DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment filed on 11 June 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 were amended.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 12 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendment filed on 11 June 2026. Accordingly, the rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paskonis (US 7097219 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Paskonis discloses a lock holder (see fig 1) for a motor vehicle lock, comprising: a carrier plate (14, 16) and a shackle (12), wherein the shackle has a U-shaped geometry (geometry of the upper portion 122 formed around opening 18) with two legs (vertical portions of 122 on either side of 18 as viewed in fig 5A) and a connecting web (horizontal portion of 122 above 18 as viewed in fig 5A), wherein the shackle has different cross sections (see fig 5A; at least the cross sections of each leg are different from each other) and at least part of one leg has a circular cross section (at 20; see figs 5B & 5C) which is configured so that a part of a rotary latch is able to engage (see col 4, lines 1-11), wherein a stop (portion of 12 located between 18 and 13 as viewed in fig 5A) is arranged at an open end of the shackle (see fig 5A), the stop connecting the two legs of the shackle with each other (see fig 5A), wherein the shackle and the stop are formed in one piece by a metal plate with a top surface and an opposite parallel bottom surface (see fig 5A and col 3, lines 64-66), wherein the distance between the top surface and the bottom surface defines a plate thickness of the metal plate (see fig 5C), and wherein the shackle has at least one mounting portion (at 13 and portions of 123 surrounding 13) which is arranged below the stop and by which the shackle is mounted to the carrier plate (see fig 2 and col 4, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 4, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting portion has a circular (see fig 5A; the mounting portion 13 is circular), oval or polygonal cross section.
Regarding claim 5, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting portion has different cross sections (due to tapering of opening; see figs 5B & 5C).
Regarding claim 6, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting portion has a larger cross sectional area on its face side than the areas adjoining the at least one mounting portion (i.e., cross sectional area directly below 13 is larger than the cross sectional area of portions of 123 on either side of 13).
Regarding claim 7, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the stop has a larger cross sectional area than the connecting web (see fig 5A).
Regarding claim 11, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the carrier plate has two mounting holes (at 27) and at least one connecting hole (at 25) for receiving the at least one mounting portion.
Regarding claim 12, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 11, wherein the connecting hole has the same geometry as the at least one mounting portion (see fig 3).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Paskonis (US 7097219 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Paskonis does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a lock holder for a motor vehicle lock as claimed. However, given the structure of the lock holder disclosed by Paskonis (per the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 11, and 12 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method as claimed to manufacture the lock holder.
Claims 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paskonis (US 7097219 B2), in view of Bolbocianu et al. (US 7828348 B2), herein referred to as Bolbocianu.
Regarding claim 8, Paskonis discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the stop includes cutouts.
Bolbocianu, however, teaches that it is known in the art of vehicle latch strikers for a striker body (i.e., lock holder) (see fig 1) to include a stop (portion of 18 to the right of 20 as viewed in fig 2) which includes cutouts (see circular cutout in figs 1 & 2; see also col 3, lines 3-5 which teach the inclusion of multiple cutouts). The purpose for including the cutouts is to reduce the weight and amount of material used in the striker (see col 3, lines 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stop disclosed by Paskonis with cutouts as taught by Bolbocianu in order to reduce the weight and amount of material used in the lock holder.
Claim 9 is rejected by Paskonis (in view of Bolbocianu) as applied to claim 8 above. Please note that as a result of the cutout, at least one stiffening strut would be arranged between the legs and/or between the stop and at least one leg (see Bolbocianu fig 1; the material between the circular cutout in the stop and the legs of the shackle is considered the at least one stiffening strut).
Claim 14 is rejected by Paskonis (in view of Bolbocianu) as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 6637096 B2), in view of Slattery (US 3680902 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a lock holder (see fig 1) for a motor vehicle lock, comprising: a shackle (15), wherein the shackle has a U-shaped geometry (geometry of 15 formed around opening 17) with two legs (vertical portions of 15 on either side of 17 as viewed in fig 1) and a connecting web (horizontal portion of 15 above 17 as viewed in fig 1), wherein the shackle has different cross sections (see col 5, lines 36-40 which indicates various die and punch sets can be used to trim sections of the shackle into different shapes; see also col 5, lines 59-63 which indicates the coating can be applied to only a partial area of the shackle which would result in different cross sections of the shackle) and at least part of one leg has a circular cross section (see fig 2) which is configured so that a part of a rotary latch is able to engage (see col 1, lines 7-9), wherein a stop (portion of 11 located directly adjacent 15 and 17) is arranged at an open end of the shackle (see fig 1), the stop connecting the two legs of the shackle with each other (see fig 1), wherein the shackle and the stop are formed in one piece by a metal plate with a top surface and an opposite parallel bottom surface (see figs 4a & 4b) wherein the distance between the top surface and the bottom surface defines a plate thickness of the metal plate (see thickness of plate in fig 4a), and wherein the shackle has at least one mounting portion (at 13) which is arranged below the stop (see fig 1) and by which the shackle is mounted (see abstract).
Kang does not explicitly disclose a carrier plate, wherein the shackle is mounted to the carrier plate.
Slattery, however, teaches that it is known in the art of vehicle latch strikers for a latch striker (i.e., lock holder) (see fig 1) to include a carrier plate (35), wherein a shackle (20, 31) of the latch striker is mounted to the carrier plate (see fig 5) via a mounting portion (at 33) of the shackle. The purpose for including a carrier plate is to securely attach the latch striker to the vehicle body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lock holder disclosed by Kang with a carrier plate as taught by Slattery in order to securely attach the latch striker to the vehicle body.
Regarding claim 2, Kang (in view of Slattery) discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the stop projects beyond the two legs (see Kang figs 1 & 4b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses vehicle lock strikers relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
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 Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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, Namrata Boveja, can be reached on (571) 272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights