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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16, 18 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
For claims 20, the preamble of claim 20 recites a motor vehicle, including a vehicle body and a hatch leaf coupled to the vehicle body, configured to change between a closed state and an open state recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim 20 contains positive recitations of the vehicle body. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the sub combination of the motor vehicle lock or the motor vehicle lock in combination with the motor vehicle. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been overcome by the present amendments.
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) 1-9 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valasin US 6070921 A (hereinafter Valasin).
In regards to claim 1, Valasin teaches motor vehicle lock for use in a hatch leaf (see fig 2) configured to change between a closed state (see fig 3) and an open state (see fig 6), the motor vehicle lock comprising: a catch (24) configured to interact with a lock striker (22) and pivotable about a geometrical catch axis (29); a pawl (32) having a pawl arm (36) configured to interact with the catch (see fig 5) and pivotable about a geometrical pawl axis (33) different than the geometrical catch axis (see fig 5); wherein when the motor vehicle lock is in the closed state, the catch is in a catch-closed position to engage and hold the lock striker (see fig 3), and the pawl arm is in a pawl-arm-closed position, associated with the closed position of the catch, to engage and block the catch when the catch is in catch-closed position (see fig 3), wherein when the motor vehicle lock is in the open state, the pawl arm is in a pawl-arm-open position to release the catch and the catch is in a catch-open position to release the lock striker (see fig 6); and a lever mechanism (48) formed and supported separately from the catch and the pawl arm (see fig 7), wherein during an opening sequence to change the motor vehicle lock to the open state (from figs 3 to 5 to 6), the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch (at least via 50), to transmit movement between the lever mechanism and the catch (see fig 3), and the pawl arm to transmit movement between the lever mechanism and the pawl arm (via 38); wherein during the opening sequence, the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch and the pawl arm (such as in fig 5) to simultaneously transmit movement from the pawl arm via the lever mechanism to the catch (via 38 and 50), by transmitting a force from the pawl arm via the lever mechanism onto the catch towards the catch-open position (See col 3 lines 43-53).
In regards to claim 2, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle lock is operable in a support operating condition so that during at least a portion of a closing sequence and/or during at least a portion of the opening sequence (opening in this case), the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch and not to the pawl arm (at least not operationally in the case 32 is held released) to transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the catch and not the pawl and/or, the lever mechanism is coupled to the pawl arm and not to the catch to transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the pawl and not the catch and/or, the lever mechanism is neither coupled to the catch or the pawl arm so that the lever mechanism does not transmit to either the catch or the pawl.
In regards to claim 3, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle lock is operable in a normal operating condition, wherein when the motor vehicle lock operates in the normal operating condition and during an entire closing sequence and/or during the entire opening sequence (in this case the opening sequence), the lever mechanism is not coupled to either the catch or the pawl arm (in this case not operationally coupled to the pawl arm, in the case 32 is held released and 22 was held and then released) so that the lever arm does not simultaneously transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the catch and the pawl arm, and during at least a part of a closing sequence and/or during at least a part of the opening sequence (in this case the opening sequence), the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch and not coupled with the pawl arm (at least not operationally, in the case 32 is held), to transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the catch.
In regards to claim 4, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein when the pawl arm is in the pawl-arm-open position, the lever mechanism is coupled to the pawl arm to transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the pawl arm (via 38) and wherein during at least a portion of a closing sequence the lever mechanism and the pawl arm are coupled to one another (via 38) and each move in a first direction (clockwise wrt fig 6) as the pawl arm moves from the pawl-arm-open position to the pawl- arm-closed position (when 24 is rotating due to 22 and 32 latches onto 36).
In regards to claim 5, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein when the pawl arm is in the pawl-arm-open position, the lever mechanism is coupled to the pawl arm to transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the pawl arm (via 48)) so that during at least a portion of a closing sequence, the lever mechanism moves the pawl arm to a pawl-arm- intermediate position (such as fig 5) wherein the pawl arm is arranged to move from the intermediate position towards the pawl-arm-closed position (such as fig 3, when 22 is inserted).
In regards to claim 6 Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 5, wherein, as the lever mechanism moves the pawl arm towards the pawl-arm-closed position, the catch moves towards the catch-closed position (as this is when 22 is inserted) or the catch is in the catch-closed position.
In regards to claim 7, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 4, wherein, as lever mechanism moves the pawl arm in the first direction, the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch (via 50) to transmit movement from the lever mechanism to the catch (as 36 and 38 is still coupled).
In regards to claim 8, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 4, wherein, the catch is coupled to the lever mechanism (via 50) to move the lever mechanism so that the pawl arm moves in the first direction and/or into the pawl-arm-closed position (as 38 would pull 32).
In regards to claim 9, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 8, wherein when the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch (via 50) to move the catch, the catch is in a catch-primary- closed position (see fig 3) or a catch-secondary-closed position (see fig 5) or a position between the catch-primary closed position and the catch-open position (as 48 is always coupled to 24).
In regards to claim 11, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 9, wherein, as the lever mechanism moves the catch in a second direction (counter clockwise) from the catch-closed position to the catch-open position, the lever mechanism is coupled to the pawl arm to transmit movement between the pawl arm and the lever mechanism (see fig 5), no additional drive component moves the lever mechanism (the lever mechanism in this case) or the pawl arm.
In regards to claim 12, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 9, wherein as the lever mechanism moves the catch in a second direction (counterclockwise) from the catch-closed position to the catch-open position, the lever mechanism is coupled to the pawl arm (via 38), the lever mechanism is actuated by the pawl arm (via 38) or the lever mechanism is actuated by an additional drive component.
In regards to claim 15, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein the lever mechanism is pivotable about a lever-arm-mechanism axis (axis with 52), wherein the lever-arm- mechanism axis is different than the geometrical catch axis (see fig 5).
In regards to claim 16, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein when the motor vehicle lock is in the closed state, the lever mechanism overlaps (considering 51 apart of the lever mechanism), in an axial direction, the catch and the pawl arm (see fig 6).
In regards to claim 18, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 5, wherein during at least the portion of the closing sequence and as the pawl arm moves from the intermediate position towards the pawl-arm-closed position, the lever mechanism does not contact the pawl arm (as there is no direct contact).
In regards to claim 20, Valasin teaches a motor vehicle lock for use in a motor vehicle, including a vehicle body and a hatch leaf coupled to the vehicle body (see fig 2), configured to change between a closed state and an open state (see figs 1 and 2), the motor vehicle lock comprising: a catch (24) configured to pivot about a catch axis (29) between a catch-open position (see fig 6) and a catch-closed position (see fig 3), wherein when motor vehicle lock is in the closed state, the catch is in the catch-closed position and engages a striker (22), disposed on the vehicle body or the hatch leaf, wherein when the motor vehicle lock is in the open state, the catch is disengaged from the striker (see fig 6); a pawl arm (32) configured to pivot about a pawl-arm axis between a pawl-arm-open position (see fig 6) and a pawl-arm-closed position (see fig 3), wherein when motor vehicle lock is in the closed state, the pawl arm is in the pawl-arm closed position and the pawl arm engages and blocks the catch in the catch-closed position (see fig 3), wherein when the motor vehicle lock is in the open state, the pawl arm is in the pawl-arm-open position and releases the catch (see fig 6); and a lever mechanism (48) formed and supported separately from the catch and the pawl (see fig 7), the lever mechanism including a first arm (arm with 50) and a second arm (arm connected to 38), wherein during an opening sequence to change the motor vehicle lock to the open state, the first arm of the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch and the second arm of the lever mechanism is coupled to the pawl arm, to transmit a force from the pawl arm via the lever mechanism (the lever mechanism receiving the force through 51) to the catch (via 50) to move the catch towards the catch- open position (see fig 6).
In regards to claim 21, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein during a closing sequence to change the motor vehicle lock to the closed state the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch (via 50), to transmit movement between the lever mechanism and the catch, and the pawl arm (via 38) to transmit movement between the lever mechanism and the pawl arm (see fig 6); wherein during the closing sequence, the lever mechanism is coupled to the catch and the pawl arm to simultaneously transmit movement from the catch to the lever mechanism and from the lever mechanism to the pawl arm to forcedly move the pawl arm towards the pawl-arm-closed position (as when 22 is inserted 24 would move 48 which would tension 38, pulling 32 further in).
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) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valasin as applied to claims 1-9 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20-21 above, and further in view of Kleefeldt US 4364249 A (hereinafter Kleefeldt).
In regards to claim 13 Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1 further comprising a pawl-arm drivetrain provided (at least 46) configured to pivot the pawl arm about the geometrical pawl axis from the pawl-arm-closed position to the pawl-arm-open position (see figs 3, 5 and 6).
However, Valasin does not teach the drive train with an electric motor.
Kleefeldt teaches a similar drivetrain with an electric motor (15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Valasin with an electric motor such as in Kleefeldt in order to allow for convenient unlocking from a single location (Kleefeldt see Col 1 lines 5-11)
In regards to claim 14, Valasin teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, further comprising a lever-mechanism drivetrain (at least 46) provided with a drive component (46) coupled (operationally) to and configured to actuate the lever mechanism (via the pawl).
However, Valasin does not teach the drive train with an electric motor.
Kleefeldt teaches a similar drivetrain with an electric motor (15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Valasin with an electric motor such as in Kleefeldt in order to allow for convenient unlocking from a single location (Kleefeldt see Col 1 lines 5-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Valasin is incapable of teaching “no force is transmitted from the lever mechanism to the catch as the catch moves from the catch-intermediate position to the catch-open position”.
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 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
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights