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
The indicated allowability of claims 1-14 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to US 11702868 B2. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallegos US 11702868 B2 (hereinafter Gallegos) in view of Nakagawa et al. JP 2001303825 A (hereinafter Nakagawa).
In regards to claim 1, Gallegos teaches a vehicle door locking assembly comprising: a vehicle body structure (3), the vehicle body structure being a rear structural beam or a rear bumper (Col 10 lines 64-65, considering the hood to be at the rear); a hood (see fig 1) movably connected to the vehicle body structure, the hood being movable between a closed position and an open position relative to the vehicle body structure (see fig 1); a fastener (6) fixed to the hood,; and a locking member (at least 9, see fig 4c)) fixed to the vehicle body structure, the locking member being configured to be received by the fastener upon an impact event to the vehicle body structure such that the hood is prevented from moving from the closed position to the open position, deformation of the vehicle body structure during the impact event moves the locking member such that the fastener receives the locking member (abstract and see fig 4c).
However, Gallegos does not teach a door movably connected to the vehicle body structure, Gallegos teaches a hood and Gallegos does not teach the fastener being received by an opening in the vehicle body structure when the door is in the closed position.
Nakagawa teaches a similar device on a trunk door with the fastener being received by an opening (see dashed lines 7 is inserted into).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Gallegos’ invention on a trunk door such as in Nakagwa in order to protect further damage opening of the door may cause and to protect luggage that may be behind said door. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the fastener being received by an opening in the vehicle body structure when the door is in the closed position such as in Nakagwa in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of a vehicle receiving a fastener and further to protect the fastener from the elements.
In regards to claim 2, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 1, wherein the fastener is a substantially U-shaped member (Gallegos: fig 4C).
In regards to claim 3, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 2, wherein the fastener includes a first leg and a second leg connected by a curved portion, the locking member being configured to pass between the first leg and a second leg responsive to the impact event (Gallegos: fig 4C, see reference image 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 4, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 3, wherein the curved portion is configured to engage the locking member to prevent movement of the door from the closed position to the open position (curved portion would prevent withdrawal).
In regards to claim 5, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 1, wherein the locking member is a metallic bolt (Gallegos: Col 11 lines 43-44).
In regards to claim 10, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 1, wherein the locking member is configured to move in a forward direction of the vehicle responsive to the impact event (since with the modification of Nakagawa Gallegos is at the rear, an impact would move forwards and see Gallegos Col 14 lines 45-67).
Claim(s) 6-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallegos in view of Nakagawa as applied to claims 1-5 and 10 above, and further in view of Roussel US 20060087126 A1 (hereinafter Roussel).
In regards to claim 6 Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 1.
However, Gallegos does not teach wherein a boot is disposed in the opening in the vehicle body structure, the boot being configured to receive the fastener when the door is in the closed position.
Roussel teaches wherein a boot (30) is disposed in the opening in the vehicle body structure (see fig 3), the boot being configured to receive the fastener when the door is in the closed position (see fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Gallegos with a boot such as in Roussel in order to reduce rattling (see Roussel paras 5 and 7)
In regards to claim 7, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 6, wherein the boot is made of a rubber material (Roussel para 22).
In regards to claim 9, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 7, wherein the fastener is made of a metallic material (Gallegos: Col 11 lines 43-44).
In regards to claim 11, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 6, wherein an angle between a vertical line and a longitudinal axis of the boot is approximately thirty degrees (Nakagawa see fig 1, as the use on the trunk has both the fastener and the lock tilted about 30 degrees relative to the vertical).
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallegos in view of Nakagawa as applied to claims 1-5 and 10 above, and further in view of Paskionis US 20070241570 A1 (hereinafter Paskionis).
In regards to claim 6 Gallegos in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 1.
However, Gallegos does not teach wherein a boot is disposed in the opening in the vehicle body structure, the boot being configured to receive the fastener when the door is in the closed position.
Paskionis teaches wherein a boot (at least 122 and 123) is disposed in the opening in the vehicle body structure (see fig 5a), the boot being configured to receive the fastener when the door is in the closed position (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Gallegos with a boot such as in Paskionis in order to reduce vibration.
In regards to claim 8, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa and Paskionis teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 6, wherein the locking member is configured to pass through the boot when the locking member moves responsive to the impact event (at least as Galleges 16 and 17 may be considered apart of the boot ).
In regards to claim 12, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa and Paskionis teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 6, wherein a longitudinal axis of the locking member is disposed above a lowermost portion of the boot (as the fastener would be mounted to the door , the boot would be disposed lower see Paskionis figs 7 and 5A).
In regards to claim 13, Gallegos in view of Nakagawa and Paskionis teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 6, wherein a drain hole is disposed in the boot (see top hole in Paskionis 5A).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallegos in view of Nakagawa as applied to claims 1-5 and 10 above, and further in view of Park KR 200160617 Y1 (hereinafter Park).
In regards to claim 14, Nayak in view of Nakagawa teaches the vehicle door locking assembly according to claim 1,
However, Nayak does not teach wherein an angle between a longitudinal axis of the fastener when the door is in the closed position and a longitudinal axis of the locking member is less than ninety degrees.
Park teaches a longitudinal axis of the fastener is slightly offset the offset fastener is engaged by a similar locking member (32).
With the above in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have an angle between a longitudinal axis of the fastener when the door is in the closed position and a longitudinal axis of the locking member is less than ninety degrees as doing so would not affect the locking members ability to engage the fastener and would reduce the distance the fastener extends out, preventing it from catching on outside objects further the modification would amount to an obvious change in shape (See MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the vehicle door locking assembly as claimed in independent claim 15 of the instant application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 15 the prior art of record, including Nayaket al. (US 20210180369 A1) and Faust (DE 102017105973), teaches vehicle door locking assemblies having much of the claimed structure, but fails to teach each and every limitation of the claims. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach the locking member to puncture the boot, in addition to the other claimed structure and functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the structure and functionality of the vehicle body structure and locking member of the prior art to be configured and to function as claimed in the instant application without the use of hindsight and/or destroying the references. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose vehicle door locking assembly of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102008039731 A1 – teaches a similar device.
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/