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 arguments, filed 11 March 2026, with regards to the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 12 require “wherein rotation of the of the wheel (16) by the single motor (12) from the reset position in the second direction (76) will position the latch (10) into a Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position” and “wherein rotation of the wheel (16) by the single motor (12) from the reset position in the second direction (76) a second time will disengage the latch (10) from the Power Child Lock and/or the Double Lock position”, whereas Cetnar (US-20230112684-A1) discloses “power release gear 52 can be driven from its home position HP in the second direction, clockwise as viewed in FIG. 4, to a full travel lock position, also referred to as the lock position (LP)” (Para. 0207) and “when desired to return the power latch assembly 10 to the unlocked position, the power release gear 52 can be driven a third time from its home position HP in the second direction” (Para. 0212). Applicant argues that the claims require that a first rotation in the second direction engages the Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position and a second rotation in the second direction disengages the Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position, whereas Cetnar discloses that a first rotation in the second direction engages the Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position and a third rotation in the second direction disengages the Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position. The Examiner acknowledges the functional difference between the devices, wherein the instant device disengages the Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock on the second rotation and Cetnar’s device disengages the Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock on the third rotation. However, the claims are reasonably interpreted as positively requiring two functional rotations without limiting the number of additional rotations or other functions performed by the device. Thus, the Examiner interprets Cetnar’s first rotation as reading on the first rotation required by the claims, and Cetnar’s third rotation as reading on the second rotation required the claims. Therefore, Cetnar discloses each and every limitation of the claims and claims 1-15 remain rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein rotation of the of the wheel (16) by the single motor (12) from the reset position in the second direction (76) will position the latch (10) into a Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position, wherein the wheel (16) is rotated back into the reset position by [[the]] a spring, wherein rotation of the wheel (16) by the single motor (12) from the reset position in the second direction (76) a second time will disengage the latch (10) from the Power Child Lock and/or the Double Lock position, making mechanical opening of the latch (10) operational, wherein wherein the wheel (16) is rotated back into the reset position by [[a]] the spring.”
Claim 12 should be correspondingly amended.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetnar (US-20230112684-A1) in view of Schiffer (US-11377882-B2). All citations refer to the Cetnar reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 1, Cetnar discloses a vehicle latch (10 Figure 2), comprising:
only a single motor (30 Figure 2) for driving a worm (50 Figure 2) operably coupled to the single motor, wherein the worm meshingly engages a wheel (52 Figure 2) rotatably mounted to a housing (29 Figure 2) of the latch;
wherein during an electric release of the latch the single motor rotates the wheel from a reset position (HP Figure 4) in a first direction (counter-clockwise, Figure 4) (Para. 0202), wherein to return the wheel to the reset position the single motor rotates the wheel in a second direction (clockwise, Figure 4), which is opposite to the first direction (Para. 0206);
wherein rotation of the of the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction will position the latch into a Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position (Para. 0207), wherein rotation of the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction a second time will disengage the latch from the Power Child Lock and/or the Double Lock position, making mechanical opening of the latch operational (Para. 0212).
Cetnar does not disclose that after rotation of the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction, the wheel is rotated back into the reset position by a spring.
However, Schiffer discloses a vehicle latch (1 Figure 1) operated by a single motor (7 Figure 1) in which after rotation of the of a wheel (3 Figure 1) by a worm (8 Figure 1) of the single motor from a reset position in a second direction (P Figure 1), the wheel is rotated back into the reset position by a spring (20 Figure 2) (Cols. 7-8, Lines 63-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to Cetnar’s latch a back drive spring for rotating the wheel back into the reset position after rotation of the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction, as taught by Schiffer, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a spring so that “a simple construction is possible and a separate control of the electric drive for resetting is not absolutely necessary” (Col. 6 Lines 25-35 – Schiffer).
With regards to claim 2, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 1, wherein the worm (50 Figure 2) meshingly engages a plurality of teeth located about a periphery of the wheel (52 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 3, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 1, wherein the wheel (52 Figure 4) also has a cam portion (58 Figure 4) located on one side of the wheel and a driving feature (74 Figure 6) located on an opposite side of the wheel.
With regards to claim 4, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 3, wherein the cam portion (58 Figure 4) is configured for engaging a release lever (54 Figure 4)(Para. 0205) while the driving feature (74 Figure 6) is configured to engage a block lever (72 Figure 6)(Para. 0209).
With regards to claim 5, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 4, wherein the release lever (54 Figure 4) and the block lever (72 Figure 6) are rotatably mounted to the latch (10 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 6, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 5, wherein the release lever (54 Figure 4) is operably coupled a pawl (34 Figure 3D) such that movement of the release lever by the cam portion (58 Figure 4) of the wheel (52 Figure 4) will cause movement of the pawl (Para. 0205), the pawl being configured to engage a claw (32 Figure 3D) of the latch in order to maintain the claw in a closed or secondary position or primary position and wherein movement of the pawl from an engaged position to a disengaged position will allow the claw to pivot or rotate into an open position (Para. 0200).
With regards to claim 7, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 6, wherein when the vehicle latch (10 Figure 2) is reset and in a home position a power child lock feature and a double lock feature are off and a double pull feature is on (Para. 0207), from this position, the latch may be e-released through movement of the single motor (30 Figure 2) in a first direction (counter-clockwise, Figure 4)(Para. 0202), thereafter and in order to return the latch the home position, the single motor is rotated in a second direction which is opposite to the first direction (clockwise, Figure 4)(Para. 0206).
With regards to claim 8, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 7, further comprising:
a lock link lever (84 Figure 6); and
a lock lever (70 Figure 6), wherein the lock link lever has a lock lever pin (87 Figure 6) that protrudes upwardly from a surface of the lock link lever, the lock link lever pin being configured to transition through a cam (88 Figure 6) of the lock lever (Para. 0210).
With regards to claim 9, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 7, further comprising:
an emergency release lever (24 Figure 1);
a lock link lever (84 Figure 6);
a back plate (unshown housing portion, Para. 0200);
a block link (92 Figure 14);
a back drive spring (20 Figure 2 – Schiffer);
the block lever (72 Figure 6);
a lock lever spring (86 Figure 2);
a lock lever (70 Figure 6);
an interim release lever spring (44 Figure 6);
an interim release lever (36 Figure 2);
a pawl switch lever (73 Figure 3B);
a release link (71 Figure 3B); and
the release lever (54 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 10, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 9, wherein the lock link lever (84 Figure 6) has a lock lever pin (87 Figure 6) that protrudes upwardly from a surface of the lock link lever, the lock link lever pin being configured to transition through a cam (88 Figure 6) of the lock lever (70 Figure 6)(Para. 0210)
With regards to claim 11, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the vehicle latch as in claim 10, wherein the worm (50 Figure 2) meshingly engages a plurality of teeth located about a periphery of the wheel (52 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 12, Cetnar discloses a method (Paras. 0199-0212) of opening a vehicle latch (10 Figure 2) with only a single motor (30 Figure 2), comprising:
operably coupling the single motor for driving a worm operably coupled to the single motor, wherein the worm meshingly engages a wheel rotatably mounted to a housing of the latch;
electrically releasing the latch with the single motor by rotating the wheel from a reset position in a first direction, wherein returning the wheel to the reset position by rotating the single motor in a second direction, which is opposite to the first direction;
placing the latch into a Power Child Lock and/or a Double Lock position by rotating the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction; and
disengaging the latch from the Power Child Lock and/or the Double Lock position, by rotating the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction a second time, thereby making mechanical opening of the latch operational (Cetnar discloses the latch, its components, and their operation as detailed in the rejection of the corresponding product claims above [Figures 1-17, Paras. 0199-0212]).
Cetnar does not disclose that after rotation of the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction, the wheel is rotated back into the reset position by a spring.
However, Schiffer discloses a vehicle latch (1 Figure 1) operated by a single motor (7 Figure 1) in which after rotation of the of a wheel (3 Figure 1) by a worm (8 Figure 1) of the single motor from a reset position in a second direction (P Figure 1), the wheel is rotated back into the reset position by a spring (20 Figure 2) (Cols. 7-8, Lines 63-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to Cetnar’s latch a back drive spring for rotating the wheel back into the reset position after rotation of the wheel by the single motor from the reset position in the second direction, as taught by Schiffer, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a spring so that “a simple construction is possible and a separate control of the electric drive for resetting is not absolutely necessary” (Col. 6 Lines 25-35 – Schiffer).
With regards to claim 13, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the method as in claim 12, wherein the wheel also has a cam portion located on one side of the wheel and a driving feature located on an opposite side of the wheel (Cetnar discloses the latch, its components, and their operation as detailed in the rejection of the corresponding product claims above [Figures 1-17, Paras. 0199-0212]).
With regards to claim 14, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the method as in claim 13, wherein the cam portion is configured for engaging a release lever while the driving feature is configured to engage a block lever (Cetnar discloses the latch, its components, and their operation as detailed in the rejection of the corresponding product claims above [Figures 1-17, Paras. 0199-0212]).
With regards to claim 15, Cetnar in view of Schiffer teaches the method as in claim 14, wherein the vehicle latch includes:
a lock link lever; and
a lock lever, wherein the lock link lever has a lock lever pin that protrudes upwardly from a surface of the lock link lever, the lock link lever pin being configured to transition through a cam of the lock lever (Cetnar discloses the latch, its components, and their operation as detailed in the rejection of the corresponding product claims above [Figures 1-17, Paras. 0199-0212]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 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, Kristina Fulton, can be reached at (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 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights