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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-20, the cancellation of claims 2, 10, 13, and 15, and the addition of new claims 21-24 filed February 25, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 14, 19, 20, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 8, replace the phrase “in a powered-off state” with the phrase “in an ignition-off state,” and in line 14, the phrase “wherein the powered-off state includes an ignition-off state of the vehicle” should be removed.
In regards to claim 7, line 2, the word “moved” should be changed to “pivoted,” and in line 3, the phrase “a first direction” should be changed to “a second direction.”
In regards to claim 14, lines 3 and 4, replace the phrase “a powered-off state” with the phrase “an ignition-off state,” in line 5, the word “movable” should be changed to “pivotable,” and in line 10, the phrase “wherein the powered-off state includes an ignition-off state of the vehicle” should be removed.
In regards to claim 19, line 2, the phrase “the first direction” should be changed to “a second direction.”
In regards to claim 20, line 2, the phrase “the first direction” should be changed to “the second direction” and the word “moved” should be changed to “pivoted.”
In regards to claim 14, line 8, the word “moveable” should be changed to “pivotable.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “a powered-off state,” and the claim also recites “the powered-off state includes an ignition-ff state” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the vehicle includes the ignition-off state. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 7, it is unclear how the coupler is “moved,” when claim 1 recites that the coupler pivots. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the coupler is pivoted to the unlocked position. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 7, it is unclear how the second actuation cable moves in the same “first direction” as the first cable, when it is understood from the specification and shown in Figure 5, that when the first cable is moved in the first direction, the second cable is caused to move in a direction opposite to the first direction or a second direction. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the second cable is moved in a second direction. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “a powered-off state,” and the claim also recites “the powered-off state includes an ignition-ff state” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the vehicle includes the ignition-off state. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation that the coupler is “movable,” and the claim also recites that the coupler “pivots” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the coupler pivots and is pivotable. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 19, it is unclear how the second actuation cable moves in the same “first direction” as the first cable, when it is understood from the specification and shown in Figure 5, that when the first cable is moved in the first direction, the second cable is caused to move in a direction opposite to the first direction or a second direction. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the second cable is moved in a second direction. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 24, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation that the coupler is “movable,” and the claim also recites that the coupler “pivots” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the coupler pivots and is pivotable. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-18, and 20-23, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 14.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US-11572719) in view of Peterson (US-4702094).
In regards to claim 1, Hwang discloses a closure member system in combination with a vehicle, the closure member system comprising: a closure member 3 moveable between a closed position (Col. 4, lines 13-19) and an open position (Figure 1); a latch 11 configured for holding the closure member in the closed position; and a latch release assembly (Figure 3) configured to release the latch to allow the closure member to be moved to the open position, wherein the latch release assembly includes a coupler 22 pivotable between a locked position (Figure 4) and an unlocked position (Figure 6) when actuated by an emergency release system 14, 15 (Col. 7, lines 13-30), a first actuation cable 34 and a second actuation cable 33 each coupled to opposite ends of the coupler (Figure 4), wherein, movement of the first actuation cable in a first direction (direction 1 shown in Figure 6) causes the coupler to pivot about a coupler axis to the unlocked position (see Figure 4 below). Hwang fails to disclose an actuator switchable from a deployed state to a retracted state when the vehicle is in an ignition-off state, and that when the actuator is in the retracted state, the movement of the first actuation cable in the first direction is allowed to cause the coupler to pivot about the coupler axis to the unlocked position. Peterson teaches an actuator 47 that is switchable from a deployed state (Figure 3), in which the actuator blocks movement of an element 58 by being located in a movement path of the element 58, to a retracted state (when the actuator is activated to withdraw plunger 48 from the path of movement of element 58, Col. 5, lines 3-35) when the vehicle is in an ignition-off state (the ignition key of the vehicle is turned off, Col. 5, line 52 – Col. 6, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include an actuator in a location relative to the stop of the coupler of Hwang such that the plunger of the actuator is in the movement path of the stop of the coupler, i.e. the movement path in the directions 3 and 4 shown in Figure 6 of Hwang and shown in annotated Figure 4 below, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent releasing of the latch when the vehicle is not in the ignition-off state.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Hwang discloses that the first actuation cable includes a first end (end with ball portion, Figure 4) and an opposite second end (end coupled to the emergency release system, Figure 3), the first end coupled to the coupler and the second end coupled to the emergency release system (Figure 3).
In regards to claim 4, Hwang discloses that the emergency release system is arranged in a compartment of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 19-24) and configured to move the first actuation cable in the first direction (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 5, Hwang discloses that the compartment is a frunk and the closure member is a hood (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 6, Hwang discloses that the second actuation cable includes a first end 23 and an opposite second end (end coupled to latch, Figure 3), the first end coupled to the coupler (Figure 4) and the second end coupled to the latch (Figure 3).
In regards to claim 7, Hwang discloses that when the coupler is moved to the unlocked position (Figure 6), the second actuation cable is moved in a first direction (to the right in Figure 6 to result in counterclockwise rotation of the coupler shown in Figure 6) to release the latch to allow the closure member to move to the open position.
In regards to claim 8, Hwang in view of Peterson teaches that the actuator includes a plunger 48 (Peterson) that holds the coupler in the locked position when the actuator is in the deployed position (the coupler is held in the locked position or prevented from moving out of the locked position by the plunger located in the movement path of the coupler).
In regards to claim 9, Hwang in view of Peterson teaches that the coupler includes a body (see Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) and a stop (see Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) that projects laterally from the body and engages the actuator when the actuator is in the deployed position (Figure 3 of Peterson).
In regards to claim 11, Hwang in view of Peterson teaches that when the actuator is in the retracted state and the coupler is in the unlocked position, the latch is release to allow the closure member to move to the open position (Col. 7, lines 13-30 of Hwang).
In regards to claim 12, Peterson teaches that the actuator is a solenoid (Figure 3).
In regards to claim 14, Hwang discloses a method, comprising: a coupler 22 of a latch release assembly (Figure 3) is manually pivotable to an unlocked position (Figure 6) to release a latch 11 of a closure member 3 of a vehicle, wherein the coupler pivots about a coupler axis (see Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action) to the unlocked position in response to a first actuation cable 34 moving in a first direction (direction 1 shown in Figure 6). Hwang fails to disclose that the method includes automatically switching an actuator of the latch release assembly from a deployed state to a retracted state in response to the vehicle experiencing an ignition-off state, with the coupler being manually pivotable to the unlocked position when the actuator is in the retracted state. Peterson teaches an actuator 47 that is switchable from a deployed state (Figure 3), in which the actuator blocks movement of an element 58 by being located in a movement path of the element 58, to a retracted state (when the actuator is activated to withdraw plunger 48 from the path of movement of element 58, Col. 5, lines 3-35) when the vehicle is in an ignition-off state (the ignition key of the vehicle is turned off, Col. 5, line 52 – Col. 6, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include an actuator in a location relative to the stop of the coupler of Hwang such that the plunger of the actuator is in the movement path of the stop of the coupler, i.e. the movement path in the directions 3 and 4 shown in Figure 6 of Hwang and shown in annotated Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent releasing of the latch when the vehicle is not in the ignition-off state.
In regards to claim 16, Hwang discloses that the first actuation cable is moved in the first direction in response to activating a release mechanism 14, 15 arranged in a compartment of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 19-24).
In regards to claim 17, Hwang discloses that the compartment is a frunk (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 19, Hwang discloses that the latch is release in response to a second actuation cable 33 moving in a second direction (direction 4 in Figure 6).
In regards to claim 20, Hwang discloses that the second actuation cable is moved in the second direction when the coupler is pivoted to the unlocked position (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 22, Hwang in view of Peterson teaches that prior to automatically switching the actuator to the retracted state, maintaining the actuator in the deployed state in which the actuator engages a stop projecting from a body of the coupler (see Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action, with the plunger of the actuator being in the movement path of the stop, thereby, preventing pivoting of the coupler).
In regards to claim 23, Hwang in view of Peterson teaches that the automatically switching the actuator to the retracted state includes disengaging the actuator from the stop (when the actuator is activated to withdraw plunger 48 from the path of movement of element 58, Col. 5, lines 3-35 of Peterson or withdraw plunger out of movement path of stop of Hwang).
In regards to claim 24, Hwang discloses a closure member system in combination with a vehicle, the closure member system comprising: a closure member 3 moveable between a closed position (Col. 4, lines 13-19) and an open position (Figure 1); a latch 11 configured for holding the closure member in the closed position; and a latch release assembly (Figure 3) configured to release the latch to allow the closure member to be moved to the open position, wherein the latch release assembly includes a coupler 22 pivotable between a locked position (Figure 4) and an unlocked position (Figure 6) when actuated by an emergency release system 14, 15 (Col. 7, lines 13-30), a first actuation cable 34 and a second actuation cable 33 each coupled to opposite ends of the coupler, wherein movement of the first actuation cable in a first direction (direction 1 shown in Figure 6) causes the coupler to pivot about a coupler axis to the unlocked position (see Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action), wherein the coupler includes a body and a stop that projects laterally from the body (see Figure 4 on Page 8 of the current Office Action). Hwang fails to disclose an actuator switchable from a deployed state to a retracted state when the vehicle is in an ignition-off state, and that when the actuator is in the retracted state, the movement of the first actuation cable in the first direction is allowed to cause the coupler to pivot about the coupler axis to the unlocked position, and the actuator engages the stop of the coupler when the actuator is in the deployed state. Peterson teaches an actuator 47 that is switchable from a deployed state (Figure 3), in which the actuator blocks movement of an element 58 by being located in a movement path of the element 58, to a retracted state (when the actuator is activated to withdraw plunger 48 from the path of movement of element 58, Col. 5, lines 3-35) when the vehicle is in an ignition-off state (the ignition key of the vehicle is turned off, Col. 5, line 52 – Col. 6, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include an actuator in a location relative to the stop of the coupler of Hwang such that the plunger of the actuator is in the movement path of the stop of the coupler and engages the stop of the coupler in the same manner that the plunger of Peterson engages with component 58 to block movement of component 58, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent releasing of the latch when the vehicle is not in the ignition-off state.
Claim(s) 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US-11572719) in view of Peterson (US-4702094) as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22-24 above, and further in view of Yoneyama et al. (US-6017067).
In regards to claim 18, Hwang discloses that the coupler pivots to a locked or original position (Figure 4), but fails to disclose that the coupler is biased to cause the coupler to pivot from the unlocked position to the locked position in response to deactivating the release mechanism. Yoneyama et al. teaches a coupler 21 coupled to multiple coupling elements 24, 27, and 30, with the coupler pivoting about an axis (axis through pin 22, Figure 5) and biased to a locked or original position (Figure 5) by a biasing member 19 in response to a deactivating of a release mechanism 29 (Col. 4, lines 62-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to include a biasing member to bias the coupler of Hwang to its locked or original position (Figure 4), with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid the coupler in returning to its original or locked position after being actuated by the release mechanism.
In regards to claim 21, Hwang in view of Peterson teaches that the coupler pivots to the locked position such that the stop is maintained in engagement with the actuator when the actuator is in the deployed state (the plunger of the actuator of Peterson is in the movement path of the stop of the coupler and engages the stop of the coupler in the same manner that the plunger of Peterson engages with component 58 to block movement of component 58, so as to maintain engagement with the stop), but fails to disclose a biasing member that biases the coupler to the locked position. Yoneyama et al. teaches a coupler 21 coupled to multiple coupling elements 24, 27, and 30, with the coupler pivoting about an axis (axis through pin 22, Figure 5) and biased to a locked or original position (Figure 5) by a biasing member 19 in response to a deactivating of a release mechanism 29 (Col. 4, lines 62-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to include a biasing member to bias the coupler of Hwang to its locked or original position (Figure 4), with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid the coupler in returning to its original or locked position after being actuated by the release mechanism.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the specification, the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning the amendments to the claims and the prior art rejections, applicant is referred to the new rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Hwang (US-11572719) in view of Peterson (US-4702094). Specifically in regards to applicant’s remarks concerning claim 9 and the Hwang reference, the structure of Hwang is considered as a stop because it projects laterally from the body of the coupler so as to engage with the plunger of the actuator of Peterson, thereby stopping or preventing pivoting of the coupler when the actuator is in the deployed state, and therefore, the claim limitations are met.
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 ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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, 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights