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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 10-15, 17-20 and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues the curved portion of the bracket member disclosed by Takagi completely surrounds the lock lever and does not contact the lock lever. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. Applicant may act as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, but the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “surround” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “enclose on all sides.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “surround,” accessed June 23, 2026, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surround. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The specification states “the curved portion 42 substantially surrounds a portion of the circumference of the lock lever 26” in paragraph 0024, but does not clearly redefine the term. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the term is given its ordinary meaning and is interpreted as requiring the curved portion does not surround the entire lock lever on all sides and is not limited to being interpreted as the curved portion does not surround the circumference of the lever shaft.
Applicant states, on page 10, the key-cylinder retainer C2A disclosed by Takagi corresponds to the “curved portion” recited in claim 10 and completely surrounds a lock lever. However, it can be seen in the annotated figure on pages 4 and 7 of the Final Office Action, mailed 31 Dec. 2025, that the curved portion corresponds to the upper, curved portion of the bracket member 70 that is illustrated in Figure 7 of Takagi, while the key-cylinder retainer C2A (not shown in Figure 7) is structured as a lever and forms a lock lever with the key cylinder H2. Figures 1-2 of Takagi illustrate the lock lever (C2A) is mounted on the curved portion and supported by the curved portion (Figure 2 annotated below depicting the curved portion, highlighted, and the lock lever). It should also be noted that the claims do not require the curved portion to be limited to a concave surface as shown in the present disclosure, a “curved portion” is understood to describe to any part of the whole that has a curve.
PNG
media_image1.png
778
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the curved portion is unitarily formed with the housing) is not recited in claims 10-15 and 17-19. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues Takagi, in view of Mittelbach, does not teach or make obvious a bracket member including a curved portion directly contacting the lock lever to support the lock lever, and the curved portion does not completely surround the lock lever. The curved portion of Takagi directly contact the lock lever because it is mounted through the opening in the curved portion shown in Fig. 7. Although the shaft portion of the lock lever is surrounded by the curved portion, Takagi does not depict the curved portion surrounding the whole lock lever. Fig. 2 of Takagi depicts the curved portion does not extend across directly under the lever to allow movement of the link rod C2B, and Figs. 1-2 illustrate the curved portion does not completely surround the lock lever because it also does not enclose the portion of the lever facing outward (Fig 1) or the portion of the lever facing inward (Fig. 2).
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 1-8 and 21 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.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “the first and second walls of the bracket member being disposed between the first and second walls of the lock housing,” however it is unclear whether the lock housing is required by the claim. The preamble suggests the claimed invention is directed only towards “a bracket member” with the intended use of being assembled with a lock housing assembly of a vehicle. The lock housing assembly is not positively recited in the body of the claim so the preamble suggests that the lock housing assembly is not a required structural component of the bracket member. However, the claim requires positioning of components relative to “first and second walls of the lock housing” in the last two lines. Therefore it is unclear if the lock lever is a component of the bracket member, or if a lock lever is a component of the lock housing assembly and it is intended to utilize the curved portion for supporting the lock lever. For examination purposes, a lock housing assembly and a lock lever of the lock housing assembly are not positively claimed and correlate with the intended use of the bracket member.
Claims 2-8 and 21 depend from claim 1 and therefore include the indefinite language of claim 1.
Similarly, claim 21 requires the curved portion of the bracket member contacts the lock lever of the lock housing assembly. Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and includes every limitation of claim 1. The preamble of claim 1 suggests the claimed invention is directed only towards “a bracket member” with the intended use of being assembled with a lock housing assembly of a vehicle, and the curved portion is “configured to support a lock lever of the lock housing assembly” which suggests that the lock lever is a component of the lock housing assembly. However, claim 21 requires positioning of components relative to the lock lever. Claim 21 recites “the curved portion contacts the lock lever and does not completely surround the lock lever,” making it unclear whether the lock lever is a required structural element of the bracket member. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted broadly as: the curved portion is configured to contact the lock lever and the curved portion is structured to not completely surround the lock lever.
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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akahori et al., US 5,350,206 A.
Claim 1: Akahori discloses a bracket member for a lock housing assembly of a vehicle, the bracket member comprising:
a base member (4);
a first wall extending outwardly from the base member (Fig. 6 annotated below), a side surface of the first wall being configured to contact a side surface of the first wall of a lock housing of the lock housing assembly (Fig. 5);
a second wall extending outwardly from the base member (Fig. 6 annotated below), a side surface of the second wall being configured to contact a side surface of a second wall of the lock housing of the lock housing assembly (Fig. 5); and
PNG
media_image2.png
516
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a curved portion connected to the base member (Fig. 6 annotated above), the curved portion being configured to support a lock lever (lever 18 with shaft 19 corresponds to a lock lever) of the lock housing assembly (Figs. 2 and 5; col. 3 ln. 34-36),
the bracket member being unitarily formed as a one-piece member (depicted in Figs. 1 and 6),
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 (first wall configured to contact wall 6c of lock housing), the second wall of the lock housing (second wall configured to contact wall 6b of lock housing), and the lock lever (curved portion contacts the lock lever via the shaft 19 and structurally capable of contacting the lock lever via arm 18a or 18b), respectively, and the first and second walls of the bracket member being disposed between the first and second walls of the lock housing (depicted in Fig. 5).
Claim 4: Akahori discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the first wall is substantially parallel to the second wall (illustrated in Fig. 6, annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Akahori 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 (illustrated in Fig. 6, annotated above).
Claim 6: Akahori discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the curved portion has a first end and a second end (Fig. 6, annotated below), the first end nearer the base member (Fig. 6 depicts the first end of the curved portion closer to the base member).
PNG
media_image4.png
486
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Akahori discloses the bracket member according to claim 6, wherein the curved portion tapers downwardly from the second end toward the first end (Fig. 6).
Claim 21: Akahori discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the curved portion contacts the lock lever (the curved portion supports the lock lever by contact at the shaft) and does not completely surround the lock lever (Fig. 6, annotated above depicts the curved portion is semi-circular and does not surround the lock lever arms).
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 (key cylinder H2 connected with key-cylinder retainer C2A form a lock lever) 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 directly contacting the lock lever (Fig. 7 below; the lock lever is supported by direct contact with at least part of the curved portion around the circumference of cylinder H2) to support the lock lever, the curved portion not completely surrounding the lock lever (the curved portion does not completely surround the lock lever because the curved portion does not enclose the lock lever on all sides; Figs. 1 and 2 depicts parts of the lock lever mounted on the curved portion not covered by the curved portion on the side facing housing 90).
PNG
media_image5.png
357
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
482
794
media_image6.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).
Claim 14: Takagi discloses the lock housing assembly according to claim 13, wherein a fastener opening (Fig. 7 annotated below) 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).
PNG
media_image7.png
649
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 20, 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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahori, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ottino, EP 0894924 A1.
Claim 2: Akahori discloses the bracket member according to claim 1, wherein the base member cooperates with the lock housing to secure the bracket member. However, Akahori is silent to a fastener opening is disposed in the base member, the fastener opening being configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to the lock housing of the lock housing assembly.
Ottino teaches a fastening opening (107) disposed in a base member (Fig. 2; [0062]) being configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to a lock housing (Fig. 1; [0061-0063]). 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 Akahori to alternative utilize a fastener opening is disposed in the base member, the fastener opening being configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to the lock housing of the lock housing assembly, as taught by Ottino.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gaps arranged to receive a pawl disclosed by Akahori (col. 5 ln. 41-45) with at least one fastener opening to receive a fastener for securing the bracket member to the lock housing with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art contains a securing assembly which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component with another component. A fastener opening configured to receive a fastener is well known in the art as a means of securing two components, as evidenced by Ottino which teaches a fastening opening (107) disposed in a base member (Fig. 2; [0062]) being configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to a lock housing (Fig. 1; [0061-0063]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the elements are known alternatives and substitution of one known element for another has predictable results, namely a base member comprising a fastener opening that is configured to receive a fastener to secure the bracket member to the lock housing.
Claim 3: Akahori, in view of Ottino, teaches the bracket member according to claim 2. Akahori, in view of Ottino, is silent to the fastener opening being 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. However, it would be a simple rearrangement of parts to arrange a fastener opening 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 and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fastener opening between the first wall and the second wall of the bracket member to provide a point for securely attaching the base member. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this rearrangement does not affect operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04(VI); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (finding shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (holding the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was an obvious matter of design choice)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahori, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittelbach, US 2015/0204117 A1.
Claim 8: Akahori 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 Akahori 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.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5899508 A is related to a bracket comprising a curved edge and two walls extending from a base member and secured to a lock housing that supports a lever
US 10851565 is related to a lock housing including a bracket with a curved portion that supports a lever
US 20180186218 is related to a lock housing including a bracket with a curved portion that supports a lever and does not fully surround the lever
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