Patent Application 18308780 - ELECTRONIC LATCH CONTROL METHOD AND ASSEMBLY - Rejection

Patent Application 18308780 - ELECTRONIC LATCH CONTROL METHOD AND ASSEMBLY

Title: ELECTRONIC LATCH CONTROL METHOD AND ASSEMBLY

Application Information

• Invention Title: ELECTRONIC LATCH CONTROL METHOD AND ASSEMBLY
• Application Number: 18308780
• Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-04-28T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-04-28T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 292
• National Sub-Class: 201000
• Examiner Employee Number: 89511
• Art Unit: 2688
• Tech Center: 2600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14, 16-24 are pending.
	
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 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.


Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koch et al. [De 102020209093A1].
As to claim 1. Koch discloses An electronic latch control method, comprising: 
receiving an unlatch signal from at least one handle switch associated with a closure module of a vehicle, [0016] actuation action on the exterior door handle 5 of the door 4; 
assessing whether the vehicle is in a wash mode, [0009, 0016] detect if the vehicle is in a washing installation; and 
when in the wash mode, responding to the unlatch signal by maintaining an electronic latch in a latched position to maintain the closure module in a closed position, [0012, 0016, 0038, 0040] door lock system is deactivated.

As to claim 2. Koch discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising when not in the wash mode, responding to the unlatch signal by transitioning the electronic latch from the latched position to an unlatched position to permit pivoting of the closure module from the closed position to an open position, [0002, 0008].

As to claim 4. Koch discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the maintaining includes locking the closure module in the closed position, [0026, 0040] basic operation of opening a car door.

As to claim 5. Koch discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the maintaining includes preventing a transitioning of the electronic latch from the latched position to an unlatched position, [0040].

As to claim 10. Koch discloses The method of claim 1, wherein, when the vehicle is not in the wash mode, commanding the electronic latch to transition from the latched position to an unlatched position in response to the unlatch signal from the handle switch, [0002], when in the wash mode, commanding the electronic latch to maintain the latched position in response to the unlatch signal from the handle switch, [0040].

	
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 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) 8, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Liubakka et al. [US 20170072908].
As to claim 8. Koch fails to disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the wash mode is activated at least in part based on an input from a user.
Liubakka teaches a vehicle access system with inadvertent actuation control wherein the system activates the disablement of the door lock operation based on a manual user input, [0020].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Liubakka so that the system can be manually activated by the user when needed.

As to claim 21. Koch fails to disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising alerting a user that the vehicle is in the wash mode.
Liubakka teaches a vehicle access system with inadvertent actuation control wherein the system activates the disablement of the door lock operation based on a manual user input, [0020]; wherein the disabled mode is indicated using lights, [0023].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Liubakka so that the user can be made aware of the mode of the vehicle.

As to claim 22. Koch fails to disclose The method of claim 21, wherein the wash mode is activated in response to an input from at least one sensor of the vehicle, [0013], wherein the sensor includes a rain sensor, [0013], a speed sensor, a transmission position sensor, an ignition sensor, a brake pressure sensor, and a handbrake pressure position sensor.
Koch fails to disclose wherein the alerting includes indicating that the wash mode is activated.
Liubakka teaches a vehicle access system with inadvertent actuation control wherein the system activates the disablement of the door lock operation, [0020], based on a sensor input indicating the vehicle is near a car wash, in combination with a speed sensor, [0018], a rain sensor, [0013]; wherein the mode is indicated using lights, [0023].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Liubakka so that the user can be made aware of the mode of the vehicle.

Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Scheiern et al. [US 20190169893].
As to claim 11. Koch discloses A vehicle assembly, comprising: 
a switch assembly actuatable to provide an unlatch signal, [fig. 1, 0018] outside door handle 5; 
an electronic latch transitionable back-and-forth between a latched position and an unlatched position, [0018] electric drive unit coupled to open a door lock; and 
a control module configured to allow the electronic latch to transition in response to the unlatch signal, [0002, 0008], the control module allowing the electronic latch to transition to the unlatched position in response to the unlatch signal when not in a wash mode, [0002, 0008], the control module configured to maintain the electronic latch in the latched position in response to the unlatch signal when in the wash mode, [0038, 0040].
Koch fails to disclose wherein the allowing is performed by the control module by selectively commanding the electronic control module when not in a wash mode.
Scheiern teaches a door handle for a motor vehicle wherein a processor 104 controls operation of the door handle assembly 10 and a door latch 102, [fig. 10, 0044]; wherein the processor controls the door latch to unlatch, [0046], or a latched state, [0047].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Scheiern so that the system can use input from a plurality of sensors for controlling the door latch by a processor.

As to claim 12. Koch discloses The vehicle assembly of claim 11, further comprising a closure module, [fig. 1] door 4, the electronic latch holding the closure module in a closed position when the electronic latch is in the latched position, [0012] prevent opening of door when locked, the electronic latch permitting movement of the closure module from the closed position to an open position when the electronic latch is in the unlatched position, [0008] open the door when unlocked.

As to claim 14. Koch discloses The vehicle assembly of claim 12, further comprising a handle of the closure module, the switch assembly disposed on the handle, [fig. 1] switch 5 on the side door 4, wherein the handle includes a first side facing outboard away from the closure module and an opposite, second side facing inboard toward the closure module, the switch assembly disposed on the second side, [0032] sensor located on the inside surface of the handle used as a switch.

As to claim 16. Koch fails to disclose The vehicle assembly of claim 14, further comprising a lightbar on the first side of the handle, wherein the light bar provides static and dynamic lighting.
Scheiern teaches a door handle for a motor vehicle wherein a processor 104 controls operation of the door handle assembly 10 and a door latch 102, [fig. 10, 0044]; wherein the door handle 10, [fig. 1, 0024], comprises an illumination source, [0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Scheiern so that the handle can be visually identifiable with the naked eye.

As to claim 17. Koch discloses The vehicle assembly of claim 11, wherein the switch assembly is vertically aligned with a beltline of a vehicle, [fig. 1].

As to claim 18. Koch fails to disclose The vehicle assembly of claim 11, wherein the switch assembly includes a button, a switch, [0017] capacitive sensor, and a printed circuit board.
Koch fails to disclose wherein the switch assembly further comprises a button, and a printed circuit board.
Scheiern teaches a door handle for a motor vehicle wherein a processor 104 controls operation of the door handle assembly 10 and a door latch 102, [fig. 10, 0044]; wherein the door handle 10, [fig. 1, 0024], comprises a button 12K, and a circuit board 30, [fig. 1, 0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Scheiern so that the system can use input from a plurality of sensors for controlling the door latch by a processor.

As to claim 19. Koch discloses The vehicle assembly of claim 18, wherein the switch assembly includes a plurality of individual switches, [0003] a plurality of capacitive switches disclosed on the door handle, disposed along a switch axis, [0003] the plurality of switches aligned flat with one another.
Koch fails to disclose wherein the switch axis aligned with a longitudinal axis of the button.
Scheiern teaches a door handle for a motor vehicle wherein a processor 104 controls operation of the door handle assembly 10 and a door latch 102, [fig. 10, 0044]; wherein the door handle 10, [fig. 1, 0024], comprises a button 12K, [fig. 1, 0030]; wherein the buttons 12K are aligned flat on the door handle 10.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Scheiern so that the sensors and the buttons can be aligned to fit on the flat elongated arrangement of the door handle.

As to claim 20. Koch discloses The vehicle assembly of claim 19, wherein the switch assembly is disposed on a handle of a closure module, [fig. 1, 0002, 0003] the capacitive sensors disclosed on the door handle.
Koch fails to disclose wherein the printed circuit board disposed on an inner surface of the handle of the closure module.
Scheiern teaches a door handle for a motor vehicle wherein a processor 104 controls operation of the door handle assembly 10 and a door latch 102, [fig. 10, 0044]; wherein the door handle 10, [fig. 1, 0024], comprises a button 12K, and a circuit board 30 disposed on the inner surface of the handle, [fig. 1, 0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koch with that of Scheiern so that the circuit board can be protected from environmental factors.

Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Scheiern as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Liubakka.
As to claim 23. The combination of Koch and Scheiern fails to disclose The vehicle assembly of claim 11, wherein when the vehicle is in the wash mode, the control module is configured to send an alert that indicates that the wash mode is activated.
Liubakka teaches a vehicle access system with inadvertent actuation control wherein the system activates the disablement of the door lock operation based on a manual user input, [0020]; wherein the disabled mode is indicated using lights, [0023].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Koch and Scheiern with that of Liubakka so that the user can be made aware of the mode of the vehicle.

As to claim 24. Koch discloses The vehicle assembly of claim 23, wherein the wash mode is activated is in response to an input from at least one sensor of the vehicle, [0013], wherein the sensor includes a rain sensor, [0013], a speed sensor, a transmission position sensor, an ignition sensor, a brake pressure sensor, and a handbrake pressure position sensor.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 are allowed.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: In regards to claim 1, 4, 10, 11, Koch teaches disabling or modifying the operation of the door handle, not “maintaining an electronic latch in a latched position.” That does not involve an electronic latch responding to an unlatch signal by maintaining a latched state.
Response 1: The broadest reasonable interpretation of “responding to the unlatch signal by maintaining an electronic latch in a latched position …” is that the system does not change the state of the latch and simply maintains the state until the mode is deactivated. The “responding” is simply equivalent to “ignoring”, the request by the user to open the door as it does not change any function of the latch system. There is no action performed by the system in response to the latch signal. Koch teaches the above function where the control system simply maintains the latch state when the car is in the “wash mode” as indicated in the cited portions of the prior art, [0016] by deactivating the latch function when in a wash mode.

Argument 2: There is no teaching in Koch of an electronically actuated latch mechanism.
Response 2: The Applicant agrees that Koch teaches “an electric (servo) motor door function”, as stated in the remarks filed 05/01/2025 page 6, paragraph 5. Further, as cited in claim 1 above, [0016, 0038, 0040], Koch teaches a door handle the sends an open signal to a control unit, and is controlled by “an electric drive”. The Examiner is unable to understand how the above system is not “an electrically actuated latch mechanism”.
Argument 3: The teaching of Liubakka describing disabling door opening function to be in a “disabled mode” in response to the vehicle being in a car wash is not analogous to activating a wash mode.
Response 3: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.  See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office Action is not relying on Liubakka to teach the activation of “a wash mode”. The Office Action is relying on Koch to teach the activation of a wash mode by changing the lock mechanism of the vehicle door. The Office Action is relying on Liubakka to teach that the lock mechanism of the vehicle door can be changed based on an input from a user.

Argument 4: The Office Action fails to teach the newly amended limitations of the claims.
Response 4: The Office Action is amended to address the newly amended claims as detailed above.





Conclusion
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.





/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688