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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on May 19, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, with Claim 4 being amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed May 19, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections, and withdraws the previous double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 19, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under Ottino, in view of Moody, Young, Gillis, Rrumbullaku, and Clark, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Taylor, in view of Ottino, Moody, Young, Gillis, Rrumbullaku, and Clark.
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. 2020/00123816 A1, to Taylor, et al (hereinafter referred to as Taylor). 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, Taylor teaches a vehicle closure cinching system, where the spindle assembly, which may be actuated by an electric motor to move from the open to partially closed positions to move to the closed position of the vehicle closure (see at least Paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0043] of Taylor). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art 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 using a spindle assembly in the system of Taylor, in order to ensure the latch stays in the associated position (see at least Paragraph [0050] of Taylor).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0123816 A1, to Taylor, et al (hereinafter referred to as Taylor; newly of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0120117 A1, to Ottino, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ottino; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Taylor discloses the features of a method for operating a latch associated with a closure in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0043]; where a method for moving a closure (14) from the open to the closed position is provided), the method comprising:
detecting, by at least one latch status sensor, the latch being in a partially closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0024], [0036]-[0037]; where the vehicle (10) is provided with a vehicle body (12) and a vehicle panel, such as a hatch, door, tailgate, liftgate, or closure (14) pivotally attached to the vehicle body; and the closure (14) may move from a partially closed position to a closed position, and the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated with the components of the closure system, such as a proximity sensor (204) for indicating the position of the closure (14));
commanding, by a controller, the latch to change from the partially closed state to a fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated, and may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212) to move the closure (14) from the open position to the partially closed position, and from the partially closed position to the final 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. Paragraphs [0050]-[0051]; where the closure system (200) may command the closure (14) to close or move from an open position to a 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 (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0049]; where a cinching system may be employed to pull the closure from a secondary latching position to a primary latching position; and where once in the secondary position, the retracting actuates the slider to pull on the cinching cable and pull the latch lever to pull the closure (14) into the primary position (i.e., closed)); ‘…’
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in the vehicle in a closing direction (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated, and may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212) to move the closure (14) from the open position to the partially closed position, and from the partially closed position to the final closed position).
Taylor fails to disclose every feature of 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.
However, Ottino, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, 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 from a closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0231]-[0232], [0239]; Figures 36, 88).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of moving the closure from a closed to partially closed (or open) position in the system of Ottino, in order to allow at least one closure member to be opened and closed (see at least Paragraph [0316] of Ottino).
As per Claim 2, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Taylor 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 [0024], [0036]-[0037]; where the vehicle (10) is provided with a vehicle body (12) and a vehicle panel, such as a hatch, door, tailgate, liftgate, or closure (14) pivotally attached to the vehicle body; and the closure (14) may move from a partially closed position to a closed position, and the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated with the components of the closure system, such as a proximity sensor (204) for indicating the position of the closure (14)).
As per Claim 9, Taylor discloses the features of a latch assembly for use in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0043]; where a method for moving a closure (14) from the open to the closed position is provided),
the latch assembly configured to cooperate with a closure in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0044]; where the closure (14) may be moved to a closed position using a latch), 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 [0027], [0044]; where the closure (14) may include a lock, latch (3), that may be configured to engage a bolt, rod, member (such as a striker 34) that may move from the secondary latch position to a primary latch position, and striker may contact the primary pawl (36) to engage the striker (34));
at least one microswitch (e.g. Paragraph [0046]; where the sensor value (Vi) may be a latch signal triggered by the latch switch (206) that is indicative of the latch moving from open to the secondary latch position or moving from the secondary latch position to the primary latch position, or both) 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 [0024], [0036]-[0037]; where the vehicle (10) is provided with a vehicle body (12) and a vehicle panel, such as a hatch, door, tailgate, liftgate, or closure (14) pivotally attached to the vehicle body; and the closure (14) may move from a partially closed position to a closed position, and the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated with the components of the closure system, such as a proximity sensor (204) for indicating the position of the closure (14));
at least one actuator (e.g. Paragraph [0037]; where the controller may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212)); and
a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202)) 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 [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated, and may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212) to move the closure (14) from the open position to the partially closed position, and from the partially closed position to the final 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. Paragraphs [0050]-[0051]; where the closure system (200) may command the closure (14) to close or move from an open position to a closed 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 (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0049]; where a cinching system may be employed to pull the closure from a secondary latching position to a primary latching position; and where once in the secondary position, the retracting actuates the slider to pull on the cinching cable and pull the latch lever to pull the closure (14) into the primary position (i.e., closed)); ‘…’ and
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in a closing direction (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated, and may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212) to move the closure (14) from the open position to the partially closed position, and from the partially closed position to the final closed position).
Ottino, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of at least one microswitch.
Ottino teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, where the microswitch may be used to detect the position of the pawl for each door (e.g. Paragraph [0232]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of using a microswitch in the system of Ottino, in order to allow the latch to return to the fully closed position (see at least Paragraph [0039] of Ottino).
Taylor fails to disclose every feature of 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.
Ottino teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, 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 from a closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0231]-[0232], [0239]; Figures 36, 88).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of moving the closure from a closed to partially closed (or open) position in the system of Ottino, in order to allow at least one closure member to be opened and closed (see at least Paragraph [0316] of Ottino).
As per Claim 10, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 9, and Ottino further teaches the features of 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.
Ottino teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, 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 (e.g. Paragraphs [0253]-[0254]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of continuing to execute the cinching cycle in the system of Ottino, in order force the striker to close (see at least Paragraph [0191] of Ottino).
As per Claim 16, Taylor discloses the features of a device for operating a latch configured to cooperate with a closure in a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0043]; where a method for moving a closure (14) from the open to the closed position is provided) comprising,
a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) configured to:
command, by the controller, the latch to change from a partially closed state to a fully closed state (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated, and may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212) to move the closure (14) from the open position to the partially closed position, and from the partially closed position to the final 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. Paragraphs [0050]-[0051]; where the closure system (200) may command the closure (14) to close or move from an open position to a closed 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 [0022], [0049]; where a cinching system may be employed to pull the closure from a secondary latching position to a primary latching position; and where once in the secondary position, the retracting actuates the slider to pull on the cinching cable and pull the latch lever to pull the closure (14) into the primary position (i.e., closed)); ‘…’ and
driving, during the release cycle, a spindle coupled to the closure in a closing direction (e.g. Paragraphs [0036], [0043], [0049]; where the closure control system (200) includes a controller (202) that may provide and send several signals associated, and may be coupled to a spindle drive actuator (212) to move the closure (14) from the open position to the partially closed position, and from the partially closed position to the final closed position).
Taylor fails to disclose every feature of 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.
However, Ottino, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, 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 from a closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0231]-[0232], [0239]; Figures 36, 88).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of moving the closure from a closed to partially closed (or open) position in the system of Ottino, in order to allow at least one closure member to be opened and closed (see at least Paragraph [0316] of Ottino).
As per Claim 17, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 16, and Ottino further teaches the features of wherein the latch includes a first latch status sensor which detects the latch having the open, a second latch status sensor which detects the latch having the partially closed state and the fully closed state, and a third latch status sensor which detects the latch having the partially closed state and the fully closed state.
However, Ottino, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, where the vehicle sensor (second sensor, 266) detects the extended state of the striker (i.e. open), where the vehicle has a third closure latch assembly for detecting the state of the doors) (e.g. Paragraphs [0190], [0196], [0226], [0230]-[0231]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of detecting the various states of the latch in the system of Ottino, in order to determine which closure member should be opened or closed (see at least Paragraph [0282] of Ottino).
Claims 3, 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor, in view of Ottino, as applied to Claims 1 and 9, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,406,171 A, to Moody (hereinafter referred to as Moody; previously of record).
As per Claim 3, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 1, but Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 9, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 9, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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 Taylor, in view of Ottino, as applied to Claims 1, 9, and 16, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0025680 A1, to Young, et al (hereinafter referred to as Young; previously of record).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claims 11 and 18, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach every feature of 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 open 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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 Taylor, in view of Ottino, as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0010280 A1, to Gillis, et al (hereinafter referred to as Gillis; previously of record).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 13, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 9, respectively, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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 Taylor, in view of Ottino, as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0024419 A1, to Rrumbullaku, et al (hereinafter referred to as Rrumbullaku; previously of record).
As per Claim 6, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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, Taylor, in view of Ottino and 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.
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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 9, but the combination of Taylor, in view of Ottino, fails to teach 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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 Taylor, in view of Ottino, as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0022049 A1, to Clark, et al (hereinafter referred to as Clark; previously of record); and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0024419 A1, to Rrumbullaku, et al (hereinafter referred to as Rrumbullaku; previously of record).
As per Claim 19, Taylor, in view of Ottino, teaches the features of Claim 17, but Taylor fails to teach every feature 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; receive, from the third latch status sensor, that the current state of the latch is fully closed; 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.
Ottino, teaches the features wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, from the second latch status sensor, that a current state of the latch is partially closed; receive, from the third latch status sensor, that the current state of the latch is fully closed.
Ottino teaches a method for latching a vehicle closure, 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; and where a signal is sent to the controller (217) to open or close a door and cinch the door to the fully closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0183], [0225]-[0226], [0232]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, with the feature of moving the closure from a closed to partially closed (or open) position in the system of Ottino, in order to allow at least one closure member to be opened and closed (see at least Paragraph [0316] of Ottino).
Clark, in a similar field of endeavor, further 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view 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).
Rrumbullaku, in a similar field of endeavor, further 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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view of Ottino and 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, Taylor, in view of Ottino, 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.
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 before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle closure cinching system of Taylor, in view of Ottino and Clark, 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:
Herman, et al (U.S. 2024/0254813 A1), which teaches a method for moving a closure panel of a vehicle between a fully closed and fully open position.
Mallon, et al (U.S. 2023/0332455 A1), which teaches a method for enabling a latch to close a closure assembly.
Mozola, et al (U.S. 2019/0063117 A1), which teaches a method for releasing or cinching a power-operated actuator for a closure latch assembly.
Oxley, et al (U.S. 2018/0179788 A1), which teaches a method for permitting return movement of a closure assembly to the closed position upon failure of the latch sensors.
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
Prosecution Insights