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
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 of claim 2, “a ratchet holding” should likely be --the ratchet holding-- because it is previously recited in claim 1
in line 3 of claim 2, “a ratchet releasing” should likely be --the ratchet releasing-- because it is previously recited in claim 1
in line 1 of claim 4, “wherein mechanical” should likely be --wherein the mechanical--
in line 7 of claim 12, “during a crash” should likely be --during the crash-- because it is previously recited in claim 11
in line 2 of claim 18, “after a crash” should likely be --after the crash-- because it is previously recited in claim 11
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 4-7 and 12-15 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 6 requires “the mechanical feature is formed as a monolithic piece of material with the frame plate.” Claim 6 depends from claims 4-5, and therefore includes the limitation “mechanical feature is fixed to the frame plate” in claim 4. The accepted meaning “fixed” is “securely placed or fastened,” as defined by Merriam-Webster. However, Merriam-Webster defines “monolithic” as “cast as a single piece” or “constituting a single unit.” It is unclear how the mechanical feature can be both fixed to the frame plate and formed monolithically with the frame plate because the former requires the mechanical feature is separate from the frame plate and the latter indicates the mechanical feature is integral with the frame plate. Applicant can act as his or her own lexicographer, but the written description must clearly redefine the claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term.
Paragraph 00126 of the present specification describes “the pawl locking member 86 can be formed as a monolithic piece of material with housing 229, such as in a stamping or forging process … or the pawl locking member 86 can be formed as a separated piece of material and subsequently fixed to the frame plate” (emphasis added). In light of the disclosure, the term “fixed” in claim 4 is used by the claim to mean attached or connected, and not necessarily requiring two pieces fastened together. For purposes of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as the mechanical feature is directly attached to the frame plate of the latch assembly.
Claims 5-7 are rejected for depending from claim 4 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 4.
Similarly, claim 12 requires a step of “fixing the mechanical feature to a frame plate” and dependent claim 14 requires a step of “providing the mechanical feature and the frame plate as a monolithic piece of material.” The method of claim 14 requires fixing two components together as well as providing the two components as a single piece of material, and it is unclear how these steps are performed together. Paragraph 00126 of the present specification describes “the pawl locking member 86 can be formed as a monolithic piece of material with housing 229, such as in a stamping or forging process … or the pawl locking member 86 can be formed as a separated piece of material and subsequently fixed to the frame plate” (emphasis added). For purposes of examination, claim 12 will be interpreted in light of the disclosure as providing the mechanical feature connected to a frame plate of the latch assembly.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for depending from claim 12 and therefore including the indefinite language of claim 12.
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) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bejune et al., US 2015/0167358 A1.
Claim 1: Bejune et al. discloses a latch assembly (12) for a motor vehicle having a vehicle body defining a door opening and a vehicle swing door pivotably connected to the vehicle body for swing movement between an open position (shown in Fig. 1) and a closed position relative to the vehicle body and a passenger compartment (Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame plate (51);
a ratchet (36) operably coupled to said frame plate (coupled via post 76) for movement between a striker capture position to retain the vehicle swing door in the closed position (shown in Fig. 4) and a striker release position to allow the vehicle swing door to be moved to the open position (¶ 0016 (the catch rotates to the unlatched position “thereby allowing door 32 to be opened”));
a release chain component (38) operably coupled to said frame plate (coupled via post 78) and configured for release from a ratchet holding position (shown in Fig. 4), whereat said ratchet is maintained in latched engagement with a striker in the striker capture position to maintain the vehicle swing door in the closed position (¶ 0016 (“configured to maintain the catch 36 in the closed position”)), to a ratchet releasing position, whereat said ratchet is moved to the striker release position to allow the striker to be moved outwardly from latched engagement with the ratchet and the vehicle swing door to be moved from the closed position to the open position (¶ 0016 (“pawl 38 moves out of engagement with the catch36, the catch 36 may be configured to rotate clockwise to the open or unlatched position”)); and
a mechanical feature (52) operably coupled to said frame plate (first leg 53 is operably coupled to the frame plate 51), said mechanical feature configured to be deformed by a force in a crash condition of the motor vehicle (shown in Fig. 4) to prevent inadvertent movement of said release chain component from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (¶ 0018 (after a crash, “extension member 52 is deformed … into a blocking position of the pawl 38”)).
Claim 2: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 1, wherein the release chain component is a pawl (pawl 38), the pawl having a ratchet holding position (shown in Fig. 3), whereat the ratchet is maintained in the striker capture position (¶ 0016), and a ratchet releasing position, whereat the ratchet is free to move to the striker release position (¶ 0016).
Claim 3: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 2, the mechanical feature directly confronts the pawl upon being deformed to block the pawl from moving from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (depicted in Fig. 4; ¶ 0018).
Claim 4: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 1, wherein mechanical feature is fixed to the frame plate of the latch assembly (depicted in Fig. 3; ¶ 0017 (body portion 51 “including a unitary or integral extension member 52”)). Note interpretation under 112(b) above.
Claim 5: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 4, wherein the mechanical feature is cantilevered from the frame plate (depicted in Fig. 3).
Claim 6: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 5, wherein the mechanical feature is formed as a monolithic piece of material with the frame plate (¶ 0017 (body portion 51 “including a unitary or integral extension member 52”); Figs. 3-5 depict the mechanical feature and frame plate are formed as a monolithic piece of material).
Claim 8: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 1, wherein said mechanical feature is configured to pivot from a non-deployed, non-blocking position (Fig. 3), whereat said release chain component is able to move from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (¶ 0017 (“the extension member 52 may function to allow the pawl 38 to work freely during normal operation”)), to a deployed, blocking position (Fig. 3) during the crash condition, whereat said release chain component is unable to move from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (¶¶ 0017-18 (during and after a crash, “the extension member 52 may function to block the pawl 38”)).
Claim 9: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 8, wherein said mechanical feature extends from said frame plate to a free end (second extension portion 54 is a free end), said free end being configured to block movement of said release chain component from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position during the crash condition (Fig. 4 depicts the free end is deformed toward the pawl and is configured to block movement of the pawl out of the ratchet holding position).
Claim 10: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 9, wherein the release chain component is a pawl (pawl 38), and wherein said free end confronts said pawl to engage said pawl (depicted in Fig. 4) and prevent said pawl from moving from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (¶ 0018).
Claim 11: Bejune et al. discloses a method of preventing a ratchet (36) of a latch assembly of a motor vehicle swing door (Fig. 1) from inadvertently moving from a striker capture position (shown in Fig. 3), whereat the ratchet is maintained in latched engagement with a striker to maintain the motor vehicle swing door in a closed position (¶ 0016), to a striker release position, whereat the ratchet is moved out of latched engagement from the striker to allow the motor vehicle swing door to be moved from the closed position to the open position (¶ 0016), during a crash condition of a motor vehicle (¶ 0014), comprising:
configuring a mechanical feature of the latch (52) assembly to be plastically deformed by a force during the crash condition (Fig. 4; ¶ 0018), and configuring the plastically deformed mechanical feature to prevent inadvertent movement of a release chain component from a ratchet holding position (shown in Fig. 3), whereat the ratchet is maintained in the striker capture position (¶ 0015 (the pawl “block[s] rotation of the claw”)), to a ratchet releasing position, whereat the ratchet is able to be moved to the striker release position (¶ 0016 (the pawl disengages the ratchet, so it can “rotate clockwise to the open or unlocked position”)).
Claim 12: Bejune et al. discloses the method of Claim 11, further including
fixing the mechanical feature to a frame plate (51) of the latch assembly (¶ 0017) (note interpretation under 112(b) above) and
configuring the mechanical feature to pivot from a non-deployed, non-blocking position (shown in Fig. 3), whereat the release chain component is able to move from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (¶ 0017 (“allow the pawl 38 to work freely during normal operation”)), to a deployed, blocking position (shown in Fig. 4), whereat the release chain component is unable to move from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position, during a crash condition (¶ 0018).
Claim 13: Bejune et al. discloses the method of Claim 12, further including cantilevering the mechanical feature from the frame plate (depicted in Fig. 3; ¶ 0017).
Claim 14: Bejune et al. discloses the method of Claim 13, further including providing the mechanical feature and the frame plate as a monolithic piece of material (depicted in Fig. 3; ¶ 0017 (body portion 51 “including a unitary or integral extension member 52” corresponds to providing the mechanical feature and frame plate as a monolithic piece)).
Claim 16: Bejune et al. discloses the method of Claim 11, further including
providing the mechanical feature extending from the frame plate to a free end (depicted in Fig. 3; portion 54 is a free end) and
configuring the free end to block movement of the release chain component from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position during the crash condition (Fig. 4 depicts the free end is deformed toward the pawl to block movement of the pawl).
Claim 17: Bejune et al. discloses the method of Claim 16, further including providing the release chain component as a pawl (pawl 38) configured for engagement with the ratchet when the ratchet is in the striker capture position (Fig. 3; ¶ 0016), and configuring the free end to confront and engage the pawl to prevent the pawl from moving from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position during the crash condition (Fig. 4; ¶ 0018).
Claim(s) 11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan et al., US 2011/0115251 A1.
Claim 11: Jordan et al. discloses a method of preventing a ratchet (¶ 0008; latching system 112 of a vehicle door includes a ratchet in order to retain the striker) of a latch assembly (104; ¶ 0023) of a motor vehicle swing door (Fig. 1) from inadvertently moving from a striker capture position, whereat the ratchet is maintained in latched engagement with a striker to maintain the motor vehicle swing door in a closed position, to a striker release position, whereat the ratchet is moved out of latched engagement from the striker to allow the motor vehicle swing door to be moved from the closed position to the open position, during a crash condition of a motor vehicle (¶ 0039), comprising:
configuring a mechanical feature (110) of the latch assembly to be plastically deformed by a force during the crash condition (Figs. 7-8), and configuring the plastically deformed mechanical feature to prevent inadvertent movement of a release chain component (122) from a ratchet holding position (position when 110 is unactuated), whereat the ratchet is maintained in the striker capture position, to a ratchet releasing position (position when 110 is actuated), whereat the ratchet is able to be moved to the striker release position (¶ 0039; S902-S906 in Fig. 9).
Claim 18: Jordan et al. discloses the method of Claim 11, further including configuring the release chain component to be intentionally moved after a crash condition so that the release chain component can be intentionally moved from the ratchet holding position to the ratchet releasing position (step S908 in Fig. 9; ¶¶ 0029, 0040 (the release chain component 122 can be intentionally moved by the handle after the crash)).
Claim 19: Jordan et al. discloses the method of Claim 18, further including configuring the release chain component to be intentionally moved via at least one of movement and mechanically actuated movement (step S908 in Fig. 9; ¶¶ 0029, 0040 (the component 110 intentionally moved via the handle 108 corresponds to movement or mechanically actuated movement)).
Claim 20: Jordan et al. discloses the method of Claim 19, further including configuring the mechanical feature to be deflected under a force of the release chain component via at least one of movement and mechanically actuated movement of the release chain component (Figs. 2-3 depict the release chain component is structurally capable without modification to apply a force to the mechanical feature via a movement of the release chain component, and the mechanical feature is structured to be deflected by a force from the release chain component).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bejune et al., US 2015/0167358 A1, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gates, US 7,945,995 B1.
Claim 7: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 6, wherein a hinge interconnects the mechanical feature to the frame plate and facilitates controlled deformation of the mechanical feature from a non-deployed, non-blocking state to a deployed, blocking state (depicted by movement from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4). However, Bejune et al. is silent to the hinge being a living hinge interconnecting the mechanical feature to the frame plate, wherein the living hinge facilitates controlled deformation of the mechanical feature during the crash condition by reducing the bending force of the monolithic piece of material across the living hinge.
A living hinge that facilitates controlled deformation a monolithic piece of material across the living hinge is known in the art, as evidenced by Gates. Gates teaches a living hinge (30) interconnecting two rigid pieces (16, 24), wherein the living hinge facilitates controlled deformation (claim 1; the pieces bend along the line of the hinge) by reducing the bending force of a monolithic piece of material across the living hinge (col. 7 ln. 29-34, 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hinge that interconnects the mechanical feature to the frame plate disclosed by Bejune et al. to be a living hinge, as taught by Gates, wherein the living hinge facilitates controlled deformation of the mechanical feature during the crash condition by reducing the bending force of the monolithic piece of material across the living hinge, as suggested by Gates. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the hinge connecting the mechanical feature and frame plate as a living hinge to order to reduce costs and simplify manufacturing (Gates col. 1 ln. 27-29; Gates col. 6 ln. 47-48).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bejune et al., US 2015/0167358 A1, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gates, US 7,945,995 B1.
Claim 15: Bejune et al. discloses the latch assembly of Claim 14, further including interconnecting the mechanical feature to the frame plate with a hinge state (depicted in Figs. 3-4), wherein the hinge is configured to facilitate deformation of the mechanical feature from a non-deployed, non-blocking state (Fig. 3) to a deployed, blocking state during the crash condition (Fig. 4).
However, Bejune et al. is silent to the hinge being a living hinge, wherein the method comprises interconnecting the mechanical feature to the frame plate with the living hinge, wherein the living hinge facilitates deformation of the mechanical feature during the crash condition by reducing the bending force of the monolithic piece of material across the living hinge.
Interconnecting two pieces with a living hinge by deformation a monolithic piece of material across the living hinge is known in the art, as evidenced by Gates. Gates teaches a living hinge (30) interconnecting two rigid pieces (16, 24), wherein the living hinge is configured to facilitate deformation (claim 1; the pieces bend along the line of the hinge) by reducing the bending force of a monolithic piece of material across the living hinge (col. 7 ln. 29-34, 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method that includes interconnecting the mechanical feature to the frame plate disclosed by Bejune et al. to include interconnecting the mechanical feature to the frame plate with a living hinge, as taught by Gates, wherein the living hinge is configured to facilitate deformation of the mechanical feature during the crash condition by reducing the bending force of the monolithic piece of material across the living hinge, as suggested by Gates. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to interconnect the mechanical feature and frame plate with a living hinge to order to reduce costs and simplify manufacturing (Gates col. 1 ln. 27-29; Gates col. 6 ln. 47-48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2003020845A is related to a latch assembly comprising a ratchet, a pawl, and a mechanical feature configured to prevent movement of the pawl from force by a collision. US20070029835A1 is related to a latch assembly comprising a ratchet, a release chain component, a mechanical feature for preventing movement of the release chain component, and a frame plate configured to be plastically deformed. US20190284845A1 is related to a latch assembly comprising a mechanical feature that is deformed by a impact force and blocks movement of a release chain component to prevent the door from opening. US20180371793A1 is related to a living hinge. US20200109579A1 is related to a latch assembly comprising a pawl and a mechanical feature that deforms by an impact force to engage the pawl and block movement with friction.
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