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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 Mach 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5 March 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that blocking mechanism and control device taught by Law (US-11702871-B2) is not suitable for use with the vehicle component latching and locking device disclosed by Longo (US-20150123408-A1). In response to applicant's arguments against the Law reference 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). Furthermore, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner maintains that Law teaches the claimed blocking mechanism and control device features and appropriately motivates their use with Longo’s latch device. Law is relied upon only as teaching an electronically controlled blocking unit operable to inhibit actuation of a latch mechanism of a vehicle latch device. Applicant’s assertion that Law’s blocking element directly engages a latch rather than an actuation element does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Law’s ‘safety catch 4’ is reasonably interpreted as an actuation element operable to release Law’s latch mechanism. The use of electronically actuated blocking mechanisms with manually operable latches is well known in the art of vehicle latches, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able and motivated to produce the claimed invention given the references cited. Law teaches both the need and means for selectively allowing operation of a vehicle latch in accordance with various inputs from both the user and vehicle sensors (Col. 2 Lines 21-51). The Examiner maintains that any each and every limitation of the claims is taught by Kolb in view of Longo and Law, and that any structural or operational differences with the instant invention fall within the scope of the claims as recited.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “transferring a blocking element of a blocking device by means of an actuator from a blocking position into a release position, wherein the blocking element [[engages a latch of the locking mechanism and/or]] engages an actuation element to block the actuation of the locking mechanism in the blocking position and releases the actuation of the locking mechanism in the release position, the blocking element engaging the actuation element to block the actuation of the locking mechanism”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required to avoid rejection under 35 USC § 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 15-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb (US-20190368234-A1) in view of Longo (US-20150123408-A1) in further view of Law (US-11702871-B2).
With regards to claim 15, Kolb discloses a vehicle (42 Figure 4) having a need for a latching and locking mechanism (10 Figure 4, Para 0059) for securing a battery (44 Figure 4) to a frame (40 Figure 4) of the vehicle, and
a method of operating the latch mechanism and locking mechanism (10 Figure 4) for a vehicle (42 Figure 4), wherein an opening of the latch comprises a series of steps (see below).
Kolb does not disclose the details of the of the latch mechanism.
However, Longo discloses a vehicle latch mechanism (18 Figure 2) having an actuation element (30 Figure 2) and a latch (56 Figure 2) suitable for use with the battery and frame of Kolb’s vehicle, such that Kolb’s battery acts as the counter-piece (26/84 Figure 3, Para. 0029) of Longo’s device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Longo’s latch device with Kolb’s vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to Longo’s latch to releasably secure the battery to Kolb’s vehicle frame.
Nor does Kolb disclose the details of a lock mechanism and control system comprising an electronic blocking device for blocking the actuation of the latch mechanism.
However, Law discloses a related vehicle locking mechanism having a blocking device (5 Figure 3), including a blocking element (11 Figure 3), actuator (10 Figure 3) and control device (Cols. 8-9 Lines 63-9), for blocking the actuation of an actuation element (4 Figures 4) of a latch (6 Figure 3)(Col. 9 Lines 23-44) from a first position (Figure 4B) to a second position (Figure 4C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Law’s control device and blocking device to Kolb’s vehicle for engaging Longo’s latch and/or actuation element, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a blocking device in order to prevent unintended or undesired opening of the latch mechanism.
Therefore, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches transferring a blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) of a blocking device (5 Figure 3 – Law) by means of an actuator (10 Figure 3 – Law) from a blocking position (Figure 4B – Law) into a release position (Figure 4C – Law), wherein the blocking element engages a latch (56 Figure 2 – Longo) of the locking mechanism and/or engages an actuation element (particularly the actuation element 30, Figure 2 – Longo) to block the actuation of the locking mechanism in the blocking position and releases the actuation of the locking mechanism in the release position (Col. 9 Lines 23-44 – Law), the blocking element engaging the actuation element to block actuation of the locking mechanism (Col. 9 Lines 23-44 – Law);
actuating the actuation element arranged at the lock (Figures 3-4 – Longo); and
transferring the actuation element from a passive state (30 Figure 3 – Longo) to an active state (30 Figure 4 – Longo), wherein the actuation of the actuation element takes place manually (Para. 0028 – Longo) and without the use of a key or another operating means,
wherein the latch is transferred from a latched position (56 Figure 3 – Longo) into an unlatched position (56 Figure 4 – Longo) by transferring the actuation element from the passive state to the active state, wherein the latch prevents a removal of a counter-piece (44 Figure 4 – Kolb) from the lock in the latched position and allows the removal of the counter-piece from the lock in the unlatched position,
wherein, after the completion of the actuation of the actuation element, said actuation element is transferred from the active state to the passive state and the latch is transferred from the unlatched position into the latched position, whereas the blocking element remains (until returned to the blocking position by the control unit, Col 9 Para 1 – Law) in the release position (Figure 4C – Law).
With regards to claim 16, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the transfer of the actuation element (30 Figure 2 – Longo) from the active state (30 Figure 4 – Longo) to the passive state (30 Figure 3 – Longo) is automatically effected by a return element (68 Figure 2 – Longo).
With regards to claim 17, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the transfer of the latch (56 Figure 2 – Longo) from the unlatched position (56 Figure 4 – Longo) into the latched position (56 Figure 3 – Longo) is automatically effected by a return element (68 Figure 2 – Longo).
With regards to claim 18, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the transfer of the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) from the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law) into the release position (11 Figure 4C – Law) takes place when the blocking device (5 Figure 3 – Law) receives a release command (Col 9 Para 5 – Col 10 Para 1 – Law) that is transmitted to the blocking device by a control device (Col 9 Para 1 – Law) arranged outside the lock.
With regards to claim 19, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches the method in accordance with claim 18, wherein the release command (Col 9 Para 5 – Col 10 Para 1 – Law) is generated by a user input at the control device (Col 9 Para 1 – Law).
With regards to claim 20, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the transfer of the blocking element (5 Figure 3 – Law) from the blocking position (Figure 4B – Law) into the release position (Figure 4C – Law) is prevented during the travel of the vehicle (Col 12 Para 4 – Law).
With regards to claim 21, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 15, wherein a movement state of the vehicle is determined by means of a control device (Col 12 Para 4 – Law).
With regards to claim 22, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 15, wherein a closing of the lock comprises the following steps:
inserting a counter-piece (44 Figure 4 – Kolb) into the locking mechanism (18 Figure 2 – Longo);
transferring the latch into the latched position (56 Figure 3 – Longo), wherein, in the latched position, the latch and the counter-piece are in engagement with one another such that a removal of the counter-piece from the locking mechanism is prevented (Figures 3-4 – Longo); and
transferring the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) from the release position (11 Figure 4C – Law) into the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law).
With regards to claim 23, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 22, wherein the latch (56 Figure 2 – Longo) is temporarily transferred (against the force of return element 68, Figure 2 – Longo) into its unlatched position (56 Figure 4 – Longo) during the insertion of the counter-piece (44 Figure 4 – Kolb).
With regards to claim 24, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches the method in accordance with claim 23, wherein the latch (56 Figure 2 – Longo) is temporarily transferred into its unlatched position (56 Figure 4 – Longo) against the return force of a return element (68 Figure 2 – Longo).
With regards to claim 25, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 22, wherein the actuation element (30 Figure 2 – Longo) is temporarily transferred to its active state (30 Figure 4 – Longo) during the insertion of the counter-piece (against the force of return element 68, Figure 2 – Longo).
With regards to claim 26, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 22, wherein a position of the latch (56 Figure 2 – Longo), of the actuation element, of the counter-piece, and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of the associated limitations be met) of the blocking element is queried by means of a suitable sensor device (9 Figure 3 – Law) prior to the transfer of the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) into the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law).
With regards to claim 27, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 22.
Law does not disclose that the transfer of the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) into the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law) only takes place when a predetermined time period has elapsed since the insertion of the counter-piece (44 Figure 4 – Kolb), the transfer of the latch into the latched position, and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of the associated limitations be met) the transfer of the actuation element to the passive state.
However, Law does teach that the control device may wait a predetermined time period before move the blocking element from the blocking position to the release position to prevent unintended opening of the latch (Col 5 Para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Law’s control unit to add similar instructions to wait a second predetermined time period before move the blocking element from the release position to the blocking position to prevent unintended locking of the device, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to modify the control unit as such to prevent unintended locking of the device.
With regards to claim 28, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 26, wherein the transfer of the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) into the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law) only takes place when an evaluation of the sensor (9 Figure 3 – Law) query reveals that the counter-piece is inserted, the latch (56 Figure 2 – Longo) is in the latched position (56 Figure 3 – Longo) , and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of the associated limitations be met) the actuation element is in the passive state.
With regards to claim 29, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 22, wherein the transfer of the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) into the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law) only takes place when the blocking device (5 Figure 3 – Law) receives a blocking command that is transmitted to the blocking device by a control device (Col 12 Para 4 – Law) arranged outside the lock.
With regards to claim 30, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance with claim 22, wherein the transfer of the blocking element (11 Figure 3 – Law) into the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law) only takes place when a contact to a voltage supply (Para 0061 – Kolb) for the actuator (10 Figure 3 – Law) of the blocking element is established by the inserted counter-piece (44 Figure 4 – Kolb).
With regards to claim 31, Kolb in view of Longo in further view of Law teaches a method in accordance claim 22, wherein the lock is set into a sleep state,
- when it receives a sleep command from a control device arranged outside the lock,
- when the control device is removed from the vehicle, or
- when a predetermined time period has elapsed since the lock was closed (inserting the counter-piece and waiting a predetermined time period results in satisfaction of the conditions of the sleep state enumerated below),
wherein, in the sleep state, the blocking element is in the blocking position (11 Figure 4B – Law), the actuation element is in the passive state (30 Figure 3 – Longo), and the latch is in the latched state (56 Figure 3 – Longo) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights