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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-17 and the addition of new claims 18-20 filed July 28, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference character 10a has been referred to as “a latch” and “a lock device” within the specification. The specification should use a singular term for element 10a, and therefore, each instance of “latch 10a” should be changed to “lock device 10a.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 1, the phrase “A latch assembly” should be changed to “A lock device,” in lines 4 and 5, the phrase “mounted between a pawl and a drive member having a motor” should be changed to “mounted between the pawl and a motor,” and in line 13, the phrase “the drive member” should be changed to “the motor.”
In regards to claim 2, line 1, the phrase “The latch assembly” should be changed to “The lock device,” in line 2, the phrase “further comprising” should be changed to “wherein,” and in line 6, the phrase “the poisoning post” should be changed to “the positioning post.”
In regards to claims 4-9 and 11-17, line 1 of each claim, the phrase “The latch assembly” should be changed to “The lock device.”
In regards to claim 8, line 6, the phrase “the drive member” should be changed to “the motor.”
In regards to claim 10, lines 1-3, the phrase “The latch assembly according to Claim 1, further including a lock device, wherein” should be changed to “The lock device according to Claim 1, wherein,” and in line 5, the phrase “the drive member” should be changed to “the motor.”
In regards to claim 16, line 6, the phrase “the drive member” should be changed to “the motor.”
In regards to claim 18, the claim should read as follows: “The lock device according to Claim 1, wherein operation of the pull-cable wheel unit by the motor is configured to move the ratchet from a secondary striker capture position, corresponding to a partially closed position of the closure panel and the half-locked position of the pawl, to a primary striker capture position, corresponding to a fully closed position of the closure panel and the full-locked position of the pawl.”
In regards to claim 19, the claim should read as follows: “The lock device according to Claim 1, wherein a drive mechanism is configured to move the pawl to the half-locked position, such that the pawl is engaged with the ratchet, and wherein the pull-cable wheel unit is configured to transmit force from the motor to the ratchet via the pawl, after the pawl is moved by the drive mechanism into the half-locked position, such that the ratchet is driven from a secondary striker capture position to a primary capture position to draw the closure panel toward a fully closed position, corresponding to the full-locked position of the pawl.”
In regards to claim 20, it is suggested that the claim be canceled based on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below.
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 1-20 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 regards to claims 1-20, it is unclear what applicant considers as the “latch assembly,” since the specification only uses the terms “latch” and “lock device” to refer to the overall device 10a. For examination purposes, the claims will be examined as reciting “A lock device” so as to be consistent with the language used in the specification. See claim objections and specification objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “pawl” in line 4 and the “pawl” in line 3 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “pawl” in line 4 is equivalent to the “pawl” in line 3, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the phrase “a drive member having a motor” suggests that the drive member includes a motor and possibly other structure, however, the specification states that the drive member is a motor and not a motor and other structure. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting a motor on a base plate, as supported by the specification. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 10, it is unclear what structure applicant considers as the “lock device.” Based on the specification, it appears that the “latch assembly” and the “lock device” refer to the overall device 10a, and therefore are equivalent and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, the relationship between the “ratchet” of claim 18 and the “ratchet” of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the device has a single ratchet, and therefore, the “ratchet” of claim 18 must be equivalent to the “ratchet” of claim 1 and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, the relationship between the “closure panel” of claim 18 and the “closure panel” of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the device is utilized on a single closure panel, and therefore, the “closure panel” of claim 18 must be equivalent to the “closure panel” of claim 1 and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, there is no support in the specification for the term “cinch process.” As set forth in the claim objections above, it is suggested that the phrase “during a cinch process” be removed from the claim, since the remaining language is supported by the specification.
In regards to claim 19, there is no support in the specification for the first pull cable to move the pawl into engagement with the ratchet. The specification sets forth a drive mechanism 42 that acts on the rivet post 4 of the pawl to move the pawl into engagement with the ratchet, and therefore, the pull-cable wheel unit and its components does not affect the engagement or disengagement of the pawl with or from the ratchet. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting a drive mechanism configured to move the pawl into engagement with the ratchet. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 19, it is unclear how the pull-cable wheel unit can transmit force from the motor to the pawl to affect the position of the ratchet without the recitation of the pawl in engagement with the ratchet. Furthermore, the relationship between the position of the pawl when in engagement with the ratchet and the positions of the pawl recited in claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 20, there is no support in the specification for a subsequent cinch cycle. Furthermore, it is unclear if the claim refers to the resetting of the pull-cable wheel unit, such that future movement of the ratchet by the motor via the pull-cable wheel unit can occur or if the claim refers to the cinch process of claim 18 having first and second cycles, which is not supported by the specification. It is suggested that claim 20 be canceled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The claims were examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
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 claimed invention.
In regards to claim 1, Schoch (DE 102016005265 A1) fails to disclose that the pull-cable wheel unit is mounted between a pawl and a motor, with the second pull cable being connected to an output end of the motor. As argued by applicant on Pages 8 and 9 of the response filed July 28, 2026, Schoch discloses that the pull-cable wheel unit is mounted between the locking mechanism having a pawl and a manually operated handle 10. As disclosed in at least Paragraph 30 of the Computer Generated Translation of Schoch, the pull-cable wheel assembly is connected to the handle 10, such that manual operation of the locking mechanism can occur in the event that electrical operation has failed, and therefore, Schoch teaches away from a motor or electrical actuator from operating the pull-cable wheel unit. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Schoch without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections, specification objections, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 October 1, 2026
