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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 8 of claim 1, “in response that the door striker enters” should likely be --in response to the door striker entering--
in claim 5, “a first bracket,” “a second bracket,” and “a third bracket” should likely refer to first, second and third bracket portions, for clarity because the disclosure describes a single bracket structure with three sections
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a door striker fixed to a vehicle body in response to….” It’s unclear if the door striker is intended to be fixed to the vehicle body when assembled or if the door striker is only fixed to the vehicle body while the door is opened or closed. For examination, the limitations will be interpreted broadly in light of the disclosure.
Claim 12 recites “the plastic coating layer is formed on a surface of the door sagging prevention bracket” and depends from claim 11 which recites “a plastic coating layer is formed on an upper surface of the door sagging prevention bracket.” It is unclear if Applicant intends the “surface” in claim 12 is distinct from the upper surface recited in claim 11. The specification describes a plastic coating layer on an upper surface of the bracket. However, it remains unclear in light of the drawings if the surface recited in claim 12 is intended to be the same upper surface because the drawings do not illustrate how friction between the door striker and upper surface would occur.
Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottino et al., US 2022/0120117 A1, in view of Zhang et al., CN 113846914 A.
Claim 1: Ottino discloses a door latch apparatus for vehicles, the apparatus comprising:
a door striker (224) fixed to a vehicle body in response to one lower side of a door (Fig. 28 illustrates the latch assembly 1046 positioned at a lower side of a door) which is opened or closed by double motions of pop-up and swing motions through a hinge unit ([0222], [0233], Fig. 36);
a latch unit (54) mounted on the one lower side of the door to lock or release the door striker ([0231-31]);
a pop-up guide unit (268) guiding the one lower side of the door by the door striker during the pop-up motion of the door ([0226], [0230]); and
a locking unit (224) locking the door striker in response that the door striker enters the pop-up guide unit while the door is closed by the swing motion ([0225]).
Ottino teaches a body of the latch unit ([0190] (“latch housing frame plate”)). However, Ottino is silent to a door sagging prevention bracket including one end portion fixed to a body of the latch unit, and extending toward the locking unit while being spaced apart from a top portion of the pop-up guide unit.
Zhang teaches a door latch apparatus comprising a door sagging prevention bracket (1) including one end portion (12) fixed to a body of a latch unit ([n0023]), and extending toward the striker (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Ottino to include a door sagging prevention bracket including one end portion fixed to a body of the latch unit, as taught by Zhang, in order to support and reinforce the latch unit (Zhang [n0015], [n0019]). As modified, the door sagging prevention bracket extends toward the locking unit coupled to the door striker while being spaced apart from a top portion of the pop-up guide unit (the bracket on the door is spaced apart from the pop-up unit on the vehicle).
Claim 2: Ottino, in view of Zhang, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the latch unit locks or releases the door striker through a claw lever (Ottino 64) and a pawl lever (Ottino 66), disposed on the body (Ottino [0185]).
Claim 4: Ottino, in view of Zhang, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the locking unit includes a locking claw (Ottino 250), a locking claw link (Ottino 254), a locking pawl (Ottino 273), and a release lever (Ottino 232), disposed on the pop-up guide unit (Ottino Fig. 25), and locks the door striker through the locking claw in response that the door striker enters the pop-up guide unit while the door is closed by the swing motion (Ottino Fig. 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 3 and 5-12.
Regarding claim 3, Ottino, in view of Zhang, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pop-up guide unit includes a guide groove (Ottino 270), but is silent to the guide groove formed by a first guider and a second guider, each formed on one side of the body of the latch unit, and is moved for the door striker to be inserted into the guide groove. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the pop-up guide unit taught by Ottino, in view of Zhang, to include a guide groove formed by a first guider and a second guider, each formed on one side of the body of the latch unit, and is moved for the door striker to be inserted into the guide groove without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Regarding claim 5, Ottino, in view of Zhang, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the door sagging prevention bracket including a first bracket including a first end portion fixed to an upper surface of the body of the latch unit and protruding in a direction perpendicular to the body and a second end portion extending from the first end portion in a direction parallel to the body; a second bracket extending integrally from the second end portion of the first bracket, and bent to extend while having a vertical height lower than a vertical height of the second end portion of the first bracket; and a third bracket extending integrally from the second bracket and extending toward a top portion of the locking unit while having a height higher than the vertical height of the second bracket. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the door sagging prevention bracket taught by Ottino, as modified by Zhang, to have the above-mentioned elemental features without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
In regards to claims 6-12, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 5 from which the claims depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0301565 A1 is related to a door latching assembly comprising a striker, a latch unit, a locking unit, and a pop-up guide, but is silent to a door sagging prevention bracket including one end portion fixed to a body of the latch unit and extending toward the locking unit while spaced apart from a top of the pop-up guide.
US 2022/0290474 A1 is related to a door latch assembly comprising a striker and a door sagging prevention bracket, but does not include a pop-up guide unit wherein a locking unit locks the striker in response that the striker enters the pop-up guide unit and the locking unit disposed on the pop-up guide unit.
DE 102020203441 A1 is related to a door latching assembly comprising a latch unit and a locking unit but does not include a pop-up guide including a first guider and a second guider.
US 2008/0100091 A1 is related to a door assembly comprising a guide, a lock unit, and latch unit coupled to a vehicle door, a striker mounted to a vehicle body that moves with the latch unit along the guide when the door is moving.
US 2010/0018125 A1 is related to a door assembly comprising a latch unit mounted to a bracket that moves along a guide unit to engage a striker on the vehicle body, but does not include a locking claw and locking pawl disposed on the pop-up guide unit.
US 2016/0348409 A1 is related to a door assembly comprising a striker that moves along a guide groove and a latch unit to lock or release the striker, but does not include a locking unit that locks the striker in response to the striker entering a pop-up guide unit.
US 2013/0133157 A1 is related to a furniture door comprising a pin that enters a guide groove and a latch unit engaged by the pin moving along the groove.
US 6851743 B2 is related to a sliding door assembly comprising a pop-up guide unit and a striker that enters the guide groove, but does not include a locking unit locking the striker and a door sagging prevention bracket with an end portion fixed to a body of a latch unit.
US 8282156 B1 is related to a sliding door assembly comprising a latch unit engaging a striker on a vehicle body but does not include a locking unit locking the striker in response to the striker entering a pop-up guide.
CN 108930459 A and CN 107060536 A are related to a door assembly comprising a door sagging prevention bracket that supports the latch and improves stability.
US 2005/0127712 A1 is related to a door assembly comprising a pop-up guide and a striker that enters the pop-up guide, but does not include a latch unit and locking unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675