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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is respectfully reminded to use consistent terminology for the components of the claimed invention throughout the disclosure. 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 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the outer side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vehicle width” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the axis of rotation" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the other surface side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the one surface side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the other end side" in lines 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berghahn et al. US 8303003, hereinafter referred to as Berghahn and further in view of Bruce US 6749234.
Regarding claim 1, Berghahn discloses a door latch device (fig1) for an automotive vehicle door (40, see fig3) comprising :
a striker (51) can be inserted (see fig3),
a holding fork (10), rotatable between a holding position (fig5) in which it holds and immobilizes the striker and a releasing position (fig3) in which its hold on the striker is released,
a locking claw (20) rotatable between a locking position (fig5) in which it locks the fork into the holding position and an unlocking position (fig3) in which it unlocks the fork, the locking claw being biased from the unlocked position towards the locked position, characterized in that wherein the holding fork comprises a first locking protrusion (14) facing a locking recess (see annotated figure, created to include surfaces of and be between 24 and 23) provided in the locking claw, such that engagement of the first locking protrusion in the locking recess (engagement occurs at 23, fig5) locks the locking claw and the holding fork together, and a second locking protrusion (most exterior portion of 17, see annotated figure) configured to come into contact with an opposing side (exterior side of 24, see annotated figure) of the locking claw when the locking claw is in its locking position but the first locking protrusion is not in contact with a bottom surface (see annotated figure) of the locking recess.
Berghahn does not explicitly teach the latch housing components of the latch device (see col. 2 lines 3-4) although does acknowledge that other components of the latch housing exist. Berghahn does not teach: a base member having an insertion slot through which striker can be inserted; the holding fork disposed on the base member, a locking claw disposed on the base member.
Bruce teaches a door latch device (fig1) for an automative vehicle door (abstract) comprising:
a base member (12) having an insertion slot (15) through which striker (11) can be inserted;
a holding fork (18) disposed on the base member (see fig4),
a locking claw (17) disposed on the base member (fig4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch device of Berghahn to be mounted explicitly on latch housing component such as a base member with an insertion slot, a concept as taught by Bruce, in order to provide a reduced noise and rattle housing (Bruce) since Berghahn acknowledges that the housing exists but does not explicitly detail its parts, and the device of Berghahn would remain functionally equivalent. (Bruce col 1 lines 5-10, 50-55)
Regarding claim 2, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, further comprising a latch mechanism (Berghahn, 60,34,36; NOTE: the latch mechanism also includes above holding fork 10 and locking claw 20) that may be switched from a latched state preventing the vehicle door from being opened, to an unlatched state allowing the vehicle door to be opened and wherein, when the second locking protrusion is in contact with the opposing side of the locking claw, said second locking protrusion is subjected to the load received by the fork such that the claw is still engaged with the fork and the latch mechanism will not switch to the unlatched state. (Berghahn, annotated figure, fig3-5)
Regarding claim 3, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, wherein, when the claw is in its locking position, the second locking protrusion is located a distance from the fork on a side perpendicular to the direction in which the insertion slot extends. (Berghahn, annotated figure, Bruce fig1-4)
Regarding claim 4, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, wherein the second locking protrusion is located towards an outer side of the vehicle in a vehicle width direction (left to right, fig3) with respect to the first locking protrusion (Berghahn, fig3 left side of 40 is the outer side of the vehicle and right side of 40 is inner side of vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, wherein the locking claw comprises a protruding portion (Berghahn, 24) that fits into a recessed portion (Berghahn, annotated figure) of the holding fork.
Regarding claim 6, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 5, wherein the protruding portion of the locking claw is formed in a portion of the locking recess that is adjacent to an outer side of the locking recess in the vehicle width direction. (Berghahn, annotated figure)
Regarding claim 7, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 5, wherein the recessed portion of the holding fork is adjacent to an inner side (Berghahn, annotated figure) of the first locking protrusion (Berghahn, see fig1-5) in the vehicle width direction.
Regarding claim 8, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 5, wherein the second locking protrusion comes into contact with an outer side of the protruding portion of the locking claw in the vehicle width direction. (Berghahn, annotated figure, fig1-5)
Regarding claim 9, Bergahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, wherein the first locking protrusion and/or the second locking protrusion but does not teach wherein the first locking protrusion and/or the second locking protrusion has a generally triangular shape.
Berghahn does teach generally triangular shape protrusions (23,24) but on the locking claw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined device of Berghahn in view of Bruce with the modified first locking and/or second locking protrusion to be generally triangle, since a change in shape is a design consideration of one skilled in the art since there seems to be no criticality to the shape of the protrusion and the protrusion(s) would remain functionally equivalent.
Regarding claim 10, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the locking claw has an arc shape (annotated figure, Berghahn) centered about an axis of rotation (Berghahnm at 27) of the locking claw (32).
Regarding claim 11, Berghahn in view of Bruce further teaches the door latch device according to claim 1, wherein it further comprises a cover plate (Bruce, 13) disposed on one side of the base member (see Bruce, fig5, base member of Bruce is 12) on which the holding fork (Berghahn 10) and the locking claw (Berghahn 20) are disposed and supporting one end of a rotation shaft (Berghahn, contains 11 for the holding fork and contains 27 for the locking claw – neither are explicitly labeled, fig3) of each of the holding fork and the locking claw, and further comprises a set plate (Bruce 14) arranged on another surface side of the base member opposite to another end side of the holding fork and the locking claw opposite to the one end of the rotation shaft. (Bruce fig5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch device of Berghahn to be mounted explicitly on latch housing comprising further of a cover plate and set plate, a concept as taught by Bruce, in order to provide a reduced noise and rattle housing (Bruce) since Berghahn acknowledges that the housing exists but does not explicitly detail its parts, and the device of Berghahn would remain functionally equivalent. (Bruce col 1 lines 5-10, 50-55)
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
870
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to vehicle latches.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 20230349203, US 12054974, US 20150097378.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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 M. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675