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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant filed three Information Disclosure Statements on January 14, 2026. Each of these Information Disclosure Statements includes the same Non-patent Literature Document listed, so only one of the statements has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph 31, lines 11 and 12, the phrase “in order to assist and popping up” should be changed to “in order to assist in popping up,” in Paragraph 32, line 7, the phrase “direction of arrow 50” should be changed to “direction of arrow 52,” in Paragraph 32, line 10, the phrase “to engage leg 35of the spring 28” should be changed to “to engage leg 35 of the spring 28,” and in Paragraph 35, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “the direction of arrow 52” should be changed to “the direction of arrow 50.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the operable coupling of the cinch lever to the claw, as recited in claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Interpretation
In regards to claim 1, the preamble recites a pop-up system for a latch mechanism of a vehicle with the latch mechanism of the vehicle recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim and dependent claims 7-13 contain positive recitations of the latch mechanism and the vehicle. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the pop-up system or the pop-up system in combination with the latch mechanism. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language. See claim objections below which suggest language to clarify that claims 1-15 are drawn to the combination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claims 1-16, the reference characters should be removed from the claims to ensure they are not relied on to define the device within the claims.
In regards to claim 1, line 1, the phrase “A pop-up system for a latch mechanism of a vehicle, comprising” should be changed to “A pop-up system in combination with a latch mechanism of a vehicle hood of a vehicle, the combination comprising,” in line 11, the word “moveable” should be changed to “pivotable,” in line 12, the phrase “at least an engaged position wherein the pawl” should be changed to “an engaged position, in which the pawl” so as to ensure that the operation of the pawl following the phrase “an engaged position” is related back to the engaged position, in line 13, the phrase “in a first position wherein” should be changed to “in a first position, such that” so as to ensure that the biasing force of the main spring is clearly related as the effect of the split lever being in the first position, in line 14, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “being applied to the main lever” and the phrase “a disengaged position wherein” should be changed to “a disengaged position, in which” so as to ensure that the operation of the pawl following the phrase “a disengaged position” is related back to the disengaged position, and in line 15, the word “rotate” should be changed to “pivot.”
In regards to claim 2, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 1” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 1” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claim 1, and in line 2, the phrase “in order to apply the biasing force of the main spring to the main lever” should be inserted after the phrase “contact a leg of the main spring.”
In regards to claims 3 and 5-7, line 1 of each claim, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 1” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 1” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 3” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 3” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 3, and in line 3, the phrase “in order to pivot the main lever into the open position” should be inserted after the phrase “an edge portion of the main lever.”
In regards to claim 8, the claim should read as follows: “The combination according to claim 7, wherein the latch mechanism further comprises: a latch pawl rotatably mounted to the plate for rotation between an engaged position and a disengaged position, when in the engaged position, the latch pawl retains the claw in a closed position, and when in the disengaged position, the latch pawl allows the claw to rotate from the closed position to an open position, such that the latch mechanism is released.”
In regards to claim 9, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 8” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 8” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 8, and in line 2, the phrase “in order to apply the biasing force of the main spring to the main lever” should be inserted after the phrase “contact a leg of the main spring.”
In regards to claim 10, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 9” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 9” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 9.
In regards to claim 11, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 10” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 10” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 7-10, and in line 3, the phrase “in order to pivot the main lever into the open position” should be inserted after the phrase “an edge portion of the main lever.”
In regards to claim 12, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 11” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 11” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 7-11.
In regards to claim 13, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 12” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 12” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 7-12.
In regards to claim 14, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 13” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 13” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claims 1 and 7-13, and in line 2, the phrase “a vehicle hood” should be changed to “the vehicle hood.”
In regards to claim 15, line 1, the phrase “The pop-up system as in claim 1” should be changed to “The combination according to claim 1” so as to be consistent with current US practice and to ensure that the claim refers to all limitations recited in claim 1, and in line 2, the phrase “a vehicle hood” should be changed to “the vehicle hood.”
In regards to claim 16, line 2, the phrase “of a vehicle, comprising” should be changed to “of a vehicle, the method comprising,” in line 12, the word “moveable” should be changed to “pivotable,” in line 13, the phrase “at least an engaged position wherein the pawl” should be changed to “an engaged position, in which the pawl” so as to ensure that the operation of the pawl following the phrase “an engaged position” is related back to the engaged position, in line 14, the phrase “in a first position wherein” should be changed to “in a first position, such that” so as to ensure that the biasing force of the main spring is clearly related as the effect of the split lever being in the first position, in line 15, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “being applied to the main lever” and the phrase “a disengaged position wherein” should be changed to “a disengaged position, in which” so as to ensure that the operation of the pawl following the phrase “a disengaged position” is related back to the disengaged position, and in line 15, the word “rotate” should be changed to “pivot.”
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 1-16 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 claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “the pawl being moveable,” and the claim also recites that the pawl is “pivotally mounted to the plate” or pivotable which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the pawl is pivotable. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, line 12, it is unclear how the pawl 46 reaches more than the engaged position and the disengaged position, as suggested by the phrase “at least an engaged position,” when the specification and drawings only show the two positions, engaged and disengaged. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined without the phrase “at least.” See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the main lever “rotating,” as recited in line 15, and the main lever being pivotable or pivoting, as suggested by the phrase “a main lever pivotally mounted to a plate,” as recited in line 3, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “rotating” of the main lever is equivalent to the “pivoting” of the main lever, and will be examined as such. The claim should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 2, the link between the structure recited in claim 2 and the functional language of claim 1 referring to the main spring applying the biasing force to the main lever is unclear from the claim language. Specifically, the boundaries of the functional language of claim 1 in light of the structure of claim 2 is unclear because claim 2 does not provide a discernable boundary on what structure of claim 2 performs the function of claim 1. The recited function of claim 1 does not follow from the structure of claim 2, i.e. the pin or protrusion and the leg of the main spring, so it is unclear whether the function of claim 1 requires some other structure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. It is understood from the specification that the pin or protrusion of the split lever contacts the leg of the main spring in order to apply the biasing force of the main spring to the main lever, as recited in claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 4 and 11, the link between the structure of claims 4 and 11 and the functional language of claim 1 referring to the pivoting of the main lever into the open position is unclear from the claim language. Specifically, the boundaries of the functional language of claim 1 in light of the structure of claims 4 and 11 is unclear because claims 4 and 11 do not provide a discernable boundary on what structure of claims 4 and 11 performs the function of claim 1. The recited function of claim 1 does not follow from the structure of claims 4 and 11, i.e. the edge of the tab portion of the split lever and the edge portion of the main lever, so it is unclear whether the function of claim 1 requires some other structure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims. It is understood from the specification that the edge of the tab portion of the split lever contacts the edge portion of the main lever in order to pivot the main lever into the open position, as recited in claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, the relationship between the claw being rotated to the open position, as recited in claim 8, and the releasing of the latch mechanism, as recited in claim 1, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the latch mechanism is released when the claw is rotated from the closed position to the open position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 16, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “the pawl being moveable,” and the claim also recites that the pawl is “pivotally mounted to the plate” or pivotable which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the pawl is pivotable. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 16, line 13, it is unclear how the pawl 46 reaches more than the engaged position and the disengaged position, as suggested by the phrase “at least an engaged position,” when the specification and drawings only show the two positions, engaged and disengaged. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined without the phrase “at least.” See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 16, the relationship between the main lever “rotating,” as recited in line 16, and the main lever being pivotable or pivoting, as suggested by the phrase “a main lever pivotally mounted to a plate,” as recited in line 3, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “rotating” of the main lever is equivalent to the “pivoting” of the main lever, and will be examined as such. The claim should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 3, 5-7, and 9-15, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 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 have been 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 claims 1 and 16, Distefano (US Pub. No. 2025/0034918 A1) discloses a pop-up system in combination with a latch mechanism 40, 42 and a method for disengaging a main spring from a main lever of a pop-up system for a latch mechanism, the combination and method comprising: a main lever 52 pivotally mounted to a plate 46 of the latch mechanism; a split lever 50 pivotally mounted to the plate; a main spring 39 for providing a biasing force to the main lever via the split lever (the split lever pushes against the main lever to pivot the main lever from the position in Figure 4 to the position in Figure 10, which affects the biasing force on the main lever via the position of the split lever); a bell crank 54 pivotally mounted to the main lever (pivotally mounted via split lever 50), the bell crank being operably coupled to the split lever at one end (end near reference character 40b, Figure 19) and a link 96 at another end (Figure 19), the link pivotally mounted to a cinch lever 92 (pivotally mounted via the plate), the cinch lever being pivotally mounted to the plate (Figure 19); and a pawl 97 pivotally mounted to the plate, the pawl being pivotable between an engaged position (Figure 27) and a disengaged position (position corresponding to Figure 4 in which the pawl does not prevent the main lever from pushing up on striker 14), in which a biasing force of the main spring is applied to the main lever in order to pivot the main lever into an open position when the latch mechanism is released (the open position being the position when the main lever pushes the striker up and out of the latch mechanism when the claw 40 is rotated out of the way in Figure 4). Distefano fails to disclose that when the pawl is in the engaged position, the pawl maintains the split lever in a first position, such that the biasing force of the main spring is prevented from being applied to the main lever. The biasing force of the main spring is always applied to the main lever via the engagement of a leg of the main spring with a protrusion 37 on the main lever, Figure 8). The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Distefano without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Conclusion
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 March 2, 2026