DETAILED ACTION
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 1-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in the phrase “whereat the primary pawl is positioned to permit… primary pawl moves to its open position”, the operative relationship between the primary pawl and auxiliary pawl is unclear and not fully understood in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, in the phrase “such that the amount of surface contact… for each latch reset operation”, the intended structural and/or functional limitations of this phrase is/are unclear and not fully understood in the context of the claim language.
Claim 2 is unclear and not fully understood.
Similar 112 issues as above are found in independent claim 20 as well.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden to examination. This is not found persuasive because the scope of the method claims is divergent from that of the apparatus claims, requiring additional examination and search considerations, thereby imposing an additional examination and search burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taurasi et al., US Patent 9,938,755. As in claim 1, a closure latch assembly for installation in a vehicle door, comprising a latch mechanism having a primary ratchet 32, a primary pawl (including 36, 38), and an auxiliary pawl (including 44), the primary ratchet being moveable between a striker capture position, whereat the primary ratchet retains a striker, and a striker release position, whereat the primary ratchet releases the striker, the primary pawl being moveable between a closed position whereat the primary pawl holds the primary ratchet in its striker capture position and an open position whereat the primary pawl is positioned to permit the primary ratchet to move to its striker release position (as conventional), the auxiliary pawl being moveable between a closed position whereat the primary pawl is maintained in its closed position and an open position whereat the primary pawl moves to its open position; and an auxiliary ratchet (including 40) operably coupled to the primary pawl, the auxiliary ratchet being moveable between an engaged position, whereat the auxiliary ratchet maintains the primary pawl in its closed position, and a disengaged position, whereat the auxiliary ratchet moves the primary pawl to its open position, the auxiliary ratchet being biased by the spring bias to move to its engaged position when the auxiliary pawl is moved to its open position; wherein the auxiliary pawl is configured to return to the same closed position from its open position such that amount of surface contact between auxiliary pawl and the auxiliary ratchet is the same for each latch reset operation (as conventional). As in claim 2, as best understood, the auxiliary pawl is configured to abut a control surface upon a return of the auxiliary pawl to its closed position from its open position to control alignment of the auxiliary pawl with the primary pawl and establish a predetermined frictional engagement region between the auxiliary pawl and the primary pawl when the auxiliary pawl is in its close position and the primary pawl is in its closed position. As in claim 3, a latch release mechanism having an auxiliary pawl release lever coupled with the auxiliary pawl, the auxiliary pawl release lever being moveable between a rest position, whereat the auxiliary pawl is located in its closed position and the primary pawl is located in its closed position under a spring bias, and an engaged position, whereat the auxiliary pawl is moved to its open position and the primary pawl is moved to its open position against the spring bias.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurasi et al.
Regarding these claims, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, as best understood, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights