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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 7, 2026 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 3-19 and the cancellation of claim 2.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 11 and 12, the phrase “configured for blocking the door movement of the door” should be changed to “configured for blocking movement of said door,” in line 13, the phrase “a movement of said door” should be changed to “the movement of said door,” and in lines 32-35, the phrase “configured to move said closure element from the unlocking position into the locking position and/or from the locking position into the unlocking position by mechanical application pressure” should be changed to “configured to move said closure element from the locking position into the unlocking position by mechanical application pressure.”
In regards to claim 18, lines 13 and 14, the phrase “configured for blocking the door movement of the door” should be changed to “configured for blocking movement of said door,” in line 15, the phrase “a movement of said door” should be changed to “the movement of said door,” and in lines 34-37, the phrase “configured to move said closure element from the unlocking position into the locking position and/or from the locking position into the unlocking position by mechanical application pressure” should be changed to “configured to move said closure element from the locking position into the unlocking position by mechanical application pressure.”
In regards to claim 19, lines 12 and 13, the phrase “configured for blocking the door movement of the door” should be changed to “configured for blocking movement of said door,” in line 14, the phrase “a movement of said door” should be changed to “the movement of said door,” and in lines 33-36, the phrase “configured to move said closure element from the unlocking position into the locking position and/or from the locking position into the unlocking position by mechanical application pressure” should be changed to “configured to move said closure element from the locking position into the unlocking position by mechanical application pressure.”
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 and 3-19 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 claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for “the door movement of the door” in lines 11 and 12. Furthermore, the relationship between the “movement of said door” in line 13 and the “door movement of the door” in lines 11 and 12 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “movement of said door” in line 13 is equivalent to the “door movement of the door” in lines 11 and 12, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, lines 30-35, it is unclear how the second mechanical actuation element moves the closure element from the unlocking position into the locking position. As shown in the drawings and discussed in the specification, the second mechanical actuation element 41 moves simultaneously with the first mechanical actuation element 27 from the state in Figure 5A to the state in Figure 6A when the spindle device 39 acts on the first mechanical actuation element due to the first toothed wheel 42 between the first and second mechanical actuation elements. When the first mechanical actuation element 27 is moved from the position in Figure 5A to the position in Figure 6A, the first mechanical actuation element 27 pushes on the blocking element 47 to move to the right in Figure 5A, which causes the closure element 49 to move to the locking position in Figure 6A due to the second toothed wheel 51 between the blocking element and the closure element. The closure element 49 pushes the second mechanical actuation element 41 to the left in Figure 5A to the position in Figure 6A, which corresponds to movement of the closure element from the unlocking position to the locking position. The second mechanical actuation element 41 does not move the closure element from the unlocking position to the locking position as recited in the claim. The second mechanical actuation element 41 only moves the closure element 49 from the locking position in Figure 6A to the unlocking position in Figure 5A by actuation of the spindle device 39 to move the first actuation element 27 in a direction opposite to R1 in Figures 5A and 6A, such that the first toothed wheel 42 is rotated, which moves the second mechanical actuation element 41 to the right in Figure 6A, such that the second mechanical actuation element 41 pushes the closure element 49 to the right in Figure 6A back to the position in Figure 5A. Therefore, the second actuation element only moves the closure element from the locking position to the unlocking position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, there is no antecedent basis for “the door movement of the door” in lines 13 and 14. Furthermore, the relationship between the “movement of said door” in line 15 and the “door movement of the door” in lines 13 and 14 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “movement of said door” in line 15 is equivalent to the “door movement of the door” in lines 13 and 14, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, lines 32-37, it is unclear how the second mechanical actuation element moves the closure element from the unlocking position into the locking position. As shown in the drawings and discussed in the specification, the second mechanical actuation element 41 moves simultaneously with the first mechanical actuation element 27 from the state in Figure 5A to the state in Figure 6A when the spindle device 39 acts on the first mechanical actuation element due to the first toothed wheel 42 between the first and second mechanical actuation elements. When the first mechanical actuation element 27 is moved from the position in Figure 5A to the position in Figure 6A, the first mechanical actuation element 27 pushes on the blocking element 47 to move to the right in Figure 5A, which causes the closure element 49 to move to the locking position in Figure 6A due to the second toothed wheel 51 between the blocking element and the closure element. The closure element 49 pushes the second mechanical actuation element 41 to the left in Figure 5A to the position in Figure 6A, which corresponds to movement of the closure element from the unlocking position to the locking position. The second mechanical actuation element 41 does not move the closure element from the unlocking position to the locking position as recited in the claim. The second mechanical actuation element 41 only moves the closure element 49 from the locking position in Figure 6A to the unlocking position in Figure 5A by actuation of the spindle device 39 to move the first actuation element 27 in a direction opposite to R1 in Figures 5A and 6A, such that the first toothed wheel 42 is rotated, which moves the second mechanical actuation element 41 to the right in Figure 6A, such that the second mechanical actuation element 41 pushes the closure element 49 to the right in Figure 6A back to the position in Figure 5A. Therefore, the second actuation element only moves the closure element from the locking position to the unlocking position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 19, there is no antecedent basis for “the door movement of the door” in lines 12 and 13. Furthermore, the relationship between the “movement of said door” in line 14 and the “door movement of the door” in lines 12 and 13 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “movement of said door” in line 14 is equivalent to the “door movement of the door” in lines 12 and 13, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 19, lines 31-36, it is unclear how the second mechanical actuation element moves the closure element from the unlocking position into the locking position. As shown in the drawings and discussed in the specification, the second mechanical actuation element 41 moves simultaneously with the first mechanical actuation element 27 from the state in Figure 5A to the state in Figure 6A when the spindle device 39 acts on the first mechanical actuation element due to the first toothed wheel 42 between the first and second mechanical actuation elements. When the first mechanical actuation element 27 is moved from the position in Figure 5A to the position in Figure 6A, the first mechanical actuation element 27 pushes on the blocking element 47 to move to the right in Figure 5A, which causes the closure element 49 to move to the locking position in Figure 6A due to the second toothed wheel 51 between the blocking element and the closure element. The closure element 49 pushes the second mechanical actuation element 41 to the left in Figure 5A to the position in Figure 6A, which corresponds to movement of the closure element from the unlocking position to the locking position. The second mechanical actuation element 41 does not move the closure element from the unlocking position to the locking position as recited in the claim. The second mechanical actuation element 41 only moves the closure element 49 from the locking position in Figure 6A to the unlocking position in Figure 5A by actuation of the spindle device 39 to move the first actuation element 27 in a direction opposite to R1 in Figures 5A and 6A, such that the first toothed wheel 42 is rotated, which moves the second mechanical actuation element 41 to the right in Figure 6A, such that the second mechanical actuation element 41 pushes the closure element 49 to the right in Figure 6A back to the position in Figure 5A. Therefore, the second actuation element only moves the closure element from the locking position to the unlocking position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 3-17, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-19 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 were 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 1, 18, and 19, Rieback (US-2012693) fails to disclose that the blocking element c blocks movement of the door in the closed position. The blocking of the door in the closed position is not carried out by element c of Rieback, but is carried out by element b or the first mechanical actuation element, i.e. the structure or body of element b blocks the door in the closed position, not the structure of element c or the blocking element as required by the claim. Rieback further fails to disclose that the second mechanical actuation element n is configured to move the closure element a from the locking position into the unlocking position. The second mechanical actuation element n is only moved by the closure element a, and does not move the closure element. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Rieback 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, the drawing objections, the claim objections, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments.
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 April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights