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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 11-26, the addition of new claim 27, and the cancellation of claims 1-10 filed November 20, 2025.
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) 11, 12, 14-19, 22, 23, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy (DE 102017002978 A1) in view of Valentim (FR 2818596 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Krishnamurthy discloses a vehicle lock, comprising: a lock carrier 12 with only two opposing attachment points (points corresponding to fasteners 26, Figure 6) configured for attaching the lock carrier to a body 22 of a vehicle in a first attachment direction (see Figure 6 below), wherein the two opposing attachment points lie on a notional attachment axis (see Figure 6 below, with the axis shown as a dashed line and an “X” extending into the page in the side view of the lock carrier in Figure 6); and at least one torque support element 46, which protrudes from the vehicle lock in the first attachment direction (protrudes downwardly from the lock carrier, see side view of the lock carrier in Figure 5) and is configured for resting on the body of the vehicle (resting on the body at the location of reference character 52, Figure 6) and not separately attached to the body of the vehicle (attached to the body along with the lock carrier, Figure 6), the at least one torque support element being positioned entirely outside the attachment axis in order to avoid oscillation of the vehicle lock relative to the body of the vehicle due to a rotation torque about the attachment axis (the at least one torque support element is located to the right of the attachment axis, see Figure 6 below, with the at least one torque support element engaging with the body of the vehicle to aid in holding the lock carrier in place and to avoid unwanted movement of the vehicle lock, such as oscillation, Figure 6). Krishnamurthy fails to disclose that the at least one torque support element is separate from the lock carrier. Valentim teaches protruding portions 12 that are welded to plate 10, and are therefore separate from the plate 10, but form a unit with the plate (Paragraph 34 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to weld the at least one torque support element of Krishnamurthy to the lock carrier, such that the at least one torque support element is separate from the lock carrier, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Krishnamurthy discloses screws 26 (Paragraph 13 of the Computer Generated Translation provided on 11/18/2024) attach the lock carrier to the body of the vehicle at the two opposing attachment points.
In regards to claims 14-16, Krishnamurthy discloses that the two opposing attachment points are located at a first distance, parallel to the attachment axis, from one another (see Figure 6 above), and the at least one torque support element is located at a second distance, parallel to the attachment axis, from a closest one of the two opposing attachment points (see Figure 6 above). Although Krishnamurthy does not specify that the second distance is at least 10%, at least 15%, or at least 20% of the first distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the relationship between the distances, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claims 17-19, Krishnamurthy discloses that the lock carrier has a width perpendicular to the attachment axis (see Figure 6 on Page 4 of the current Office Action), and the at least one torque support element is located at a third distance from the attachment axis (see Figure 6 on Page 4 of the current Office Action). Although Krishnamurthy does not specify that the third distance is at least 5%, at least 10%, or at least 15% of the width, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the relationship between the distances, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 22, Krishnamurthy discloses a vehicle, comprising: a rear hatch 22 (tailgate, Paragraph 1 of the Computer Generated Translation provided on 11/18/2024); and a vehicle lock for the rear hatch, the vehicle lock comprising: a lock carrier 12 with only two opposing attachment points (points corresponding to fasteners 26, Figure 6) configured for attaching the lock carrier to a body of the vehicle (body or portion of the tailgate, with the body or portion of the tailgate being part of the vehicle) in a first attachment direction (see Figure 6 on Page 4 of the current Office Action), wherein the two opposing attachment points lie on a notional attachment axis (see Figure 6 on Page 4 of the current Office Action, with the axis shown as a dashed line and an “X” extending into the page in the side view of the lock carrier in Figure 6); and at least one torque support element 46, which protrudes from the vehicle lock in the first attachment direction (protrudes downwardly from the lock carrier, see side view of the lock carrier in Figure 5) and is configured for resting on the body of the vehicle (resting on the body at the location of reference character 52, Figure 6) and not separately attached to the body of the vehicle (attached to the body along with the lock carrier, Figure 6), the at least one torque support element being positioned entirely outside the attachment axis in order to avoid oscillation of the vehicle lock relative to the body of the vehicle due to a rotation torque about the attachment axis (the at least one torque support element is located to the right of the attachment axis, see Figure 6 on Page 4 of the current Office Action, with the at least one torque support element engaging with the body of the vehicle to aid in holding the lock carrier in place and to avoid unwanted movement of the vehicle lock, such as oscillation, Figure 6). Krishnamurthy fails to disclose that the at least one torque support element is separate from the lock carrier. Valentim teaches protruding portions 12 that are welded to plate 10, and are therefore separate from the plate 10, but form a unit with the plate (Paragraph 34 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to weld the at least one torque support element of Krishnamurthy to the lock carrier, such that the at least one torque support element is separate from the lock carrier, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 23, Krishnamurthy discloses that the vehicle lock is attached to the body of the vehicle via the two attachment points, and wherein the at least one torque support element rests on the body of the vehicle (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 25, Krishnamurthy discloses that the attachment axis extends parallel to a transverse axis of the vehicle (axis of the vehicle extending side to side).
In regards to claim 26, Krishnamurthy discloses that the lock carrier is attached to a planar attachment surface of the body of the vehicle (surface of the body at reference character 22, Figure 6) via the two attachment points, the at least one torque support element rests against a planar torque support surface of the body of the vehicle (surface at reference character 52, Figure 6), and the planar attachment surface and the planar torque surface are areas of a co-extensive surface or are parallel surfaces (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 27, Krishnamurthy discloses that the planar attachment surface and the planar torque surface extend in an x-y plane of the vehicle (the surfaces are horizontal, and therefore, extend in an x-y plane of the vehicle, Figure 6).
Claim(s) 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy (DE 102017002978 A1) in view of Valentim (FR 2818596 A1) as applied to claims 11, 12, 14-19, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of Hirose et al. (WO 2020/044647 A1).
In regards to claim 13, Krishnamurthy discloses that the at least one torque support element is located on a side of the attachment axis (located on a right side of the attachment axis, Figure 6), but fails to disclose that the at least one torque support element comprises at least two torque support elements, with another one of the at least two torque support elements being arranged on the other side of the attachment axis. Hirose et al. teaches at least two torque support elements 64 and 65 located on either side of an attachment axis (see Figure 12 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a second torque support element on the other side of the attachment axis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in holding the lock carrier on the body of the vehicle and since it has been held that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
503
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 24, Krishnamurthy discloses that the at least one torque support element is located on a side of the attachment axis (located on a right side of the attachment axis, Figure 6) and rests on the body of the vehicle (Figure 6), but fails to disclose that the at least one torque support element comprises at least two torque support elements, with another one of the at least two torque support elements being arranged on the other side of the attachment axis, so as to rest on the body of the vehicle at the same time as the first torque support element of Krishnamurthy. Hirose et al. teaches at least two torque support elements 64 and 65 located on either side of an attachment axis (see Figure 12 on Page 8 of the current Office Action), with each of the at least two torque support elements resting at a same time on a body 70 of a vehicle (Figure 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a second torque support element on the other side of the attachment axis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in holding the lock carrier on the body of the vehicle and since it has been held that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy (DE 102017002978 A1) in view of Valentim (FR 2818596 A1) as applied to claims 11, 12, 14-19, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of Taylor (US-6014876).
In regards to claim 20, Krishnamurthy discloses a lock mechanism (components of the lock 10 not shown in the figures, but located within the confines of the lock carrier 12), with the lock mechanism attached to the lock carrier, but fails to disclose a lock housing attached to the lock carrier. Taylor teaches a vehicle lock comprising a lock housing 61, a lock mechanism 26, and a lock carrier 21, with the lock housing attached to the lock carrier (Figure 2) and the lock mechanism attached to the lock carrier and/or the lock housing (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the vehicle lock includes a lock housing attached to the lock carrier, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to provide further protection to the components of the lock mechanism. As apparent from Krishnamurthy in view of Taylor, the at least one torque support element is a separate component that is attached to the lock housing because the at least one torque support element is directly attached to the lock carrier and is therefore separate from the lock housing and attached to the lock housing via the lock carrier.
In regards to claim 21, Taylor teaches that the lock housing has a slot 67 for inserting a counter-element 18 and the lock mechanism is configured for locking the counter-element (apparent from Figure 2 of Taylor).
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth in the current Office Action, and therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-27 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.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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 ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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, Christine 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 March 10, 2026