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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 25, 2026 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 11-27 and the cancellation of claims 1-10.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 20, 22, 24, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 11, line 4, the phrase “a lock housing;” should be inserted after the phrase “a notional attachment axis,” in lines 5 and 6, the phrase “at least one torque support element, separate from the lock carrier, which protrudes from the vehicle lock” should be changed to “at least one torque support element, separate from the lock carrier and attached to or integral to the lock housing, wherein the at least one torque support element protrudes from the lock housing,” and in line 8, the phrase “and not separately attached to the body of the vehicle.”
In regards to claim 20, line 3, the phrase “a lock housing, and” should be removed, and in line 5, the phrase “the lock housing is attached to the lock carrier” should be removed.
In regards to claim 22, line 6, the phrase “a lock housing;” should be inserted after the phrase “a notional attachment axis,” in lines 7 and 8, the phrase “at least one torque support element, separate from the lock carrier, which protrudes from the vehicle lock” should be changed to “at least one torque support element, separate from the lock carrier and attached to or integral to the lock housing, wherein the at least one torque support element protrudes from the lock housing,” and in line 10, the phrase “and not separately attached to the body of the vehicle.”
In regards to claim 24, line 4, the phrase “having h=their terminal ends” should be changed to “having their respective terminal ends.”
In regards to claim 26, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “the at least one torque support element rests against a planar torque surface of the body of the vehicle” should be changed to “the outer surface of the body of the vehicle is a planar torque surface.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 11 and 22, it is unclear what structure of the vehicle lock the at least one torque support element is connected to or attached to in order to avoid oscillation of the vehicle lock relative to the attachment axis. Specifically, without the lock housing attached to the lock carrier, which includes the attachment points on the attachment axis, and then the at least one torque support element attached to or integral to the lock housing, the at least one torque support element cannot cooperate with the other structure of the vehicle lock to provide the recited avoidance of oscillation. Currently, the at least one torque support element is only related to the lock carrier as being separate, but in order for the device to function, the at least one torque support element must be attached to the lock housing and the lock carrier. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 26, the relationship between the at least one torque support element resting against a planar torque support surface of the body of the vehicle, as recited in claim 26, and the terminal end of the at least one torque support element and the outer surface of the body of the vehicle, as recited in claim 11, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the planar torque support surface of the body of the vehicle must be equivalent to the outer surface of the body of the vehicle, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 12-21, 23-25, and 27, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claims depend from claims 11 and 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The claims have been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 11 and 22, Krishnamurthy (DE 102017002978 A1) fails to disclose that the at least one torque support element is configured to have a terminal end that rests in the first attachment direction on an outer surface of the body of the vehicle. The terminal end of the at least one torque support element 46 of Krishnamurthy extends through an outer surface of the body of the vehicle and does not rest on the outer surface of the body of the vehicle (Figure 6). The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Krishnamurthy without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and corresponding claim objections are set forth in the current Office Action.
Conclusion
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 October 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights