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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, change the term “pole” to -pawl- (see 112 2nd paragraph rejection below). Correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
The claims present some typographical error that appears to be because of the translation of the application.
First, the claims use the term “pole”. However, the term is in definite. As well known in the art, a pole is a long slender, cylindrical object. The element referring to in the application is not that. The correct term used in the art is “a pawl”.
Therefore, correction is required (also in the specification).
Claim 1 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
310
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the limitations are indefinite. The claim requires that the latch, the pawl and the open lever are rotatable “against” the base member and the sub-lever against the open lever.
When we say something is rotating against another object, it means the object is turning or spinning in a way that is opposite in direction to the rotation of the other object or, in some contexts, it is resisting or opposing that rotation.
That is not what we have here. As shown in the drawings, the latch, the pawl and the open lever are rotatable mounted to the base member; and the sub-lever is rotatable mounted to the open lever.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be examined as mentioned above, the latch, the pawl and the open lever are rotatable mounted to the base member; and the sub-lever is rotatable mounted to the open lever.
Correction is required.
Finally, the claim requires movement of the open lever, when the pawl is in the fully locked engagement, is returned to the original position and then is moved when the pawl is in the half-locked position. However, the claim is incomplete since it omits essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. At the instant, the invention requires an the unlock lever (not shown) that is operatively connected to the open lever, wherein, when the unlock lever is operated a 1st time, moves the open lever from the fully locked position to the half locked position; the unlock lever is released, allowing the open lever to return, as claimed, and then the unlock lever is actuated and the sub lever perform the function claimed at the end of the claim.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be examined as mentioned above, that includes an unlock lever operatively connected to the open lever, and the movement performed. Correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, as interpreted above, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Foley (US 3848909) discloses an assembly that comprises a latch (36) that can have a fully and a half-locked position; a pawl (46); an open lever (70) and a sub lever (78).
Ikeda (US 6158788) also discloses an assembly that comprises a latch (2) that can have a fully and a half-locked position; a pawl (3); an open lever (4) and a sub lever (6).
Sato (JP 2010144337) also discloses an assembly that comprises a latch (22) that can have a fully and a half-locked position; a pawl (21); an open lever (3) and a sub lever (32).
However, the prior art fails to disclose the invention as claimed and interpreted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
April 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights