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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to Claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species IV, corresponding to the embodiment of figs. 19-23, in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that features 42, 44, 46, and 56 are related in each of figs. 12-23. This is not found persuasive because figures 12-14, 15, 16-18, and 19-23 clearly show variations. For example, comparing instant figures 14 and 15, it is immediately apparent that 56 is present in fig. 15 and absent in fig. 14. Comparing figure 18 and figure 21 and/or figure 14 and figure 22, it is immediately apparent that the shape of 42 is a variant. As another example, the cover 14 in figures 12 and 16 is shown to have snap-connectors along the perimeter which are absent in the variant cover 14 of figure 19, which also has a different internal configuration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (KR 101581580).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. An actuator for a vehicle latch, comprising: an actuator housing (either of 10 or 30; figs. 1-2); an actuator cover (either of 10 or 30; figs. 1-2); a dual function lever (14) rotatably secured to the actuator; a service release lever (15) rotatably secured to the actuator, the dual function lever and the service release lever are located outside of the actuator so that they can rotate about an exterior of the actuator, the dual function lever being rotated by a gear (either of any of 182-183 or any of 32-33) located within the actuator housing and the actuator cover, wherein the dual function lever, the service release lever and the gear are all capable of being driven in a first direction and a second direction; and a service release cable (20) secured to the service release lever (fig. 2) wherein the service release cable may be secured to opposite sides of the actuator while still being secured to the service release lever (conditional limitation).
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.
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 2-7, 13-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101581580), in view of Fisher (GB 2337555).
The prior art does not disclose a seal, and therefore cannot be said to read on the limitations of claims 2-18.
GB teaches a seal (fig. 1 shows unlabeled seal located between housing 12 and cover plate 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the seal of GB with the housing (i.e., either of KR’s 10 or 30) of KR, for the expected benefit of sealing the housing against weather, a known advantage in the art.
The combination, as motivated above, suggests the claimed limitations as follows:
2. The actuator as in claim 1, wherein further comprising a seal (GB: seal) located between the actuator housing and the actuator cover (KR: either of 10, 30) when the actuator housing and the actuator cover are secured together.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose the explicit materials of GB’s seal, and therefore cannot be said to read on the limitations of claim 3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to form the component (i.e., seal) out of elastomeric material or rubber for the predictable result of optimizing the structural integrity of the components while minimizing spacing and costs, since it has been held to be well-within the general skill of a worker in the art to select from known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use.1
4. The actuator as in claim 2, wherein the seal (GB: seal) has a first portion that performs a perimeter seal function between the actuator housing and the actuator cover (KR: 30) when the actuator housing and the actuator cover are secured together and a second portion that performs a sealing function between the dual function lever and the gear when the actuator housing and the actuator cover are secured together (i.e., insomuch as KR’s gearing is within 30 and lever is within 10).
5. The actuator as in claim 4, wherein the first portion and the second portion are integrally formed together such that the seal is a single unitary structure (GB: seal).
6. The actuator as in claim 5, wherein the seal is molded into the actuator cover (product by process).
7. The actuator as in claim 5, wherein the second portion of the seal interacts with the gear to seal an interface between the gear and the dual function lever (i.e., insomuch as KR’s gearing is within 30 and lever is within 10).
13. The actuator as in claim 5, wherein the first portion of the seal provides a seal interface between the actuator cover and the actuator housing when the actuator housing and the actuator cover are secured together (GB: seal).
14. The actuator as in claim 13, wherein the seal interacts with actuator housing with at least two sealing features that compress the seal (GB: portion of 12 and portion of 28).
19. The actuator as in claim 17, further comprising a service release cable (60) secured to the service release lever wherein the service release cable may be secured to opposite sides of the actuator while still being secured to the service release lever.
The limitations of claims 17-18 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 15-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See discussions of MPEP 2144.07 regarding Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Prosecution Insights