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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/30/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(b) rejections of claims 1-12 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 1/30/2026, with respect to claims 1-2, and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Muramatsu does not teach the newly amended limitations of claim 1, Examiner disagrees. The amendments made to independent claim 1 are not clear. See 112(b) rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 1/30/2026, with respect to claim 13 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that cutting the shackle and stop from a metal plate in one piece is novel and inventive, Examiner disagrees. Cutting a form out of a metal plate, whether it be stamping or pressing or another form of manufacture, is not a new or novel idea as these are known manufacturing techniques within the art.
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 1-12 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, lines 8-10, “…wherein the shackle and the stop are formed in one piece by a metal plate, wherein a thickness of the metal plate corresponds to a thickness of the shackle and the stop…” is unclear. It is not understood how a metal plate forms the shackle and the stop as one piece. Furthermore it is not understood what is structurally meant by a thickness of the metal plate corresponds to a thickness of the shackle and the stop. Structurally it does not make sense as to where this metal plate is located. The thickness mentioned is also unclear, is it the thickness of the walls of the shackle and stop or a different measure of thickness. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “…wherein the shackle and the stop are formed in one piece”. Examiner suggests clarifying structurally the metal plate and the specific dimensions of the thickness mentioned.
Regarding Claims 2, 4-9, and 11-12, these claims are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu US 20150322700 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Muramatsu teaches: A lock holder (Fig 3) for a motor vehicle lock (P0024, 6, 7), comprising: a carrier plate (25, 36) and a shackle (4) wherein the shackle has a U-shaped geometry with two legs (Fig 3, shackle 4 is shown to be U-shaped with a left and right leg. 8b and 8a respectively) and a connecting web (Fig 2, flat portion of the U-shape extending between the two legs), wherein the shackle has different cross sections (Fig 3, the connecting web that is the flat portion of the U-shape that extends between the two legs has a cross-section that differs from the purely circular cross section of each of the legs 8a and 8b) and at least part of one leg has a circular cross section (Fig 3, leg 8b has a circular cross section), which is configured so that a part of a rotary latch (Fig 1, 6) is able to engage (rotary latch 6 engages leg 8b of shackle 4 as shown in Fig 1 and described in P0024), wherein a stop (36) is arranged at an open end of the shackle (Fig 3, bottom end of shackle 4 that is opposite the connecting web at the top end of shackle 4), the stop connecting the two legs of the shackle with each other (shown in Fig 3), and wherein at least one mounting portion (Fig 5, bottom ends of legs 8b and 8a which extend from S1 as described in P0025) is arranged below the stop (Fig 5, since the bottom ends of legs 8a and 8b which are the mounting portions, extend from S1, they are arranged below stop 36, specifically bottoms of legs 8a and 8b, which is 38b shown in Fig 6, are located below the stop). Muramatsu does not teach the shackle and the stop are formed as one piece. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the shackle 4 and stop 36 of Muramatsu as one piece instead of two pieces is simply a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04, Section V, D. In reLarson) as they are already rigidly connected together, therefore the lock holder would not function differently based on this change in construction. There is no criticality to forming the shackle and stop in one piece mentioned in Applicant’s specification.
Regarding Claim 2, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the stop projects beyond the two legs (shown in Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting portion has a circular (Fig 3 shows that legs 8a and 8b have circular cross sections, therefore the bottom ends of legs 8a and 8b shown in Fig 5 also have circular cross sections, the bottom ends of legs 8a and 8b being the mounting portions), oval or polygonal cross section.
Regarding Claim 5, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1 wherein the at least one mounting portion has different cross sections (with reference to Fig 5, bottom end of legs 8a and 8b that are the mounting portions, have a cross section within the xy-plane that is rectangular, which is different than its cross section within the xz-plane, which is circular).
Regarding Claim 6, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting portion has a larger cross sectional area on its face side (Fig 5, cross sectional area of the bottom parts of 8a and 8b below the stop 36 in the xy-plane with reference to Fig 5) than the areas adjoining the at least one mounting portion (Fig 5, cross sectional area of the bottom parts of 8a and 8b in the xz-plane with reference to Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the stop has a larger cross sectional area than the connecting web (Figs 2 and 4 both show the perspective where it is shown that the cross sectional area in the xy-plane of the stop 36 is larger than the cross sectional area in the xy-plane of the connecting web of 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the stop includes cutouts (Figs 6 and 7 show that there is a portion x beneath stop 36 that is cut out).
Regarding Claim 9, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein at least one stiffening strut is arranged between the legs (Figs 3 and 6, the portion of 36 that extends between legs 8a and 8b acts as a stiffening strut) and/or between the stop and at least one leg.
Regarding Claim 11, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the carrier plate has two mounting holes (Fig 4, upper and lower 27) and at least one connecting hole for receiving the at least one mounting portion (Fig 6 shows that there are two connecting holes 37 in 36 of the carrier plate and mounting portions that are the bottom of legs 8a and 8b extend through the stop 36 and into this hole).
Regarding Claim 12, Muramatsu teaches: The lock holder according to claim 11, wherein the connecting hole has the same geometry as the at least one mounting portion (Fig 6, the portion of bottom end of legs 8a and 8b that are the mounting portions that extend through the connecting holes 37 share the same geometry, the surface shape of bottom end of legs 8a and 8b are circular, just like the holes 37 through which they extend).
Regarding Claim 13, Muramatsu does not explicitly teach: A method of manufacturing a lock holder for a motor vehicle lock, wherein the lock holder comprises of a carrier plate and a shackle , and the shackle has a U-shaped geometry with two legs and a connecting web, wherein the shackle has different cross sections and at least part of one leg has a circular cross section, which is configured so that a part of a rotary latch is able to engage, wherein a stop is arranged at an open end of the shackle, the stop connecting the two legs of the shackle with each other, wherein the shackle and the stop are formed in one piece, wherein the shackle is cut from a metal plate and subsequently the circular cross section is pressed. However, regarding claim 13, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art, Muramatsu US 20150322700 A1, in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth (see rejection of claim 1 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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolbocianu US 20080093866 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, Bolbocianu teaches: A lock holder (Fig 1) for a motor vehicle lock (P0014), comprising: a carrier plate (14, see annotated Fig 1) and a shackle (see annotated Fig 1, shackle 12 includes legs 1 and 2 and connecting web 12), wherein the shackle has a U-shaped geometry (see annotated Fig 1) with two legs (see annotated Fig 1) and a connecting web (12, see annotated Fig 1), wherein the shackle has different cross sections (P0017 and Figs 3A-3B show that the cross section of connecting web 12 is different from the legs) and at least part of the shackle has a circular cross section (Figs 3a and P0017 show that 12 has a circular cross section) which is configured so that a part of a rotary latch (P0014, the ratchet) is able to engage (P0017, ratchet engages 22 of connecting web 12), wherein a stop is arranged at the open end of the shackle (see annotated Fig 1), the stop connecting the two legs of the shackle with each other (see annotated Fig 1), wherein the shackle and the stop are formed in one piece (see annotated Fig 1), wherein at least one mounting portion (16) is arranged below the stop (see annotated Fig 1), and wherein at least one stiffening strut (see annotated Fig 1) is arranged between the legs (See annotated Fig 1) and/or between the stop and at least one leg. Bolbocianu does not explicitly teach at least part of the leg has a circular cross section which is configured so that a part of a rotary latch is able to engage. Bolbocianu teaches that 22 of connecting web 12 can be located in different positions, alignments, and have different axes of engagement relative to mounting plate 14, depending on the requirements of the vehicle and the embodiments shown in Figs 5a-d are examples of this (P0020). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bolbocianu so that the engagement part 22 of the connecting web 12 is located on a leg instead of the connecting web, as this is a matter of design choice and rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04
PNG
media_image1.png
715
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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