5, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 4, further wherein said pawl release lever (80, arm; Patane et al.) is configured to engage said pawl (38; Cetnar) during movement from said non-deployed position to said deployed position.
Regarding claim 6, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 2, wherein said second sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35); Cetnar) is moveable toward said second position against the bias of said biasing member while said pawl remains in said ratchet holding position.
Regarding claim 7, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 6, wherein deformation of said housing member (30) stationary into engagement with said second sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35; Cetnar) during a crash condition causes said second sensor member to move in lost motion ([0012], Cetnar) relative to the pawl toward said second position, with said pawl (38; Cetnar) remaining in said ratchet holding position).
Regarding claim 8, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 1, further including a carrier (42) supporting a rolling element for rolling action (pivoting) between the ratchet (36; Cetnar) and the pawl (38; Cetnar).
Regarding claim 9, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 8,.
Cetnar does not disclose: a first bumper configured to prevent the rolling element from impacting the pawl during movement of the pawl from the ratchet releasing position to the ratchet holding position.
Patane et al. teaches a stop 206B for the purpose of defining a full travel position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar with a first bumper configured to prevent the rolling element from impacting the pawl during movement of the pawl from the ratchet releasing position to the ratchet holding position as taught by Patane et al. for the expected benefit of defining a full travel position.
Regarding claim 10, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 9, further including a bumper configured to prevent the rolling element from contacting the pawl after movement of the pawl to the ratchet releasing position.
Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a second bumper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a second bumper, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Applicant is reminded that duplicating the components of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance as to the specific number of an element disclosed, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating handle disclosed by Schmidt et al. to comprise a second switching unit, and as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results."
Regarding claim 13, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 12.
Cetnar is silent: a biasing member configured to bias said second sensor member toward said first position.
Patane et al. teaches a pawl spring (62) for the purpose of urging the pawl to an engaged position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar with a biasing member configured to bias said second sensor member toward said first position as taught by Patane et al. for the expected benefit of urging the pawl to an engaged position.
Regarding claim 14, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 13, further including arranging said second sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35; Cetnar) to engage and bias said pawl toward said ratchet holding position under the bias imparted by said biasing member (62; Patane et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 14, further including arranging a pawl release lever (80, arm; Patane et al.) for movement from a non-deployed position, whereat said pawl (38; Cetnar) is in said ratchet holding position, to a deployed position, whereat said pawl is moved conjointly with said second sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35; Cetnar) against the bias imparted by said biasing member to said ratchet releasing position, whereat said second sensor member communicates with said first sensor member to indicate said pawl being in said ratchet releasing position.
Regarding claim 16, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 15, further including arranging said pawl release lever (80, arm; Patane et al.) to engage said pawl (38; Cetnar) during movement from said non-deployed position to said deployed position.
Regarding claim 17, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 13, further including arranging said second sensor member (sensor/ magnet [0063], l.30-35; Cetnar) for movement toward said second position against the bias of said biasing member while said pawl (38; Cetnar) remains in said ratchet holding position.
Regarding claim 18, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 12, further including providing a carrier (42; Cetnar) supporting a rolling element (pivoting) and arranging the rolling element for rolling action between the ratchet and the pawl.
Regarding claim 19, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses The method of Claim 18.
Cetnar does not disclose: a first bumper configured to prevent the rolling element from impacting the pawl during movement of the pawl from the ratchet releasing position to the ratchet holding position.
Patane et al. teaches a stop 206B for the purpose of defining a full travel position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cetnar with a first bumper configured to prevent the rolling element from impacting the pawl during movement of the pawl from the ratchet releasing position to the ratchet holding position as taught by Patane et al. for the expected benefit of defining a full travel position.
Regarding claim 20, Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the method of Claim 19, further including arranging a bumper to prevent the rolling element from contacting the pawl after movement of the pawl to the ratchet releasing position.
Cetnar as modified by Patane et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a second bumper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a second bumper, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Applicant is reminded that duplicating the components of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance as to the specific number of an element disclosed, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating handle disclosed by Schmidt et al. to comprise a second switching unit, and as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 571.272.7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights