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 23 March 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the door node controller controls the power release motor independently from latch controller and the latch controller controls the power release motor independently from the door node controller) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Marlia discloses a door node controller (12) that is electrically coupled to the power release motor (shown in Fig. 1). Marlia teaches the door node controller is configured to control the power release motor in a normal operating mode because it transmits a signal to open the door with the power release motor ([0039]; [0047] (actuation of the door is based on “signals received from the vehicle management unit 12”)). Marlia also discloses a latch controller (21) that is electrically coupled to the power release motor (shown in Fig. 2). Marlia teaches the latch controller is configured to control the power release motor in an emergency mode because it is supplies energy from the backup energy source to the power release motor ([0042], [0045]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues Marlia does not teach use of different control units to control a release operation of the e-latch assembly during separate conditions. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., use of different control units to control a release operation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 15 only requires one control unit, “an electronic control unit,” recitation of “an externally located door node” does not require a second control unit because electrical node is merely a junction where two components connect. Transmitting a signal from a node does not necessarily require another control unit. Marlia teaches a door node connecting the latch controller to a handle switch, and the door node is externally located with respect to the electronic control unit ([0048], Fig. 3).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The specification and the claims use inconsistent terminology; the meaning of every term used in the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import. Correction of the following is required: “external door node controller” and “internal latch controller” in claims 11-14 are not found in the specification. The terminology should be consistent between the specification and the claims to avoid confusion as to what subject matter is disclosed and being claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 6 of claim 14, “first door release circuit” should likely be --first door release switch circuit--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marlia et al., US 2017/0314302 A1.
Claim 1: Marlia discloses a door (2), comprising:
a closure latch assembly (6) including a power release motor (6d);
a door node controller (12) electrically coupled to the power release motor ([0039]);
a latch controller (21) electrically coupled to the power release motor ([0039]);
the door node controller configured to control the power release motor in a normal operating mode of the closure latch assembly ([0047]); and
the latch controller configured to control the power release motor in an emergency mode of the closure latch assembly ([0043]).
Claim 2: Marlia discloses the door of Claim 1, further including
a first door release switch circuit (90) electrically connected to the closure latch assembly (the circuit 90 electrically connected to the closure latch assembly via output node 28; Fig. 3) and a second door release switch circuit (40) electrically connected to the door node controller (the circuit 40 is electrically connected to the door node controller 12 via input 24 and bus 14 electrically connecting the door node controller and latch controller (Figs. 2-3)),
wherein electricity flowing in the first door release switch circuit does not flow in the second door release switch circuit ([0050], [0054]).
Claim 6: Marlia discloses the door of Claim 1, wherein the closure latch assembly is powered by a main power source (4) during the normal operating mode and by a backup energy source (20) during the emergency mode, wherein the backup energy source is prevented from supplying power to the door node controller until at least one of the loss of the main power source is detected and a crash signal is received ([0042-44], [0054]).
Claim 7: Marlia discloses a door system for a door, comprising:
a closure latch assembly (6);
a door node controller (12) for controlling the closure latch assembly ([0039]);
a first door release switch circuit having a first switch associated with a door handle, the first door release switch circuit (90) electrically connected to the closure latch assembly (Fig. 3); and
a second door release switch circuit having a second switch associated with the door handle, the second door release switch circuit (16) electrically connected to the door node controller (Fig. 3), wherein electricity flowing in the first door release switch circuit does not flow in the second door release switch circuit ([0054]: electricity flowing in the first circuit does not flow to the second circuit due to diode 94).
Claim 10: Marlia discloses the door system of claim 7, wherein the closure latch assembly is powered by a main power source (4) during the normal operating mode and by a backup energy source (20) during the emergency mode, wherein the backup energy source is prevented from supplying power to the door node controller until at least one of the loss of the main power source is detected and a crash signal is received ([0042-44], [0054]; claim 4).
Claim 15: Marlia discloses a closure latch assembly (Fig. 1) for a door (2), comprising:
a housing (11) for enclosing (Fig. 1);
a ratchet and pawl assembly (6a and 6c) for selectively securing the door ([0037]),
a power release motor (6d) for moving the pawl to release the ratchet to unsecure the door ([0037]);
a latch controller (21) having an electronic control unit (21a) for controlling the power release motor ([0045]); and
a backup energy source (20) for use in an emergency condition to power the power release motor ([0042-43]);
wherein the closure latch assembly is configured to be controlled during a normal condition in response to receiving a signal from an externally located door node electrically coupled to the closure latch assembly (Fig. 2; [0047]; [0051]), and to be controlled during an emergency condition in response to receiving a signal from the electronic control unit of the latch controller ([0045]; [0048]), and wherein the power release motor is powered by a main power source (4) external to the closure latch assembly (Fig. 2) in the normal condition ([0006], [0042]) and the power release motor is powered by the backup energy source during the emergency condition ([0048]; claim 4).
Claim 16: Marlia discloses the closure latch assembly of Claim 15, further including the closure latch assembly powered by a main power source in the normal condition ([0035], [0042]), and wherein the latch controller (21) is configured to:
detect a loss of the main power source ([0042]);
detect a crash signal from a body control module (12) in communication with the latch closure assembly ([0047]);
detect activation of at least one of the inside switch and the outside switch by a user ([0041], [0051]); and
prevent supply of the power from the backup energy source to the door node until activation of at least one of the inside switch and the outside switch is detected and at least one of the loss of the main power source is detected and the crash signal is received ([0044], [0047]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlia, US 2017/0314302 A1, in view /of Magner et al., US 2011/0203181 A1.
Claim 11: Marlia discloses a closure latch assembly, comprising:
a power release motor (6d) electrically coupled to an external door node controller (12), the external door node controller having a primary electronic control unit ([0039]) configured to control the closure latch assembly in a normal condition ([0041]: the control unit is configured to transmit signals of handle actuation for controlling the latch);
a backup energy source (20) for use in an emergency mode to power the power release motor ([0043]); and
an internal latch controller (10) having a secondary electronic control unit (21) configured to control the closure latch assembly during the emergency mode ([0048]).
However, Marlia is silent to the external door node controller and the backup energy source are electrically isolated to prevent the flow of electricity from the backup energy source to the external door node controller during the emergency mode.
Magner teaches a controller (24) and a backup energy source (252) are electrically isolated to prevent the flow of electricity from the backup energy source to the external door node controller during an emergency mode ([0052-53]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Marlia such that the external door node controller and the backup energy source are electrically isolated to prevent the flow of electricity from the backup energy source to the external door node controller during the emergency mode, as taught by Magner, in order to manage battery power and avoid draining the backup energy source when the main battery is not low (Magner [0053]).
Claim 12: Marlia, in view of Magner, teaches the closure latch assembly of claim 11, wherein the closure latch assembly is powered by a main power source (Marlia 4) during the normal operating mode and by a backup energy source (Marlia 20) during the emergency mode (Marlia [0043-44]).
Claim 13: Marlia, in view of Magner, teaches the closure latch assembly of claim 12, further including an inside switch associated with an inside handle of a door and an outside switch associated with an outside handle of the door (Marlia [0041]),
wherein the backup energy source is prevented form supplying power to the external door node controller until activation of at least one of the inside switch and the outside switch is detected and at least one of the loss of the main power source is detected and a crash signal is received (Marlia claim 4; Marlia [0047]; Magner [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 14, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 3-5 and 17-20, as discussed in the Non-final Office Action mailed 23 Dec. 2025.
Regarding claim 8, Marlia discloses the door of claim 7, including an inside switch associated with an inside handle of the door and an outside switch associated with an outside handle of the door ([0041]). However, Marlia is silent to the inside switch and the outside switch are each double pole single throw switches to electrically isolate the first door release circuit from the second door release switch circuit. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the door system disclosed by Marlia to include an inside switch and an outside switch that are each double pole single throw switches and electrically isolate the first door release circuit from the second door release switch circuit without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to disclose every limitation of claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Regarding claim 14, Marlia, in view of Magner, teaches the closure latch assembly of claim 13, but does not teach the inside switch and the outside switch are each coupled to a first door release switch circuit and a second door release switch circuit to electrically isolate the first door release switch circuit from the second door release switch circuit.
Spurr (2008/0000711 A1) discloses a similar closure latch assembly but does not teach a power release motor electrically coupled to an external door node controller and an internal latch controller having a secondary control unit configured to control the closure latch assembly during the emergency mode. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the assembly disclosed by Spurr to have the above-mentioned elements as claimed without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun et al. (US 2021/0183228 A1) is related to a latch assembly comprising a first processor and a second processor that are connected to a main battery and a backup battery.
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675