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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0109, “over center spring 126” should be --over center spring 138--
Reference character “50” has been used to designate both “switch link spring,” “spring,” and “over center spring” in the specification (MPEP 608.01(g))
Reference characters “138” and “50” have both been used to designate an “over center spring” in the specification (MPEP 608.01(g))
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,590,474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 and 18 of the patent fall entirely within the scope of claims 1-8 and 10-20, as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of the patent because claim 1 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the patent. That is, claim 1 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 1 of the application and falls entirely within the scope of claim 1. Specifically, “a clutch mechanism operably coupling the switch link to the reset lever” recited in claim 1 of the instant application is generic to “a clutch mechanism operably coupling the switch link to the reset lever, the clutch mechanism including a clutch lever that is pivotally mounted to the switch link” recited in claim 1 of the patent. And, “a single motor operably coupled to the drive assembly via a worm secured to a shaft of the single motor, wherein rotation of the drive assembly by the worm performs one of a locking function and a power release, back drive, lock and unlock of the vehicle latch electrically” recited in claim 1 of the instant application is generic to “a motor operably coupled to the drive assembly via a worm secured to a shaft of the motor, wherein rotation of the drive assembly by the worm performs one of a locking function and a power release of the vehicle latch” recited in claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application, claim 2 is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of the patent because claim 2 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the patent. That is, claim 1 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 2 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 2. Specifically, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and includes every limitation of claim 1, which is generic to claim 1 of the patent. Claim 2 further requires a clutch mechanism operably coupling the switch link to the reset lever, “wherein the clutch mechanism includes a clutch lever that is pivotally mounted to the switch link” which is the same as “a clutch mechanism operably coupling the switch link to the reset lever, the clutch mechanism including a clutch lever that is pivotally mounted to the switch link” recited in claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant application, claim 3 is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of the patent because claim 3 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the patent. That is, claim 1 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 3 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 3. Specifically, claim 3 depends from claims 1 and 2 and includes every limitation of claims 1-2 which are generic to claim 1 of the patent. Claim 3 further requires “a spring secured to the switch link biases the clutch lever into an engagement position wherein a hook portion of the clutch lever will engage a portion of the reset lever” which is the same as “a spring secured to the switch link biases the clutch lever into an engagement position wherein a hook portion of the clutch lever will engage a portion of the reset lever” recited in claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant application, claim 4 is patentably indistinct from claim 2 of the patent because claim 4 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 2 of the patent. That is, claim 2 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 4 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 4. Specifically, claim 4 depends from claims 1-3 and includes every limitation of claims 1-3 which are generic to claim 1 of the patent (see above). Claim 4 further recites the same limitation(s) recited in claim 2 of the patent.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, claim 5 is patentably indistinct from claim 3 of the patent because claim 5 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 3 of the patent. That is, claim 3 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 5 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 5. Specifically, claim 5 depends from claims 1-4 and includes every limitation of claims 1-4, which are generic to claim 2 of the patent (see above). Claim 5 further recites the same limitation as claim 3 of the patent.
Regarding claim 6 of the instant application, claim 6 is patentably indistinct from claim 4 of the patent because claim 6 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 4 of the patent. That is, claim 4 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 6 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 6. Specifically, claim 6 depends from claims 1-4 and includes every limitation of claims 1-4 which are generic to claim 2 of the patent (see above). Claim 6 further recites the same limitation as claim 4 of the patent.
Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, claim 7 is patentably indistinct from claim 5 of the patent because claim 7 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 5 of the patent. That is, claim 5 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 7 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 7. Specifically, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and includes every limitation of claim 1 which is generic to claim 1 of the patent (see above). Claim 7 further recites the same limitation as claim 5 of the patent.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, claim 8 is patentably indistinct from claim 6 of the patent because claim 8 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 6 of the patent. That is, claim 6 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 8 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 8. Specifically, claim 8 depends from claims 1 and 7 and includes every limitation of claims 1 and 7 which is generic to claims 1 and 5 of the patent (see above). Claim 8 further recites the same limitation as claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, claim 10 is patentably indistinct from claim 7 of the patent because claim 10 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 7 of the patent. That is, claim 7 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 10 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 10. Specifically, claim 10 depends from claims 1, 7, and 8 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, and 8 which are generic to claims 1, 5, and 6 of the patent (see above). Claim 10 further recites the same limitation as claim 7 of the patent.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 11 is patentably indistinct from claim 8 of the patent because claim 11 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 8 of the patent. That is, claim 8 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 11 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 11. Specifically, claim 11 depends from claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 which are generic to claims 1 and 5-7 of the patent (see above). Claim 11 further recites the same limitation as claim 8 of the patent.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, claim 12 is patentably indistinct from claim 9 of the patent because claim 12 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 9 of the patent. That is, claim 9 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 12 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 12. Specifically, claim 12 depends from claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 which are generic to claims 1 and 5-7 of the patent (see above). Claim 12 further recites the same limitation as claim 9 of the patent.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant application, claim 13 is patentably indistinct from claim 10 of the patent because claim 13 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 10 of the patent. That is, claim 10 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 13 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 13. Specifically, claim 13 depends from claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 which are generic to claims 1 and 5-7 of the patent (see above). Claim 13 further recites the same limitation as claim 10 of the patent.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, claim 14 is patentably indistinct from claim 11 of the patent because claim 14 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 11 of the patent. That is, claim 11 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 14 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 14. Specifically, claim 14 depends from claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 13 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, 10 and 13 which are generic to claims 1, 5-7 and 10 of the patent (see above). Claim 14 further recites the same limitation as claim 11 of the patent.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, claim 15 is patentably indistinct from claim 12 of the patent because claim 15 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 12 of the patent. That is, claim 12 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 15 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 15. Specifically, claim 15 depends from claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 13-14 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, 10 and 13-14 which are generic to claims 1, 5-7 and 10-11 of the patent (see above). Claim 15 further recites the same limitation as claim 12 of the patent.
Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, claim 16 is patentably indistinct from claim 13 of the patent because claim 16 of the application is generic to all that is recited in claim 13 of the patent. That is, claim 13 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 16 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 16. Specifically, claim 16 depends from claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 which are generic to claims 1 and 5-7 of the patent (see above). Claim 16 further recites the same limitation as claim 13 of the patent.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, claim 17 is patentably indistinct from claim 14 of the patent because claim 17 is generic to all that is recited in claim 14 of the patent. That is, claim 14 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 17 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 17. Specifically, claim 17 depends from claims 1 and 7 and includes every limitation of claims 1 and 7 which are generic to claim 5 of the patent (see above). Claim 17 further recites the same limitation as claim 14 of the patent.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, claim 18 is patentably indistinct from claim 15 of the patent because claim 18 is generic to all that is recited in claim 15 of the patent. That is, claim 15 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 18 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 18. Specifically, claim 18 depends from claims 1, 7 and 17 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, and 17 which are generic to claim 14 of the patent (see above). Claim 18 further recites the same limitation as claim 15 of the patent.
Regarding claim 19 of the instant application, claim 19 is patentably indistinct from claim 16 of the patent because claim 19 is generic to all that is recited in claim 16 of the patent. That is, claim 16 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 19 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 19. Specifically, claim 19 depends from claims 1, 7, 17, and 18 and includes every limitation of claims 1, 7, 17, and 18 which are generic to claim 15 of the patent (see above). Claim 19 further recites the same limitation as claim 16 of the patent.
Regarding claim 20 of the instant application, claim 20 is patentably indistinct from claim 18 of the patent because claim 20 is generic to all that is recited in claim 18 of the patent. That is, claim 18 of the patent is a species of the generic category recited in claim 20 and falls entirely within the scope of claim 20. Specifically, claim 20 depends from claim 1 and includes every limitation of claim 1. Claim 1 of the application recites “a single motor operably coupled to the drive assembly via a worm secured to a shaft of the single motor, wherein rotation of the drive assembly by the worm performs one of a locking function and a power release, back drive, lock and unlock of the vehicle latch electrically” and this is generic to “a motor operably coupled to the drive assembly via a worm secured to a shaft of the motor, wherein rotation of the drive assembly by the worm performs one of a locking function and a power release of the vehicle latch” recited in claim 18 of the patent. “Crush ribs that allows the reset lever to be interference fit or snap fit into the power release gear” recited in claim 20 is also generic to “crush ribs that allows the reset lever to be interference fit into the power release gear” recited in claim 18 of the patent because everything that is required by claim 18 falls within the scope of claim 20.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one of a locking function and a power release, back drive, lock and unlock of the vehicle latch electrically." It is not clear if Applicant intends the “power release, back drive, lock and unlock” are all together one function or if the “back drive, lock, and unlock” are alternatives intended to be included in the Markush grouping because there are not articles for the last three elements. If they are intended as alternative elements, it is unclear if the “locking function” and “lock” are distinct operations; or is “lock and unlock” together one function? For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the disclosure as: one of a locking function of the vehicle latch electrically, a power release of the vehicle latch electrically, a back drive of the vehicle latch electrically, and a lock and unlock of the vehicle latch electrically.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending on claim 1 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoda, US 2009/0160198.
Claim 1: Yoda discloses a vehicle latch (Fig. 1), comprising:
a drive assembly (Fig. 5), wherein the drive assembly includes a power release gear (10), a reset lever (102) secured to one side of the power release gear (104) and a gear lock lever (15) located on an opposite side of the power release gear (105), the gear lock lever rotatably mounted to the power release gear and the reset lever ([0048]);
a switch link (11) operably coupled to the gear lock lever ([0066]);
an over center spring (27) configured to be moved between a first position wherein the over center spring provides a first biasing force in a first direction to the switch link and a second position wherein the over center spring provides a second biasing force in a second direction to the switch link, the first direction being opposite to the second direction (Fig. 5, [0059], [0069]: the spring is structured to provide a first biasing force in a clockwise direction to the switch link and provide a second biasing force in the counter clockwise direction to the switch link);
a clutch mechanism (111) operably coupling the switch link to the reset lever ([0044], [0056]); and
a single motor (8) operably coupled to the drive assembly via a worm (81) secured to a shaft of the single motor (shown in Fig. 6), wherein rotation of the drive assembly by the worm performs one of a locking function and a power release, back drive, lock and unlock of the vehicle latch electrically ([0064]: performs a locking function electrically).
Claim 7: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 1, wherein a surface of the power release gear (surface of 105) has a cam feature (103) that engages a bumper of the gear lock lever (152) when the drive assembly of the vehicle latch is in a locked position and the gear lock lever is in a home position (shown in Fig. 8).
Claim 8: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 7, wherein the gear lock lever has an upper tab member (151) operably coupled to the switch link ([0071]) that is movably mounted to an actuator housing of the vehicle latch (71, Fig. 1).
Claim 10: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 8, wherein the gear lock lever has a lower portion that has a “U” shaped receiving area (Fig. 9 annotated below) operably coupled to a tab (portion with shaft 142) of a lock link lever (14) movably mounted to a housing portion ([0046]) of the vehicle latch ([0047-50]: operably coupled to a tab via gear lock lever 15 connected to shaft 142).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 10, wherein the actuator housing and the housing portion of the vehicle latch are separate components secured to each other (Fig. 2 illustrates the two components secured to each other).
Claim 12: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 10, wherein the actuator housing and the housing portion of the vehicle latch are integrally formed together as a single integral latch housing portion (Fig. 2 illustrates the actuator housing and housing portion are connected into a single unit together that forms a latch housing portion which is connected to a body 4).
Claim 13: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 10, wherein movement of the lock link lever from a first position to a second position ([0071]: lock link lever moves to unlock latch) will allow the vehicle latch to be opened by an outside release lever (18) pivotally mounted to the housing portion ([0037], [0054]: outside release lever opens unlocked latch).
Claim 14: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 13, wherein the outside release lever is operably coupled to a handle ([0055]).
Claim 15: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 14, wherein the outside release lever is operably coupled to the handle via a cable ([0055]).
Claim 17: Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 7, wherein when the power release gear is in a first position, the cam feature of the power release gear contacts the bumper of the gear lock lever which maintains the gear lock lever in the home position, which corresponds to the locked position of the drive assembly of the vehicle latch (Fig. 8, [0050]).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taurasi, US 2022/0268064.
Claim 1: Taurasi discloses a vehicle latch (Fig. 1), comprising:
a drive assembly (Fig. 2B), wherein the drive assembly includes a power release gear (56), a reset lever (58) secured to one side of the power release gear (Fig. 10A) and a gear lock lever (82) located on an opposite side of the power release gear (Fig. 10B), the gear lock lever rotatably mounted to the power release gear and the reset lever (movement from Fig. 10B to Fig. 11B depicts the gear lock lever being rotatably mounted);
a switch link (68) operably coupled to the gear lock lever ([0080]);
an over center spring (93) configured to be moved between a first position wherein the over center spring provides a first biasing force in a first direction to the switch link ([0081]: switch link 68 biased in a first direction via lever 78 that is biased clockwise) and a second position wherein the over center spring provides a second biasing force in a second direction to the switch link, the first direction being opposite to the second direction ([0081]: switch link 68 biased in a second direction via lever 78 that is biased counterclockwise);
a clutch mechanism (60) operably coupling the switch link to the reset lever ([0081]: couples switch link 68 with reset lever 58 via pin 75 and arm 82); and
a single motor (50) operably coupled to the drive assembly via a worm (54) secured to a shaft of the single motor (52), wherein rotation of the drive assembly by the worm performs one of a locking function and a power release, back drive, lock and unlock of the vehicle latch ([0076]: performs a power release function of the latch).
Claim 2: Taurasi discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 1, wherein the clutch mechanism includes a clutch lever (60) that is pivotally mounted to the switch link ([0079]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9, 16, and 18-20 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.
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 invention of claims 3-6, 9, 16, and 18-20.
Regarding claim 3, Taurasi discloses the vehicle latch of claim 2, but is silent to a spring secured to the switch link biasing the clutch lever into an engagement position wherein a hook portion of the clutch lever will engage a portion of the reset lever. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the assembly disclosed by Taurasi to further include a spring secured to the switch link configured to bias the clutch lever into an engagement position wherein a hook portion of the clutch lever will engage a portion of the reset lever without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device taught by Taurasi.
In regards to claims 4-6, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 3 from which the claims depend.
Regarding claim 9, Yoda discloses the vehicle latch of claim 8, including an upper tab member, however Yoda is silent to the upper tab member being received within an opening of the switch link. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the assembly disclosed by Yoda to have this feature without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Regarding claim 16, Yoda discloses the vehicle latch of claim 10, but is silent to the lock link lever resting in a backplate and the lock link lever having two guide features that slide through two slots in the backplate. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the lock link lever disclosed by Yoda to rest in a backplate and have two guide features that slide through two slots in the backplate without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the latch.
Regarding claim 18, Yoda discloses the vehicle latch as in claim 7, but is silent to the gear lock lever being spring biased into an unlock position by a lock link spring which provides a biasing force to a lock link lever movably mounted to a housing portion of the vehicle latch. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the assembly disclosed by Yoda to further include a lock link spring as claimed without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the latch.
In regards to claim 19, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 18 from which the claim depends.
In regards to claim 20, Taurasi teaches a vehicle latch comprising a reset lever, wherein the reset lever has another cam feature (58) provided on an opposite side of the reset lever with respect to the cam feature (Fig. 4A), the another cam feature contacting the clutch mechanism (contacts 104). But Taurasi fails to disclose the reset lever has a cam feature that is configured to engage complimentary cam features of the power release gear such that the reset lever can be secured to the power release gear and the cam feature of the reset lever has crush ribs that allows the reset lever to be interference fit or snap fit into the power release gear. The examiner could find no motivation to modify the reset lever disclosed by Taurasi to include a cam feature configured to engage complimentary cam features and having crush ribs that allows the reset lever to be interference fit or snap fit into the power release gear without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure disclosed by Taurasi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshikawa et al. (US 6065315 A) is related to a latch comprising a power release gear with a gear lock lever on one side of the gear, a switch link coupled to the gear lock lever, an over center spring biasing the switch link, and a clutch mechanism coupling the switch link and a reset lever, but the reset lever and the gear lock lever are located on the same side of the gear.
Brose (DE 10247842 B4) is related to a latch comprising a power release gear with a reset lever on one side and a gear lock lever on the opposite side and an over center spring.
Yoneyama (JP 5352616 B2) is related to a latch comprising a single motor, a gear with a reset lever on one side and a gear lock lever on the opposite side, a switch link, and an over center spring coupled to the switch link.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights