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 .
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, 5-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12241281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current claims require a latch for capturing a striker that comprises a pawl; a trigger; an input cam connected to the trigger; and an output cam positioned to contact the input cam, a motor and that each of the output cam and the input cam includes a plurality of teeth, each of the teeth having a flat bearing surface that intersects a curved ramp surface, the teeth of the output cam being configured to mesh with the teeth of the input cam such that rotation of the output cam about the second axis results in rotation of the input cam about the first axis.
These and other limitations are presented in the ‘281 patent.
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 10, 13-20 and 22 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 10 requires that the pawl is maintained in the closed position by the striker, a bearing surface of the striker engages with a bearing surface of the pawl. At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since the striker will not maintain the pawl in the closed position. As described, is the trigger the one that maintains the pawl in the closed position by means of the bearing surface engaging the bearing surface of the pawl. Correction is required.
As to claims 13 and 22, the claims require the pawl and trigger moving. However, these elements can perform anything by themselves. The motor and the cams are not optional elements.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claims will be interpreted as including an input cam connected to the trigger, an output cam operationally connected to the input cam, a motor configured to rotate the output cam such that rotation of the output cam about the second axis results in rotation of the input cam about the first axis.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102013113384 (DE 384) in view of US Pat No 10,294,695 to Garneau and US Pat No 6,619,085 to Hsieh.
PNG
media_image1.png
601
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, DE 384 discloses a latch for capturing a striker. The latch comprises a pawl (5) mounted to rotate between a closed position and an open position; a trigger (7) mounted to rotate about a first axis (8) between a locked position and an unlocked position, the trigger being biased to rotate toward the locked position and selectively positionable to contact the pawl when the pawl is in the closed position, thereby retaining the pawl in the closed position; an input cam (at 19, 20) connected to the trigger; and an output cam (9) positioned to contact the input cam.
The output cam is mounted to rotate about a second axis (defined by 12) and configured to rotate the input cam about the first axis.
A motor (11) is coupled for rotating the output cam about the second axis; wherein rotation of the motor about the second axis causes rotation of the trigger about the first axis, and wherein the first axis is non-parallel to the second axis.
First, DE 384 fails to disclose that the pawl is biased to rotate toward the open position and configured to capture the striker when in the closed position.
Garneau teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a pawl (125) being biased toward the open position (by spring 139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pawl described by DE 384 with a spring, as taught by Garneau, in order to aid in the opening movement of the pawl.
PNG
media_image2.png
636
1529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second, DE 384 fails to disclose that each of the output cam and the input cam includes a plurality of teeth, each of the teeth having a flat bearing surface that intersects a curved ramp surface, the teeth of the output cam being configured to mesh with the teeth of the input cam such that rotation of the output cam about the second axis results in rotation of the input cam about the first axis.
DE 384 discloses that the output cam (9) comprises a twisted teeth (15) that interact with a tooth (20) of the input cam.
PNG
media_image3.png
698
1040
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hsieh teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a movement connection between an output cam (7), that is operated by a motor (5), and an input cam (8) as one each includes a plurality of teeth, each of the teeth having a flat bearing surface that intersects a curved ramp surface, the teeth of the output cam being configured to mesh with the teeth of the input cam such that rotation of the output cam about the second axis results in rotation of the input cam about the first axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide connection between the cams described by DE 384 each with corresponding plurality of teeth, as taught by Hsieh, in order to simplify the connection while performing the function of moving the lever.
As to claim 5, DE 384, as modified by Hsieh, will teach that the contact between the flat bearing surfaces of the output cam and the input cam prevent the trigger from returning to the locked position when the pawl is in the open position.
As to claim 7, DE 384, as modified by Hsieh, will teach DE 384, as modified by Hsieh, will teach that the teeth of the output cam and the input cam remain at least partially in physical contact during rotation of the trigger between the locked and unlocked positions.
As to claim 8, DE 384 discloses that the latch further comprises a spring (not shown) positioned to bias the trigger (7) toward the locked position.
As to claim 9, DE 384 discloses that the latch further comprises a spring (not shown) positioned to bias the pawl toward the open position (by biasing the trigger).
As to claim 10, DE 384 discloses that the pawl is maintained in the closed position by the trigger, by means of a bearing surface of the trigger engaging a bearing surface of the pawl.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102013113384 (DE 384) in view of US Pat No 10,294,695 to Garneau, US Pat No 6,619,085 to Hsieh and further in view of US Pat No 6,437,532 to Koerwer.
DE 384, as modified by Garneau and Hsieh, fails to disclose that the latch further comprises a sensor positioned to detect the position of the input cam of the trigger.
PNG
media_image4.png
734
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Koerwer teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a sensor (8) that is positioned to detect the position of a cam member (5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch described by DE 384, as modified by Garneau and Hsieh, with a sensor, as taught by Koerwer, in order to detect the position of the cam and perform a function with respect to that information.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102013113384 (DE 384) in view of US Pat No 10,294,695 to Garneau, US Pat No 6,619,085 to Hsieh and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20070257496 to Spurr et al (Spurr).
DE 384, as modified by Garneau and Hsieh, fails to disclose that the latch further comprises a link connecting the pawl to the trigger, wherein the link is configured to prevent the trigger from moving to the locked position while the pawl is maintained in the open position.
PNG
media_image5.png
774
831
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Spurr teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a latch with a pin (8) that is configured to connect a pawl (14) to a trigger (16), wherein the link is configured to prevent the trigger from moving to the locked position while the pawl is maintained in the open position (by keeping the latch in the release position, fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch described by DE 384, as modified by Garneau and Hsieh, with a link, as taught by Spurr, in order to keep the latch in the released position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 22, as interpreted above, 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.
Claims 15-20 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claim 13 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
July 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights