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 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) 1-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekendam (DE 10202112946 A1) in view of Menke (US 6038895 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bekendam teaches a motor vehicle lock comprising; a locking mechanism including a rotary latch (7) and a pawl (9), an electromotive opening drive (10) for performing an opening operation of the locking mechanism, wherein during a normal operation, power is supplied to the electromotive opening drive from a main energy source (21) in the motor vehicle, a control unit (17) that monitors power provided to the opening drive (fig. 1), and an energy storage unit (19) for emergency supply of the opening drive with current for emergency opening of the locking mechanism in an emergency operating mode (para. 0032), wherein the energy storage unit is electrically isolated of the main energy source (fig. 1; 19 contains a capacitor) and is only electrically connected to the control unit (fig. 1), wherein the locking mechanism is maintained in an open state by the opening drive in the emergency operating mode and in or following the opening operation (para. 0034).
Bekendam does not explicitly teach wherein the energy storage unit is electrically isolated from the main energy source.
Menke teaches a similar motor vehicle lock having an energy storage unit for backup power wherein the energy storage unit is electrically isolated from the main energy source (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bekendam with those of Menke in order to include isolated electrical circuits for the main energy source and the backup power storage unit. Providing separate circuit paths helps to provide a more reliable backup power in the event that the circuit for the main power source is damaged the backup power source will still be able to operate the motor vehicle lock. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 1, Bekendam further teaches wherein the locking mechanism is maintained in the open state (holding position) in the emergency operating mode in or following a first opening operation after initiating the emergency operating mode (para. 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 1, Bekendam further teaches wherein the open state of the locking mechanism is maintained until a mechanical and/or electronic reset (para. 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 3, Bekendam further teaches, wherein, during the reset, the locking mechanism resumes a closed starting position (para. 0037).
Regarding claim 5, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 3, Bekendam further teaches, further comprising at least one sensor (para. 0040; sensor which determines handle 18 has been actuated and communicates with control arrangement 17, discussed in para. 0031), wherein the electronic reset is carried out by interrogating the at least one sensor (determines whether the sensor has been actuated a certain number of times in a certain time period).
Regarding claim 6, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 5, Bekendam further teaches 5, wherein the electronic reset includes actuation of two sensors (sensors corresponding to handles 18 and 22; para. 0040).
Regarding claim 7, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 6, Bekendam further teaches, wherein the reset comprises a predetermined actuation sequence of the two sensors (para. 0040, the reset criteria required a series of actuations in a predetermined period of time).
Regarding claim 8, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 5, Bekendam further teaches, wherein the at least one sensor includes a door actuating switch (actuating switch for handle 18 communicated to control arrangement 17 when handle 18 has been operated).
Regarding claim 9, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 1, Bekendam further teaches wherein the opening drive implements the open state of the locking mechanism by acting on the pawl to space the pawl apart from the rotary latch to release the pawl from the rotary latch (para. 0033).
Regarding claim 10, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 1, Bekendam further teaches wherein the energy storage unit is designed as a capacitor, a supercapacitor, a battery, or a combination thereof (para. 0032; a capacitor is used).
Regarding claim 11, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 2, Bekendam further teaches, wherein the energy storage unit supplies power for a second opening operation after initiating the emergency operating mode (the capacitor is recharged during the reset operations and is therefore ready to supply power for a second opening operation after initiating the emergency operating mode and being reset).
Regarding claim 13, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 1, Bekendam further teaches, the power supplied to the opening drive from the main energy source drops below a predetermined level, the control units switches operation to the emergency operating mode (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 14, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 13, Bekendam further teaches, wherein the control unit controls the opening drive to move the locking mechanism into the open state in the emergency operating mode and in or following the opening operation (para. 0033).
Regarding claim 15, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 13, Bekendam further teaches, further comprising at least one sensor (para. 0040; sensor which determines handle 18 has been actuated and communicates with control arrangement 17, discussed in para. 0031), wherein the control unit carries out an electronic reset by interrogating the at least one sensor such that the locking mechanism resumes a closed starting position (para. 0040).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekendam (DE 10202112946 A1) in view of Menke (6038895 A) and further in view of Spurr (US 20080000711 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor-vehicle lock according to claim 6, however does not explicitly teach wherein the two sensors include sensors for actuating an inner door handle and an outer door handle.
Spurr teaches a similar electrical circuit arrangement for switching between a primary and secondary power source by the use of an inside door handle and an outside door handle (para. 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bekendam and Menke with those of Spurr in order to utilize an interior handle in combination with the exterior handle 28 of Bekendam rather than both exterior handles to reset the emergency operation mode. By utilizing both an interior and exterior handle to reset the emergency operation mode it helps to prevent an accidental reset by a user as the handles are located on opposite sides of the door and would typically not be actuated together. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekendam (DE 10202112946 A1) in view of Menke (6038895 A) and further in view of Inan (DE 102018120447 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bekendam in view of Menke teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 13, further comprising a lock housing, wherein the locking mechanism, the electromotive opening drive, and the energy storage unit are located inside the lock housing (fig. 1). Bekendam does not teach wherein the control unit is located outside of the lock housing.
Inan teaches a similar motor vehicle lock with an emergency opening function, comprising a lock housing (fig. 2), wherein the locking mechanism (20), the electromotive opening drive (10), and the energy storage unit (30) are located inside the lock housing, and wherein the control unit (23) is located outside the lock housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bekendam with those of Inan in order to include the control unit outside of the lock housing rather than inside as Bekendam teaches. Including the control unit outside of the lock housing allows for protection against possible water intrusion or other debris as the lock housing needs to be located in close proximity to the exterior of the door in order to engage the striker. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments to independent claim 1, the applicant asserts that the previously utilized combination in view of Bekendam and Menke does not teach the newly amended subject matter. Specifically, the applicant asserts that the combination fails to teach “wherein the energy storage unit is electrically isolated from the main energy source and is only electrically connected to the control unit”. Bekendam teaches a similar motor vehicle lock utilizing a control unit (17) to receive and then therefore deliver power from the proper source as shown in the diagram displayed in figure 1. While Bekendam does not explicitly teach a completely isolated circuit between he control unit and the energy storage unit, Menke is utilized to discuss the advantages of isolating the backup electrical circuit from the main power source. As discussed above, it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bekendam and Menke in order to utilize an electrically isolated circuit to provide power to the control unit.
Conclusion
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 JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 on (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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights