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 .
This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 7, line 2, “…wherein the at least two hinges…” should be changed to “…wherein the hinge arrangement has at least two hinges…” to avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Regarding Claim 10, line 3 “…the first hinge…” and line 9 “…the second hinge…” should be changed to “…a first hinge” and “…a second hinge…” respectively to avoid any antecedent basis issues.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 11, “…the covering part can be brought out of the starting position…” is unclear. The phrase “can be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation following this phrase is a positive limitation of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this phrase as simply requiring that the covering part is capable of meeting the limitations and not requiring that the limitations are actually met.
Regarding Claims 2-20, these claims are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, line 8, “… has a dimensionally stable connecting piece between the two geometric hinge axes” is unclear. The Examiner is unsure if the claim is supposed to depend from claim 5, where there is the first recitation of the two geometric hinge axes or if this is supposed to be a new recitation of the geometric hinge axes. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “…has a dimensionally stable connecting piece.
Regarding Claims 9-10, and 18-19, are rejected due to their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding Claim 11, line 5, “…in particular…” the phrases “in particular” and “preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-11, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herzog DE 10144166 B4 (Please see attached machine translation for paragraph reference numbers).
Regarding Claim 1, Herzog teaches: A component housing (Fig 3a-3c) for a motor vehicle lock component (1) of a motor vehicle (P0027), wherein the component housing (2, 3, 12) has a housing part (2) with an installation opening (open space of 2 shown in Fig 3a, where motor vehicle lock component 1 is shown inserted in Fig 3b) and a covering part (3, 12) with a cover portion (3), which is configured to at least partially close the installation opening (shown going from Fig 3a to Fig 3c), wherein the component housing has a hinge arrangement (11) with at least one hinge (11 is a hinge, P0033), by which the covering part, in a starting position in which the covering part is spaced apart from the installation opening (shown in Fig 3a) and releases same (in Fig 3a, the covering part 3 has released the installation opening by allowing the insertion of motor vehicle lock component 1 as shown in Fig 3b), is movably connected to the housing part (shown going between Figs 3a and 3c), wherein the hinge arrangement has at least one film hinge as a hinge (P0035, the hinge 11 is a film hinge), and wherein, with the involvement of the at least one film hinge, the covering part can be brought out of the starting position into at least two different latching positions (P0033, the first latching position is when the covering part 3 is pivoted so that it covers the motor vehicle lock component at the top. The second latching position is when the covering part 3 engages with 26 of lock 1 as described in P0040) in which the covering part is in each case latched to the housing part (In the first latch position described in P0033, the covering part is latched to the housing part 2 as it covers the motor vehicle lock component 1 and 12, which is a part of covering part 3, also closes off a plug region 13 as it seals it off coming together with housing part 2. In the second latch position, 27 of covering part 3 engages with 26 of motor vehicle lock component 1 to lock the covering part 3 to housing part 2 via motor vehicle lock component 1 since 1 is attached to housing part 2 via 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 1, wherein the covering part is configured to be brought out of a first of the latching positions, while maintaining the latching of the covering part to the housing part, into a second of the latching positions (Going from the first latching position as described in P0033, where covering part 3 covers the top of 1, to the second latching position described in P0040 where 27 is engaged with 26 of the motor vehicle lock component, the covering part 3 remains covered over the top of motor vehicle lock component 1, including 12 which remains sealing off plug region 13, and therefore maintains the latching of the covering part 1 to the housing part 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 1 wherein the covering part is configured to be brought out of the starting position into the one latching position and/or out of the one; latching position into the other latching position without destroying the hinge arrangement (As covering part 3 is moved from the starting position shown in Fig 3b to the first latched position where it covers motor vehicle lock component 1 and 12 of the covering part 3 seals of the plug region 13, the hinge Arrangement 11 does not break as described in P0034).
Regarding Claim 8, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 1 wherein the hinge arrangement has a dimensionally stable connecting piece between the two geometric hinge axes (Fig 3a shows that hinge arrangement 11 is a dimensionally stable connecting piece as it is a fixed shape).
Regarding Claim 9, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 8, wherein the dimensionally stable connecting piece is curved or rectilinear (Fig 3a shows that the dimensionally stable connecting piece that is 11, is rectilinear).
Regarding Claim 10, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 8 wherein the covering part is pivotable together with the dimensionally stable connecting piece relative to the housing part (Fig 3b to 3c shows how the covering part 3 is pivotable together with dimensionally stable connecting piece that is the hinge 11, relative to housing 2) about the geometric hinge axis of the first hinge (Fig 3b to 3c, the axes that first hinge 11 pivots around) from the starting position into the one, latching position (this is shown going from Fig 3b to Fig 3c), and/or wherein the covering part is pivotable relative to the housing part about the geometric hinge axis of the second hinge from the one latching position into the other latching position.
Regarding Claim 11, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hinge arrangement guides the covering part, when moving from the starting position in the direction of the first latching position (shown going from Fig 3a to Fig 3c), past a housing portion (2d) which protrudes in relation to the upper side of the housing part (Fig 3a, 2d protrude downward from the upper side of the housing part 2) and which extends in particular as far as the edge of the installation opening (Fig 3a, 2d extends from the edge of the installation opening).
Regarding Claim 16, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 2, wherein the covering part is configured to be brought out of the starting position firstly into the first latching position (P0033, the first latching position is when the covering part 3 is pivoted so that it covers the motor vehicle lock component at the top) and then into the second latching position (The second latching position is when the covering part 3 engages with 26 of lock 1 as described in P0040 after it has been moved into the first latching position).
Regarding Claim 19, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 8, wherein the covering part is pivotable together with the dimensionally stable connecting piece relative to the housing part about the geometric hinge axis of the first hinge from the starting position into the one latching position about a pivot angle of at least 160 degrees (Fig 3a to 3c shows covering part 3 is pivotable together with the dimensionally stable connecting piece that is 11 relative to the housing part 2 about the axis that 11 which is the first hinge, pivots around as 3 moves from Fig 3a to 3c, this pivot angle appearing to be 180 degrees in the figures), and/or wherein the covering part is pivotable relative to the housing part without further pivoting of the dimensionally stable connecting piece relative to the housing part, about the geometric hinge axis of the second hinge from the one latching position into the other latching position about a pivot angle of at least 90 degrees.
Regarding Claim 20, Herzog teaches: The component housing as claimed in claim 11, wherein the housing portion is a reinforcement strut of the housing part (Fig 3a shows that 3d is a reinforcement strut of housing 2 as it is rigid with housing part 2 and therefore resists compression, thereby meeting Oxford languages definition of strut and satisfying the limitation).
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) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog DE 10144166 B4, in view of Fukunaga JP 2002129813 A (Please see attached machine translation for paragraph reference numbers).
Regarding Claim 13, Herzog teaches: A motor vehicle lock component having a component hosing as claimed in claim 1. Herzog is silent on the motor vehicle lock component having a drive train, which has a plurality of train components coupled to one another in terms of drive, for actuating a locking mechanism having a pawl and a lock latch, and in which the first train component of the drive train is coupled in terms of drive to the second train component of the drive train. Fukunaga teaches a motor vehicle lock component having a drive train (Fukunaga: 23, 41, 42), which has a plurality of train components coupled to one another in terms of drive (Fukunaga: 23, 41, 42), for actuating a locking mechanism (Fukunaga: 50) having a pawl (Fukunaga: 52) and a lock latch (Fukunaga: 51), and in which the first train component (Fukunaga: 41) of the drive train is coupled in terms of drive to the second train component (Fukunaga: 42) of the drive train (Fukunaga: P0023). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to modify the teachings on Herzog to substitute the motor vehicle lock component as described in Fukunaga. The prior art contains a motor vehicle lock component housing which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the motor vehicle lock disclosed by Herzog) with another component (the motor vehicle lock disclosed by Fukunaga). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a component housing for a motor vehicle lock.
Regarding Claim 14, Herzog, in view of Fukunaga, teaches: The motor vehicle lock component as claimed in The motor vehicle lock component as claimed in claim 13, wherein, in the mounted state, a Bowden cable (Fukunaga: 62), upon the actuation thereof, brings about lifting of the pawl out of an engagement position (Fukunaga: via 21, 23, and 41 as described in P0011, P0013, and P0023), in which it blocks the lock latch in a locking position against opening in the direction of its open position, or it causes the lock latch to be pushed out of a locking position (P0011, P0013, P0023, P0025, and P0027) or the lock latch to be pulled into a locking position.
Regarding Claim 15, Herzog, in view of Fukunaga does not explicitly teach: A method for installing a motor vehicle lock component as claimed in claim 14; wherein the housing part is provided with the covering part in the starting position, in that the first train component of the drive train, is then guided from the outside into the space portion and coupled in terms of drive to the second train component of the drive train, wherein before or after the insertion of the Bowden cable from the outside into the space portion, with the involvement of the at least one film hinge, the covering part from and beyond the starting position is latched in the one latching position, and wherein, after the Bowden cable is inserted from the outside into the space portion and after the covering part is latched in the one latching position, with the involvement of the at least one film hinge, the covering part is latched in the other; latching position, at least partially closing the installation opening. However, regarding claim 15, The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art, the combination of Herzog DE 10144166 B4 and Fukunaga JP 2002129813 A, in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth (see rejections of claims 1, 13, and 14 above). When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious (or anticipated) by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 12, and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 3, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 3. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein in the one latching position, the covering part further releases the installation opening.
Regarding Claim 4, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 4. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein in the one latching position, the covering part is latched to the housing part on a first side of the installation opening and in the other latching position, the covering part is additionally latched to the housing part on another side of the installation opening.
Regarding Claim 5, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 5. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein the hinge arrangement has at least two hinges with different geometric hinge axes, of which at least one is a film hinge or in that at least one hinge of the hinge arrangement is a rotary hinge and/or at least one hinge of the hinge arrangement is a ball and socket joint, and/or wherein the hinge arrangement furthermore has at least one predetermined breaking point between the covering part and the hinge arrangement.
Regarding Claim 7, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 7. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein the at least two hinges have hinge axes which are angled with respect to one another or are parallel to one another.
Regarding Claim 12, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 12. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein the covering part in the second latching position covers a space portion of the housing interior that is accessible from the outside via the installation opening, in which space portion, in the mounted state, a first train component of a drive train of the motor vehicle lock component, which train component is guided from the outside into the space portion, is coupled in terms of drive to a second train component of the drive train, which train component is movably mounted in the space portion.
Regarding Claim 17, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 17. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein the hinge arrangement has at least two hinges with different geometric hinge axes, of which at least two are film hinges, or wherein at least one hinge of the hinge arrangement is a rotary hinge and/or at least one hinge of the hinge arrangement is a ball and socket joint, and/or wherein the hinge arrangement furthermore has at least one predetermined breaking point between the covering part and the hinge arrangement.
Regarding Claim 18, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a component housing having the combination of features recited in claim 18. The closest prior art of record, Herzog DE 10144166 B4, teaches a component housing having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein the housing part and the dimensionally stable connecting piece together with the respective joint portion connecting them form a first of the hinges and in that the covering part and the dimensionally stable connecting piece together with the respective joint portion connecting them form a second of the hinges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER F CALLAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon through Thur 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675