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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 23 Feb. 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: rod 31.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rod (claim 16) and a Bowden cable extending outside of the casing (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 11, reference element 3 appears to point to the lever (29) but should indicate the casing structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “elastic means” in claim 23. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “actuation means” and “blocking means” in claim clam 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 19, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “clamp” in claim 19 is used by the claim to mean a ledge on the lever that engages an edge of the casing, while the accepted meaning is “a device designed to bind or constrict or to press two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly” according to Merriam-Webster. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The clamp described by the specification and depicted in the drawings is not structured to bind, constrict, or press two or more parts together. Further, the clamp hooks on the casing and does not hold two or more parts together. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the disclosure as: a ledge or indentation configured to hook on the casing.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and therefore includes the indefinite language of claim 19.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 23, 24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miwa, US 2019/0234119 A1.
Claim 14: Miwa discloses a vehicle door latch, comprising:
a casing configured to be arranged on a door of a vehicle (depicted in Fig. 6) and comprising an opening configured to receive a striker (40) in the closed position of the door (depicted in Fig. 6), the striker being arranged on a vehicle body (Fig. 1; [0028]);
a rotatable hook (32) disposed in the casing and configured to get detachably engaged with the striker by rotating between a closed position and an opened position ([0030]);
a pawl mechanism (34) disposed in the casing and configured to move between a blocking position wherein the pawl mechanism blocks the rotation of the rotatable hook ([0031]) and a release position (Fig. 6);
an electrical motor (M2) linked to the pawl mechanism and configured to move the pawl mechanism from the blocking position to the release position and conversely ([0036]); and
a manual release mechanism comprising actuation means (50) linked to the pawl mechanism ([0042]) and extending outside of the casing and comprising a lever (60) that is configured to be grabbed by a user to manually move the pawl mechanism from the blocking position to the release position ([0042]) and conversely, the manual release mechanism also comprising blocking means (80) for blocking the actuation means in the release position (Fig. 7c) or in the blocking position (Fig. 7a) of the pawl mechanism ([0048] (the blocking means blocks the actuation means in the release position)).
Claim 23: Miwa discloses the vehicle door latch in accordance with claim 14, further comprising elastic means for constraining the pawl mechanism in the blocking position ([0031]).
Claim 24: Miwa discloses a vehicle door (4), comprising: the vehicle door latch in accordance with claim 14 (shown above).
Claim 26: Miwa discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: the vehicle door in accordance with claim 24 (shown above).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura, US 2017/0350172 A1.
Claim 14: Tamura discloses a vehicle door latch, comprising:
a casing (base 14 and case 15 form a casing) configured to be arranged on a door of a vehicle (Fig. 1) and comprising an opening configured to receive a striker (2) in the closed position of the door (Fig. 1), the striker being arranged on a vehicle body (Fig. 1);
a rotatable hook (10) disposed in the casing and configured to get detachably engaged with the striker by rotating between a closed position and an opened position (Figs. 6-7);
a pawl mechanism (11) disposed in the casing and configured to move between a blocking position wherein the pawl mechanism blocks the rotation of the rotatable hook and a release position (Figs. 6-7);
an electrical motor (23) linked to the pawl mechanism and configured to move the pawl mechanism from the blocking position to the release position and conversely ([0043-44]); and
a manual release mechanism (handle 16 and wire 17 form a manual release mechanism) comprising actuation means (17) linked to the pawl mechanism ([0046-47]) and extending outside of the casing ([0035]) and comprising a lever (41) that is configured to be grabbed by a user to manually move the pawl mechanism from the blocking position to the release position and conversely ([0047], [0055-56]), the manual release mechanism also comprising blocking means (54) for blocking the actuation means in the release position or in the blocking position of the pawl mechanism (Fig. 10 (projections 54 block the actuation means in the blocking position of the pawl mechanism)).
Claim 15: Tamura discloses the vehicle door latch in accordance with claim 14, wherein the lever is configured to be pulled by the user to move the pawl mechanism from the blocking position to the release position ([0047]; Fig. 8) and is pushed by the user to move the pawl mechanism from the release position to the blocking position ([0055]; the lever is configured to be pushed by the user to engage the blocking means (shown by movement from Fig. 11 to Fig 10)).
Claim 16: Tamura discloses the vehicle door latch in accordance with claim 14, wherein the actuation means comprise a rod (wire 17 correlates with a rod) linked to the pawl mechanism and extending outside of the casing ([0054]; Fig. 11).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hansen, DE 102010022826 A1.
Claim 17: Miwa discloses vehicle door latch in accordance with claim 14, wherein the actuation means comprise a cable (50) linked to the pawl mechanism and extending outside of the casing (Fig. 6). However, Miwa does not explicitly disclose a Bowden cable.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the cable disclosed by Miwa to be a Bowden cable. Use of a Bowden cable is well known and common in the art, as evidenced by Hansen ([0017]). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely the actuation means includes a Bowden cable linked to the pawl mechanism and extending outside of the casing.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Cumbo et al., US 2022/0316244 A1.
Claim 25: Miwa discloses a vehicle door in accordance with claim 24, wherein the vehicle door comprises a housing (70) arranged next to the latch ([0046]; Fig. 6) and wherein the lever is disposed in the housing (Fig. 7a).
However, Miwa is silent to the housing closed by a flap arranged on the inner side of the door. Cumbo teaches a housing closed by a flap (106) arranged on the inner side of a door ([0102-03]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flap arranged on the inner side of the door, as taught by Cumbo, with the housing disclosed by Miwa in order to prevent inadvertent movement of the lever (Cumbo [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 19-21.
In regards to claim 19, Miwa fails to disclose the blocking means comprise a clamp configured to hook on the casing in the release position of the pawl mechanism. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the blocking means disclosed by Miwa to comprise a clamp configured to hook on the casing without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Tamura teaches a clamp but fails to disclose the blocking means comprises the clamp configured to hook on the casing in the release position of the pawl mechanism. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the blocking means disclosed by Tamura to comprise a clamp configured to hook on the casing without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
In regards to claim 20, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 19 from which the claim depends.
Regarding claim 21, Miwa discloses an additional opening through which the actuation means extend outside of the casing, but does not teach the additional opening has a shape of a hollow cylinder, and wherein the actuation means comprise a cylindrical part which is complementary with the hollow cylinder and which is configured to be introduced within the hollow cylinder in the blocking position of the pawl mechanism to provide waterproofness. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the opening and the actuation means disclosed by Miwa so that the additional opening is shaped as a hollow cylinder and the actuation means has a cylindrical part that is complementary with the hollow cylinder and provides waterproofness without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Tamura discloses an additional opening through which the actuation means extend outside of the casing through which the actuation means extend outside of the casing. However, Tamura does not teach a hollow cylinder and the actuation means comprises a cylindrical part which is complementary with the hollow cylinder and is configured to be introduced within the hollow cylinder in the blocking position of the pawl mechanism to provide waterproofness. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the actuation means disclosed by Tamura to comprises a cylindrical part which is complementary with the hollow cylinder and is configured to be introduced within the hollow cylinder in the blocking position of the pawl mechanism to provide waterproofness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haaf et al. (US 6761384 B1) and Lawrence et al. (US 2015/0096337 A1) are related to a vehicle door latch comprising a housing closed by a flap, wherein a lever is disposed in the housing that releases the latch.
Fuchs (US 2023/0074045 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch comprising a manual release mechanism that is configured to move a release lever for actuating the pawl from a blocking position to a release position and reverse to reset the release lever so the pawl can move to the blocking position, but a blocking means to hold the release lever either position is not explicit.
Bishop et al. (US 2021/0175660 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch casing includes an opening for an actuation means and a seal on a part of the actuation means for waterproofness but does not include a clamp that hooks on the casing.
Dimig et al. (US 2004/0069028 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch comprising a casing comprising an opening shaped as a hollow cylinder through which an actuation means extends, but does not teach the actuation means has a cylindrical part within the hollow cylinder to provide waterproofness.
Rogers et al. (DE 4100524 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch comprising a casing with an opening and a hollow cylinder in the opening to provide waterproofness.
Guerin et al. (US 2022/0136289 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch comprising a manual actuation means and a blocking means for blocking the actuation means in the blocking position.
Kubo et al. (US 2022/0074241 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch comprising a manual release mechanism with an actuation means to manually move the pawl mechanism and a blocking means that blocks the actuation means in a release position of the pawl mechanism when the actuation means is pulled by a user and blocks the actuation means in a blocking position when the user moves the actuation means back to its initial position.
Lawrence et al. (US 2015/0096337 A1) is related to a vehicle door latch mechanism comprising a lever to manually move the pawl that is disposed in a housing and covered by a flap.
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
Prosecution Insights