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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“its bent section” should read “ a bent section”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2 and 6 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 2, “a first side wall projecting from the main body towards a side where the catch is located” (examiner emphasis added) is unclear. From the figures of the instant application, it does not appear the first side wall projects towards a side where the catch is located and hence what the limitation is intended to require is unclear. For the purposes of examination as long as the side wall faces in a direction where the catch is located the limitation is assumed to be met.
Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. CN 114876295 A (hereinafter Fu).
In regards to claim 1, Fu teaches a latch for a front hood of a vehicle, wherein, the latch is configured for locking or releasing the front hood by holding or releasing a striker (1) attached to the hood, wherein the latch comprises: a housing (2) fixed to a vehicle body (see para 5 and fig 1); a catch (3) rotatably supported on the housing and configured to lock the striker (see fig 2); a pawl (4) rotatably supported on the housing and configured to lock the catch (see fig 1) a torsion spring (5) fixed relative to the housing and comprising a first leg (51), wherein the first leg and the catch are configured to abut against the striker respectively at opposite sides in a locked state of the striker (note fig 2 and para 61; 51 could contact the top end of 3 and 51 simultaneously wrt fig 2), and a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot (slot of 24) formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot (at least briefly; see fig 1).
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) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 106761057 A (hereinafter Liu) and Labbe et al. DE 102018222138 A1 (hereinafter Labbe).
In regards to claim 1, Liu teaches a latch for a front hood of a vehicle, wherein, the latch is configured for locking or releasing the front hood by holding or releasing a striker (11) attached to the hood (para 39), wherein the latch comprises: a housing (1 and/or 2) fixed to a vehicle body; a catch (4)
However, Scocco does not teach and a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot.
Labbe teaches a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot (28) formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a free end of the first leg of Scocco configured to be inserted into a receiving slot formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot in order to guide the spring in a simple manner and to limit its movement (see Labbe paras 15 and 16).
In regards to claim 2, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Liu in view of Labbe teaches the latch according to claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a main body (Liu: 1 or 2) and a first side wall (Labbe: 24) projecting from the main body towards a side where the catch is located (see Liou), wherein the receiving slot is formed in the first side wall (Labbe fig 2) and is configured such that one end wall of the receiving slot abuts against the first leg in the locked state of the striker (Labbe: para 15 and fig 1; as Labbe’s slot sets limits).
In regards to claim 3, Liu in view of Labbe teaches the latch according to claim 1, wherein the first leg is bent at its bent section towards the striker and the bent section is positioned to be able to contact the striker (see reference image 1; contact at least indirect, akin to the instant app).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 4, Liu in view of Labbe teaches the latch according to claim 3, wherein the first leg further comprises a first straight section and a second straight section connected by the bent section, with an obtuse angle between the first straight section and the second straight section (see reference image 1).
In regards to claim 6, Liu in view of Labbe teaches the latch according to claim 2, wherein the torsion spring further comprises a second leg (Liu: 601), and the housing further comprises a second side wall (Liu: 207) projecting from the main body and opposite to the first side wall (Liu: note location of 602; at least opposite sides of 11), wherein a free end of the second leg of the torsion spring abuts against the second side wall (Liu: see fig 8a).
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scocco WO 2022084257 A1 (hereinafter Scocco) and Labbe.
In regards to claim 1, Scocco teaches a latch for a front hood of a vehicle, wherein, the latch is configured for locking or releasing the front hood by holding or releasing a striker (S) attached to the hood (see page 3 lines 1-3), wherein the latch comprises: a housing (6) fixed to a vehicle body; a catch (1)
However, Scocco does not teach and a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot.
Labbe teaches a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot (28) formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a free end of the first leg of Scocco configured to be inserted into a receiving slot formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot in order to guide the spring in a simple manner and to limit its movement (see Labbe paras 15 and 16).
In regards to claim 5, Scocco in view of Labbe teaches the latch according to claim 1, wherein a wire of the torsion spring has a rectangular cross section (Scocco: fig 1).
In regards to claim 7, Scocco in view of Labbe teaches the latch according to claim 1, wherein the catch is pivotally supported on the housing through a first shaft (Scocco: P1) provided on the housing, wherein the torsion spring is fixed to the first shaft (Scocco: fig 2).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 20120049543 A1 (hereinafter Park) and Labbe.
In regards to claim 1, Park teaches a latch for a front hood of a vehicle, wherein, the latch is configured for locking or releasing the front hood by holding or releasing a striker (700) attached to the hood (para 36), wherein the latch comprises: a housing (500) fixed to a vehicle body; a catch (200)
However, Park does not teach and a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot.
Labbe teaches a free end of the first leg is configured to be inserted into a receiving slot (28) formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a free end of the first leg of Park configured to be inserted into a receiving slot formed in the housing and be capable of sliding under guidance of the receiving slot in order to guide the spring in a simple manner and to limit its movement (see Labbe paras 15 and 16).
In regards to claim 8, Park latch according to claim 1, wherein the pawl is pivotally supported on the housing through a second shaft (Park: shaft 400 surrounds see fig 1) provided on the housing, wherein the torsion spring is fixed to the second shaft (Park: see fig 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights