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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18/385,433, filed October 31, 2023, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “from the partially closed position to the an position …” and should read “from the partially closed position to the open position …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/385,433 (reference application), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the conflicting claims are identified and indicated as being minor and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other. Claims 1-20 of reference application 18/835,433 teaches all the features of the limitations set forth in the instant claims. The instant and the reference application claims (18/835,433) both teach the features:
Claim Number
Current Application (18/933,059)
Copending Application (18/385,433)
1
A method for operating a latch associated with a closure in a vehicle, the method comprising:
A method for operating a latch configured to cooperate with a closure and enable access to a vehicle storage compartment of a vehicle,
1
detecting, by at least one latch status sensor, the latch being in a partially closed state;
detecting, by at least one latch status sensor, the latch being in a partially closed state;
1
commanding, by a controller, the latch to change from the partially closed state to a fully closed state;
commanding, by a controller, the latch to change from the partially closed state to a fully closed state;
1
receiving, from a switch, a command to change the latch to either an open state or the partially closed state to at least partially open the closure;
receiving, from a switch disposed in the vehicle storage compartment, a command to change the latch to either an open state or the partially closed state to at least partially open the closure;
1
executing, by the latch, a cinching cycle to verify that the latch is in the fully closed state and the closure is in a fully closed position;
executing, by the latch, a cinching cycle to verify that the latch is in the fully closed state and the closure is in a fully closed position in response to the controller receiving the command from the switch disposed in the vehicle storage compartment; and
1
executing, in response to executing the cinching cycle, a release cycle transitioning the latch from the fully closed state to the partially closed state to move the closure from the fully closed position to a partially closed position; and
executing, in response to executing the cinching cycle, a release cycle transitioning the latch from the fully closed state to the partially closed state to move the closure from the fully closed position to a partially closed position.
1
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in the vehicle in a closing direction.
2
wherein the at least one latch status sensor is configured to detect a position of the closure based on a state of the latch.
wherein the at least one latch status sensor is configured to detect a position of the closure based on a state of the latch.
3
further comprising: commanding a warning light disposed in a cabin of the vehicle to activate and warn a driver in response to the receiving step.
further comprising: commanding a warning light disposed in a cabin of the vehicle to activate and warn a driver in response to the receiving step
4
further comprising: determining a vehicle operating state of the vehicle; and executing, in response to the vehicle operating state being a parked state, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to the an position.
determining a vehicle operating state of the vehicle; and executing, in response to the vehicle operating state being a parked state, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to the an open position.
5
further comprising: determining a current speed of the vehicle; and executing, in response to the current speed being less than a predetermined threshold and receiving a second indication for the latch to disengage the closure, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to an open position.
further comprising: determining a current speed of the vehicle; and executing, in response to the current speed being less than a predetermined threshold and receiving a second indication for the latch to disengage the closure, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to an open position.
6
further comprising: detecting, when the cinching cycle is executed while the latch is in the fully closed state, a motor stall; and determining the latch status sensor is faulty when the detection of a current state of the latch is partially closed and the motor stall occurs.
further comprising: detecting, when the cinching cycle is executed while the latch is in the fully closed state, a motor stall; and determining the latch status sensor is faulty when the detection of a current state of the latch is partially closed and the motor stall occurs.
7
further comprising receiving, from the controller, in response to the determining the latch status sensor is faulty, a service code.
further comprising receiving, from the controller, in response to the determining the latch status sensor is faulty, a service code.
8
further comprising: receiving, from the at least one latch status sensor, an indication of a current state of the closure; and displaying, in response to the current state of the closure not being fully closed, to a driver a warning related to the current state of the closure.
further comprising: receiving, from the at least one latch status sensor, an indication of a current state of the closure; and displaying, in response to the current state of the closure not being fully closed, to a driver a warning related to the current state of the closure.
Claims 9-20 of the instant application recites analogous language to Claims 1-8 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
While the instant application does not explicitly claim activating a closure associated with a storage compartment, the instant application is more broad than the reference application (18/835,433), and still teaches a latch assembly associated with a closure of a vehicle, which can include any latch associated with the vehicle, such as for doors, trunks, stowage compartments, etc. Such teachings do not distinguish the claims from each other.
The claims in the reference application (18/835,433) do not teach the limitation of “driving … a spindle …” as claimed in the instant application. However, Ottino teaches a dual function latch assembly, where the retractable striker assembly has a motor and motor shaft, which moves the striker in a retracted position using a cinchable door-to-body latch assembly to lock the door to the vehicle body (i.e. closes the latch by moving the striker in a closed position to the vehicle body) (see at least Paragraphs [0181], [0196], [0277] of Ottino). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of the instant application, with the feature of cinching the door to the vehicle in the system of Ottino, in order to secure the doors to the vehicle in the closed position (see at least Paragraph [0195], [0197] of Ottino).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino).
As per Claim 1, Ottino discloses the features of a method for operating a latch associated with a closure in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0010]; where the method provides a door latch system for use in a motor vehicle), the method comprising:
detecting, by at least one latch status sensor, the latch being in a partially closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0040], [0226], [0232]; where a sensor indicator for a first and second sensor is used to determine when the striker is in a retracted or extended position, indicating the position of the latch; and when the door is detected in a partially open state, the vehicle can send the signal to move the striker to the fully closed position);
commanding, by a controller, the latch to change from the partially closed state to a fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0225], [0230]; where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position);
receiving, from a switch, a command to change the latch to either an open state or the partially closed state to at least partially open the closure (e.g. Paragraph 0232]; where the vehicle door is moved from a fully closed position, to a partially opened position, and then to a fully open position);
executing, by the latch, a cinching cycle to verify that the latch is in the fully closed state and the closure is in a fully closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0196], [0323], [0238]; where a cinching mechanism is employed in to the latch mechanism to allow the doors to be cinched and sealed with the vehicle body from at least a partially open position to the fully closed position);
executing, in response to executing the cinching cycle, a release cycle transitioning the latch from the fully closed state to the partially closed state to move the closure from the fully closed position to a partially closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0067], [0231], [0239]; Figures 36, 88; where the vehicle receives a door release signal corresponding to the operation of a release mechanism of the door using a controller, and the controller moves the door to the partially opened position); and
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in the vehicle in a closing direction (e.g. Paragraph [0181], [0196], [0277]; where the retractable striker assembly has a motor and motor shaft, which moves the striker in a retracted position using a cinchable door-to-body latch assembly to lock the door to the vehicle body).
As per Claim 2, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 1, and Ottino further discloses the features of wherein the at least one latch status sensor is configured to detect a position of the closure based on a state of the latch (e.g. Paragraphs [0232], [0239], [0251], [0288]; where the system detects a door open signal, and the system detects the position of the strikers using sensors and detects the status of the latches).
As per Claim 9, Ottino discloses the features of a latch assembly for use in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0010]; where the method provides a door latch system for use in a motor vehicle),
the latch assembly configured to cooperate with a closure in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0181], [0196], [0277]; where the retractable striker assembly has a motor and motor shaft, which moves the striker in a retracted position using a cinchable door-to-body latch assembly to lock the door to the vehicle body), the latch assembly comprising:
a latch including, a catch configured to engage a striker disposed on either the closure or a body of the vehicle, a pawl configured to selectively engage the catch (e.g. Paragraphs [0185]-[0187]; where the latch assembly includes a latch mechanism, a cinch mechanism, a ratchet and pawl to engage strikers);
at least one microswitch (e.g. Paragraph [0323]; where the a microswitch may be used to detect the position of the pawl for each door) configured to
detect a state of the latch assembly and a position of the closure based on the state of the latch assembly (e.g. Paragraphs [0232], [0239], [0251], [0323]; where the a microswitch may be used to detect the position of the pawl for each door, the position of the doors, and where the system detects a door open signal, and the system detects the position of the strikers using sensors and detects the status of the latches);
at least one actuator (e.g. Paragraph [0187]; where the cinch lever has an actuator arm in communication with an actuation member, such as via a cable or rod, to be actuatable by an actuator); and
a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0225], [0230]; where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position) having instructions configured to:
execute a command received from the controller to change the latch from a partially closed state to a fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0225], [0230]; where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position);
receive, from a switch, a command to change the latch to either an open state or the partially closed state to at least partially open the closure (e.g. Paragraph 0232]; where the vehicle door is moved from a fully closed position, to a partially opened position, and then to a fully open position);
execute, by the actuator, a cinching cycle in which the catch is configured to move from a secondary position to a primary position to verify that the latch is in the fully closed state and the closure is in a fully closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0196], [0323], [0238]; where a cinching mechanism is employed in to the latch mechanism to allow the doors to be cinched and sealed with the vehicle body from at least a partially open position to the fully closed position));
execute, in response to executing the cinching cycle, a release cycle in which the catch is configured to move from the primary position to the secondary position which transitions the latch from the fully closed state to the partially closed state to move the closure from the fully closed position to a partially closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0067], [0231], [0239]; Figures 36, 88; where the vehicle receives a door release signal corresponding to the operation of a release mechanism of the door using a controller, and the controller moves the door to the partially opened position); and
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in a closing direction (e.g. Paragraph [0181], [0196], [0277]; where the retractable striker assembly has a motor and motor shaft, which moves the striker in a retracted position using a cinchable door-to-body latch assembly to lock the door to the vehicle body).
As per Claim 10, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 9, and Ottino further discloses the features of the latch assembly of claim 9, wherein the controller is further configured to: execute the cinching cycle irrespective of the state of the latch detected by the at least one microswitch (e.g. Paragraphs [0253]-[0254]; where the electronic control circuit provides energy to the actuation group and latch motor in the case of a failure or interruption of the main power supply to provide power back up to the latch assembly).
As per Claim 16, Ottino discloses the features of a device for operating a latch configured to cooperate with a closure in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0181], [0196], [0277]; where the retractable striker assembly has a motor and motor shaft, which moves the striker in a retracted position using a cinchable door-to-body latch assembly to lock the door to the vehicle body) comprising,
a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0225], [0230]; where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position) configured to:
command, by the controller, the latch to change from a partially closed state to a fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0225], [0230]; where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position);
receive, from a switch, a command to change the latch to either an open state or the partially closed state to at least partially open the closure (e.g. Paragraph 0232]; where the vehicle door is moved from a fully closed position, to a partially opened position, and then to a fully open position);
execute, by the latch, a cinching cycle to verify that the latch is in the fully closed state and the closure is in a fully closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0183], [0196], [0323], [0238]; where a cinching mechanism is employed in to the latch mechanism to allow the doors to be cinched and sealed with the vehicle body from at least a partially open position to the fully closed position);
execute, in response to executing the cinching cycle, a release cycle transitioning the latch from the fully closed state to the partially closed state to move the closure from the fully closed position to a partially closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0067], [0231], [0239]; Figures 36, 88; where the vehicle receives a door release signal corresponding to the operation of a release mechanism of the door using a controller, and the controller moves the door to the partially opened position); and
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in a closing direction (e.g. Paragraph [0181], [0196], [0277]; where the retractable striker assembly has a motor and motor shaft, which moves the striker in a retracted position using a cinchable door-to-body latch assembly to lock the door to the vehicle body).
As per Claim 17, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 16, and Ottino further discloses the features of wherein
the latch includes a first latch status sensor which detects the latch having the open state (e.g. Paragraphs [0226]; where the vehicle sensor (second sensor, 266) detects the extended state of the striker (i.e. open)),
second latch status sensor which detects the latch having the partially closed state and the fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0226]; where the vehicle sensor (first sensor, 264) detects the retraction state of the striker (i.e., closed)), and
a third latch status sensor which detects the latch having the partially closed state and the fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0190], [0196], [0230]-[0231]; where the vehicle has a third closure latch assembly for detecting the state of the doors).
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 3, 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino), in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,406,171 A, to Moody (hereinafter referred to as Moody).
As per Claim 3, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 1, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of further comprising: commanding a warning light disposed in a cabin of the vehicle to activate and warn a driver in response to the receiving step.
However, Moody, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control module for activating a vehicle light, where the control module determines if the power door lock, unlock command has been received, and if so, and the courtesy lights are turned on; and if a door lock command is received, the system turns off the courtesy lights (e.g. Col. 3 lines 16-38; Figures 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of alerting a driver in the system of Moody, in order to inform the user of the status of vehicle components, such as the latch (see at least Col. 4 lines 47-51 of Moody).
As per Claim 8, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 1, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of receiving, from the at least one latch status sensor, an indication of a current state of the closure; and displaying, in response to the current state of the closure not being fully closed, to a driver a warning related to the current state of the closure.
However, Moody, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control module for activating a vehicle light, where the control module determines if the power door lock, unlock command has been received, and if so, and the courtesy lights are turned on; and if a door lock command is received, the system turns off the courtesy lights (e.g. Col. 3 lines 16-38; Col. 4 lines 28-34; Figures 1, 2 (e.g. Paragraphs [0100], [0147], [0152], [0164]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of alerting a driver in the system of Moody, in order to inform the user of the status of vehicle components, such as the latch (see at least Col. 4 lines 47-51 of Moody).
As per Claim 12, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 9, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of wherein the controller is further configured to: command a warning light disposed in a cabin of the vehicle to activate and warn a driver in response to the receiving the command to change the latch to either an open state or the partially closed state to at least partially open the closure.
However, Moody, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control module for activating a vehicle light, where the control module determines if the power door lock, unlock command has been received, and if so, and the lights are turned on; and if a door lock command is received, the system turns off the courtesy lights (e.g. Col. 3 lines 16-38; Figures 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of alerting a driver in the system of Moody, in order to inform the user of the status of vehicle components, such as the latch (see at least Col. 4 lines 47-51 of Moody).
As per Claim 15, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 9, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of wherein the controller is further configured to: display, in response to a current state of the latch not being fully closed, to a driver a warning related to the current state of the latch.
However, Moody, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control module for activating a vehicle light, where the control module determines if the power door lock, unlock command has been received, and if so, and the lights are turned on; and if a door lock command is received, the system turns off the courtesy lights (e.g. Col. 3 lines 16-38; Figures 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of alerting a driver in the system of Moody, in order to inform the user of the status of vehicle components, such as the latch (see at least Col. 4 lines 47-51 of Moody).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0025680 A1, to Young, et al (hereinafter referred to as Young).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claims 11 and 18, Ottino discloses the features of Claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and Ottino further discloses the features of
determining a vehicle operating state of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0282], [0289]; where the controller unit receives a vehicle status to determine if the vehicle is moving or not); and
executing, in response to the vehicle operating state being a ‘…’ state, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to the an position (e.g. Paragraphs [0290], [0303]-[0304]; where in response to determining the vehicle is not moving, the system maintains the striker in the retracted position (i.e. not latched) and the control master actuation group releases a first and second closure member).
Ottino fails to disclose every feature of executing, in response to the vehicle operating state being a parked state, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to the an position.
However, Young, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an automatic door release mechanism, where the control unit determines the vehicle speed, gear position (e.g., drive, park neutral), and when the vehicle determines the vehicle is stopped (e.g., not moving and/or in park), the control circuitry may cause the latching mechanism to disengage such that the door may be opened (e.g. Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining a parked state of the vehicle in the system of Young, in order to determine when to release the latch (see at least Paragraph [0029] of Young).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0010280 A1, to Gillis, et al (hereinafter referred to as Gillis).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 13, Ottino discloses the features of Claims 1 and 9, respectively, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of determining a current speed of the vehicle; and executing, in response to the current speed being less than a predetermined threshold and receiving a second indication for the latch to disengage the closure, a second release cycle transitioning the closure from the partially closed position to an open position.
However, Gillis, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle hood latch release system, where the vehicle is determined to be moving above or below a threshold speed, where the vehicle is determined to be traveling below a threshold speed, the control module and command the actuator to release the primary latch, but leave the secondary latch in a latched position so as to pop the hood up a slight distance (e.g. e.g. Paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining a speed of the vehicle in the system of Gillis, in order to determine when to release the latch (see at least Paragraph [0019] of Gillis).
Claims 6-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0024419 A1, to Rrumbullaku, et al (hereinafter referred to as Rrumbullaku).
As per Claim 6, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 1, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of the method further comprising: detecting, when the cinching cycle is executed while the latch is in the fully closed state, a motor stall; and determining the latch status sensor is faulty when the detection of a current state of the latch is partially closed and the motor stall occurs.
However, Rrumbullaku, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting an unlatched condition of a vehicle closure, where a stall is detected when the closure is latched properly; and where the controller moves the closure a predefined distance toward the open position (i.e. partially open), the controller detects an actuator stall condition and sends a diagnostic signal in response (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining a stall condition in the system of Rrumbullaku, in order to improve user satisfaction and experience when operating a closure (see at least Paragraph [0016] of Rrumbullaku).
As per Claim 7, Ottino, in view of Rrumbullaku, teaches the features of Claim 6, and Rrumbullaku further teaches the features of further comprising receiving, from the controller, in response to the determining the latch status sensor is faulty, a service code.
However, Rrumbullaku, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting an unlatched condition of a vehicle closure, where a stall is detected when the closure is latched properly; and where the controller moves the closure a predefined distance toward the open position (i.e. partially open), the controller detects an actuator stall condition and sends a diagnostic signal in response (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining a faulty sensor in the system of Rrumbullaku, in order to improve user satisfaction and experience when operating a closure (see at least Paragraph [0016] of Rrumbullaku).
As per Claim 14, Ottino discloses the features of Claim 9, but Ottino fails to disclose every feature of wherein the controller is further configured to: detect, when the cinching cycle is executed while the latch is in the fully closed state, a motor stall; determine that at least one of the at least one microswitch is faulty when the detection of a current state of the latch is partially closed and the motor stall occurs; and receive, from the controller, in response to determining the at least one of the at least one microswitch is faulty, a service code.
However, Rrumbullaku, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting an unlatched condition of a vehicle closure, where a stall is detected when the closure is latched properly; and where the controller moves the closure a predefined distance toward the open position (i.e. partially open), the controller detects an actuator stall condition and sends a diagnostic signal in response (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining a faulty sensor in the system of Rrumbullaku, in order to improve user satisfaction and experience when operating a closure (see at least Paragraph [0016] of Rrumbullaku).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0022049 A1, to Clark, et al (hereinafter referred to as Clark); and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0024419 A1, to Rrumbullaku, et al (hereinafter referred to as Rrumbullaku).
As per Claim 19, Ottino, discloses the features of Claim 17, and Ottino further discloses the features of wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, from the second latch status sensor, that a current state of the latch is partially closed (e.g. Paragraphs [0040], [0226], [0232]; where a sensor indicator for a first and second sensor is used to determine when the striker is in a retracted or extended position, indicating the position of the latch; and when the door is detected in a partially open state, the vehicle can send the signal to move the striker to the fully closed position);
receive, from the third latch status sensor, that the current state of the latch is fully closed (e.g. Paragraphs [0041], [0183], [0225], [0230]; where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position).
Ottino fails to disclose every feature of execute the cinching cycle in response to conflicting readings of the second latch status sensor and third latch status sensor; and determine the second latch status sensor is faulty when a motor stall occurs during the cinching cycle.
However, Clark, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of execute the cinching cycle in response to conflicting readings of the second latch status sensor and third latch status sensor. Clark teaches a method controlling a vehicle door, where the external signal is received by the controllers to actuate the door and move the door between an open and closed position, and where a movement signal is received and compared to a predetermined value, and if the door is not seated, the system releasees the power striker and sets a flag when the values are mismatched (e.g. Figures 21A-C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining conflicting latch signals in the system of Clark, in order to improve safety of the latch moving into the latching position (see at least Paragraph [0006] of Clark).
However, Rrumbullaku, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of determine the second latch status sensor is faulty when a motor stall occurs during the cinching cycle. Rrumbullaku teaches a method for detecting an unlatched condition of a vehicle closure, where a stall is detected when the closure is latched properly; and where the controller moves the closure a predefined distance toward the open position (i.e. partially open), the controller detects an actuator stall condition and sends a diagnostic signal in response (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, in view of Clark, with the feature of determining a stall condition in the system of Rrumbullaku, in order to improve user satisfaction and experience when operating a closure (see at least Paragraph [0016] of Rrumbullaku).
As per Claim 20, Ottino, in view of Clark and Rrumbullaku, teaches the features of Claim 19, and Rrumbullaku further teaches the features of further configured to receive, from the controller, in response to determining the second latch status sensor is faulty, a service code.
However, Rrumbullaku, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting an unlatched condition of a vehicle closure, where a stall is detected when the closure is latched properly; and where the controller moves the closure a predefined distance toward the open position (i.e. partially open), the controller detects an actuator stall condition and sends a diagnostic signal in response (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the latch assembly system of Ottino, with the feature of determining a faulty sensor in the system of Rrumbullaku, in order to improve user satisfaction and experience when operating a closure (see at least Paragraph [0016] of Rrumbullaku).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Elie, et al (U.S. 2017/0247927 A1), which teaches a method for controlling a vehicle door, and outputting a warning when the power is below a threshold for operating the door.
Douglas (U.S. 2025/0101771 A1), which teaches a method for facilitating movement between and open and closed position, and when a fault is detected, overriding the fault so as to closed the mechanism.
Jitsuishi, et al (U.S. 2010/0064588 A1), which teaches a method for opening and closing a vehicle door by transitioning it to a half-open or half-closed state.
Johann, et al (U.S. 2019/0226247 A1), which teaches a method for providing a power release and cinch method for a vehicle latch mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663