DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akizuki (JP2009052229).
.
Regarding claim 1, Akizuki discloses a door latch apparatus comprising:
a fork (12) that disengageably holds a striker (2);
a pawl (13) that disengageably engages with the fork and enables an engaged state of the fork with the striker to be maintained;
an inner opening lever (22) that is rotatable in conjunction with a manipulation of an inner handle (23);
a lock member(25) movable between an unlocked position and a locked position;
a motor (29, lock actuator) for a locking mechanism which is capable of causing the lock member (25 interlocked with 26) to be switched to either the unlocked position or the locked position (remote operation);
a lock member position detecting unit (control circuit, not shown) that directly or indirectly detects movement of the lock member from the locked position to the unlocked position and outputs a lock switching signal (driven and controlled through lock unlock switch);
a link (28) that operates in conjunction with the lock member, transmits a rotation force of the inner opening lever to the pawl to enable the pawl and the fork to be disengaged from each other when the lock member is located at the unlocked position, and is not capable of transmitting the rotation force of the inner opening lever to the pawl when the lock member is located at the locked position;
an override mechanism (25,25b protruding portion cancel lever) that enables the lock member to be moved from the locked position to the unlocked position in response to rotation of the inner opening lever (23);
a child lock manipulation receiving unit (controller and motor 31) that receives a selecting manipulation selecting use or non-use of a child lock mechanism (can be switched between child unlock and child lock position Fig.5 and 7), outputs a child lock signal when the received selecting manipulation is use of the child lock mechanism, and outputs a child unlock signal when the received selecting manipulation is non-use of the child lock mechanism; and
a control unit (not shown detecting a remote operation (lock / unlock operation) of a lock / unlock switch provided on a key blade or door interior trim by a control circuit (not shown the active lever 26 is selectively switched between the unlock position and the lock position by driving the lock actuator 29) that is capable of receiving the child lock signal and the child unlock signal from the child lock manipulation receiving unit and capable of receiving the lock switching signal from the lock member position detecting unit, wherein
the control unit drives the motor (31) for the locking mechanism and moves the lock member from the locked position to the unlocked position when the lock switching signal is received from the lock member position detecting unit in a child lock state in which the child lock signal has been received from the child lock manipulation receiving unit (selectively switched from child lock set position to child lock unset).
Regarding claim 3, Akizuki discloses the door latch apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the override mechanism (26, cancel) includes an override manipulation portion capable of manipulating the lock member from the locked position to the unlocked position in response to rotation of the inner opening lever (3), when the lock member is located at the locked position, a first manipulation of the inner handle causes the override manipulation portion to move the lock member from the locked position to the unlocked position, and after the first manipulation, in a child unlock state in which the control unit receives the child unlock signal from the child lock manipulation receiving unit, a second manipulation of the inner handle causes the rotation force of the inner opening lever to be transmitted to the pawl so that the pawl and the fork are disengaged from each other (Para 3 and 4: inside handle is restored, the link member is released from the lift lever and switched to the unlocked state. In this state, when the inside handle is operated once more, the lift lever is actuated to release the closed state held by the latch mechanism.)
.
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akizuki (JP2009052229) in view of Ring (US 2017/0370129).
Regarding claim 2, Akizuki discloses the door latch apparatus according to claim 1.
Akizuki does not disclose: an alarm issuing unit, wherein the control unit causes the alarm issuing unit to issue an alarm (sensor which would disable the child lock and sound and audible alarm such as the horn [0022] also[00561] also [0057]) when the lock switching signal is received from the lock member position detecting unit in the child lock state in which the child lock signal is received from the child lock manipulation receiving unit ([0022]).
Ring teaches an alarm issuing unit, wherein the control unit causes the alarm issuing unit to issue an alarm (sensor which would disable the child lock and sound and audible alarm such as the horn [0022] also[00561] also [0057]) when the lock switching signal is received from the lock member position detecting unit in the child lock state in which the child lock signal is received from the child lock manipulation receiving unit ([0022]) for the purpose of sounding an alarm to the operator when there is a lock status change.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akizuki with an alarm issuing unit, wherein the control unit causes the alarm issuing unit to issue an alarm (sensor which would disable the child lock and sound and audible alarm such as the horn [0022] also[00561] also [0057]) when the lock switching signal is received from the lock member position detecting unit in the child lock state in which the child lock signal is received from the child lock manipulation receiving unit ([0022]).
as taught by Ring for the expected benefit of sounding an alarm to the operator when there is a lock status change.
Regarding claim 4, Akizuki discloses the door latch apparatus according to claim 1.
Akizuki does not disclose: comprising an emergency sensor (detection signal someone trapped in vehicle [0054]) that detects an emergency situation in which the manipulation of the inner handle needs to ensure disengagement of the pawl from the fork and that outputs an emergency signal, wherein when the control unit receives the emergency signal, the control unit does not drive the motor for the locking mechanism even when receiving the lock switching signal from the lock member position detecting unit in the child lock state.
Ring teaches automatic child safety lock release comprising an emergency sensor (detection signal someone trapped in vehicle [0054]) that detects an emergency situation in which the manipulation of the inner handle needs to ensure disengagement of the claw from the fork and that outputs an emergency signal, wherein when the control unit receives the emergency signal, the control unit does not drive the motor for the locking mechanism even when receiving the lock switching signal from the lock member position detecting unit in the child lock state for the purpose of alerting vehicle operator of dangerous entrapment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akizuki with comprising an emergency sensor (detection signal someone trapped in vehicle [0054]) that detects an emergency situation in which the manipulation of the inner handle needs to ensure disengagement of the claw from the fork and that outputs an emergency signal, wherein when the control unit receives the emergency signal, the control unit does not drive the motor for the locking mechanism even when receiving the lock switching signal from the lock member position detecting unit in the child lock state as taught by Ring for the expected benefit of alerting vehicle operator of dangerous entrapment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 7 July 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant clarification of replacing claw with pawl appears to more accurately reflect the applicant’s invention. The associated objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, page 4, line 9; regarding motor operation, the applicant does not claim any requirement beyond a motor operation. It appears the applicant argues that which is not positively recited in distinguishing beyond one motor required.
Applicant’s argument, page 4, line 17; concerning locking and unlocking the applicant argues that which is not positively recited as to any exact requirement as to how the control unit drives the motor. Where the applicant fails to detail structure and function required to operate a given mechanism, the claimed structure must be accounted for and the device capable of operation claimed. Nowhere has the applicant articulated where the prior art is structurally deficient in view of what structure is claimed by the applicant. The argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument, page 5, line 10; concerning an electric operation and motor driven operation of the child lock Akizuki discloses: “The child lock actuator 31 has an electric motor 31a and an output gear portion 31b fixed to the rotating shaft of the electric motor 31a. The child lock lever 30 is an output gear of the child lock actuator 31 in the gear portion 30c. It is meshed with the portion 31b. The child lock lever 30 is driven by the child lock actuator 31 and selectively switches between the child lock unset position and the child lock set position.” Applicant’s argument that does not discuss electric motor operation of the child lock is factually inaccurate as detailed above. Concerning “generates”, “drives” where the applicant fails to articulate how these functions are accomplished and what structure is required, the recitations are disclosed by the structure and function of the disclosure of the prior art. The argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights