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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 5 of claim 1, “the lock housing of a lock housing assembly” should be --a lock housing of the lock housing assembly-- because the “lock housing” is not previously recited and the “locking housing assembly” is previously recited in line 1
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi et al., US 2018/0016820 A1.
Claim 1: Takagi discloses A bracket member (70) for a lock housing assembly (90) of a vehicle, the bracket member comprising:
a base member (Fig. 7, annotated below);
a first wall extending outwardly from the base member (Fig. 7, annotated below), the first wall being configured to contact a first wall of a lock housing of the lock housing assembly (Fig. 2; Fig. 3, annotated below);
a second wall extending outwardly from the base member (Fig. 7, annotated below), the second wall being configured to contact a second wall of the lock housing of the lock housing assembly (Fig. 2; Fig. 3, annotated below); and
a curved portion connected to the base member (Fig. 7, annotated below), the curved portion being configured to support a lock lever of the lock housing assembly (Fig. 2; [0078]),
the bracket member being unitarily formed as a one-piece member (Fig. 7; [0163] (the bracket member 70 is structured to be integrally formed)), and
an outer surface of each of the first wall of the bracket member, the second wall of the bracket member and the curved portion of the bracket member being configured to contact the first wall of the lock housing ([0103]; Fig. 19), the second wall of the lock housing ([0103]; Fig. 19), and the lock lever (Fig. 2 illustrates an outer surface of the curved portion is structured to contact the lock lever), respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
778
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein a fastener opening is disposed in the base member (Fig. 7, annotated below), the fastener opening being configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to the lock housing of the lock housing assembly (the fastener opening is structurally capable of receiving a fastener).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 2, wherein the fastener opening is disposed between the first wall and the second wall of the bracket member when viewed in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the fastener opening (Fig. 7, above, depicts a view substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the fastener opening and the fastener opening is between the first and second walls).
Claim 4: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the first wall is substantially parallel to the second wall (the plane of the first wall is substantially parallel to the plane of the second wall).
Claim 5: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the first wall has a first length less than a second length of the second wall (Fig. 10, annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
250
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the curved portion has a first end and a second end, the first end being nearer the lock housing (depicted in Fig. 2).
Claim 21: Takagi discloses the lock housing according to claim 1, wherein the curved portion does not completely surround the lock lever (Fig. 2).
Claims 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi et al., US 2018/0016820 A1.
Claim 10: Takagi discloses a lock housing assembly for a vehicle comprising:
a lock housing (90);
a lock lever (Fig. 2 depicts C2A is structured as a lock lever to actuate rod C2B) rotatably connected to the lock housing (via rod C2B and lever C2C); and
a bracket member (70) connected to the lock housing and rotatably supporting the lock lever (Fig. 2; [0078]), the bracket member including a curved portion supporting the lock lever (Fig. 7 below), the curved portion not completely surrounding the lock lever (Fig. 2 depicts the curved portion does not completely surround the lock lever).
PNG
media_image5.png
726
583
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 10, wherein a first wall of the bracket member (Fig. 7, above, depicts a support 76P extending from a first wall 73) contacts the lock housing to substantially prevent movement of the bracket member ([0103]).
Claim 12: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 11, wherein a second wall of the bracket member (Fig. 7, above, depicts a support 76Q extending from a second wall) contacts the lock housing to substantially prevent movement of the lock bracket ([0102]).
Claim 13: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 12, wherein the first wall is substantially parallel to the second wall (the plane of the first wall is substantially parallel to the plane of the second wall).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 14: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 13, wherein a fastener opening (Fig. 7 annotated above) in the bracket member is configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to the lock housing (the fastener opening is structurally capable of receiving a fastener).
Claim 15: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 14, wherein the fastener opening is disposed between the first wall and the second wall of the bracket member when viewed in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the fastener opening (Fig. 7, above, depicts a view substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the fastener opening and the fastener opening is between the first and second walls).
Claim 17: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 10, wherein the curved portion has a first end and a second end, the first end being nearer the lock housing (depicted in Fig. 2).
Claim 19: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 17, wherein the second end of the curved portion contacts the lock lever (Fig. 2 illustrates the end farther from the lock housing contacts the lock lever), and the first end of the curved portion is spaced from the lock lever (Fig. 2).
Claim 20: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 10, wherein the bracket member is unitarily formed as a one-piece member (depicted by Fig. 6).
Claim 22: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 10, wherein the curved portion supports an outer surface of the lock lever (Figs. 1-2 illustrates the curved portion supports an outer surface that extends through the hole to receive the key cylinder), the outer surface of the lock lever extending in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the lock lever (the axis of H2 corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the lock lever, Figs. 1-2 illustrate the outer surface extends in a parallel direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, as applied to claim 6 above, alone.
Claim 7: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 6, but is silent to the curved portion tapering downwardly from the second end to the first end.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a shape of the curved portion to taper downwardly from the second end to the first end with a reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a change in shape does not affect operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittelbach, US 2015/0204117 A1.
Claim 8: Takagi discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the bracket member is made of steel. However, it is well known in the art to fabricate components of steel, as evidenced by Mittelbach ([0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bracket member disclosed by Takagi to be made of steel in order to increase strength for supporting the lock housing and withstanding crash forces (Mittelbach [0004]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, as applied to claim 17 above, alone.
Claim 18: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 17, but is silent to the curved portion tapering away from the lock lever from the second end to the first end.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a shape of the curved portion to taper away from the lock lever at the second end to the first end with a reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a change in shape does not affect operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 Sept. 2025 with respect to the objection(s) to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the objection to claim 1, the amendment made to claim 1 recites “the lock housing of a lock housing assembly” and does not recite the lock housing assembly as indicated in the remarks (p. 7).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 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.
Kargilis et al. (US 2012/0304542 A1) is related to a bracket member made of steel that supports a lock cylinder lever.
Harima et al. (US 2003/0173796 A1) is related to a bracket member configured to support a lock cylinder and comprising a curved portion, a first wall, and a second wall.
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights