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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 March 2026 has been entered.
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) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurasi et al., US 2018/0245379 A1, in view of Cumbo, US 2020/0224464 A1, Stevens, US 10,264,689 B2.
Claim 1: Taurasi discloses lock for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a locking mechanism (22),
a lock housing (Fig. 1) with at least one housing cover (30),
a printed circuit board (34) located in an interior of the lock housing (Fig. 3),
at least one electronic component located on the printed circuit board (Figs. 3-4 depict at least one electronic component on the printed circuit board), and
wherein the printed circuit board is located in a dry space of the lock housing, wherein at least part of the dry space is formed by the housing cover (Fig. 3; [0027]),
wherein the printed circuit board and the at least one electronic component are located below the housing cover (Fig. 3),
wherein the at least one electronic component is fastened on the printed circuit board and the printed circuit board is configured for electrical connection to an electric motor ([0027]),
wherein the printed circuit board and/or the at least one electronic component are configured to be connected to on-board electronics of the motor vehicle by a plug on the housing (42; [0027]),
wherein additional capacitive parts are located under the housing cover (Figs. 3-4 depict additional capacitive parts located on the PCB under the housing cover).
Taurasi further discloses mechanical components for engaging a striker ([0004]), but does not explicitly disclose a rotary latch and at least one pawl. However, a locking mechanism with a rotary latch and at least one pawl is well known and established in the art. Cumbo teaches a known locking mechanism with rotary latch (36) and at least one pawl (38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a locking mechanism with a rotary latch and at least one pawl, as taught by Cumbo, in order to practice the locking mechanism as disclosed by Taurasi to selectively engage the striker.
Stevens teaches a membrane (314) located in a housing so that a pressure compensation through the membrane is performed (col. 3 ln. 33-41, 51-54),
wherein the membrane is located in the housing cover (col. 5 ln. 23-29) and is positioned directly across the dry space from a printed circuit board (col. 9 ln. 16-18; the membrane is positioned adjacent the element heated during operation) so that the dry space is vented and dehumidified via the membrane (col. 2 ln. 48-53; col. 3 ln. 34-41),
wherein the membrane is moisture-impermeable across the membrane in a direction toward the interior of the lock housing (col. 8 ln. 13-16), and wherein the membrane is air-permeable across the membrane in the direction toward the interior of the lock housing and in a direction toward an exterior of the lock housing (col. 2 ln. 19-23; col. 8 ln. 16-21).
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 lock housing disclosed by Taurasi, in view of Cumbo, to include a membrane so that a pressure compensation through the membrane is performed, wherein the membrane is positioned across the dry space from a printed circuit board so the dry space is vented and dehumidified via the membrane, the membrane is moisture-impermeable in a direction toward the interior of the housing and air-permeable in the directions to the interior and toward the exterior, as taught by Stevens, to prevent damage from moisture trapped in the housing and improve durability of the electronics (Stevens col. 3 ln. 29-41, col. 9 ln. 4-19). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the membrane taught by Taurasi, as modified by Stevens, is positioned on the housing cover, directly above and across the dry space from the printed circuit board, to facilitate transfer of gasses and vapor to the exterior of the electronic device (Stevens col. 3 ln. 29-41) and prevent condensation within the lock housing and locking mechanism (Taurasi Figs. 2-3 depict the housing cover faces out away from the locking mechanism and the second cover faces in toward the locking mechanism).
Claim 3: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the membrane is located in the lock housing such that pressure compensation in the dry space is performed (Stevens col. 3 ln. 33-41, 51-54).
Claim 4: in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the membrane is made of a semi-permeable plastic material (Stevens col. 2 ln. 51-61 (PTFE is a plastic)).
Claim 5: in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 1. Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, is silent to wherein two or four membranes are located in the motor vehicle lock. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two or four membranes located in the motor vehicle lock with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure vapor is forced out before condensing on surfaces inside the housing (Stevens col. 2 ln. 41-46 (“one or more vapor ports may be formed”)), and the court has held duplication of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim 6: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 4, wherein the semi-permeable plastic material is a semi-permeable and stretch polytetrafluoroethylene (Stevens col. 6 ln. 17-18 (stretch polytetrafluoroethylene is also known as expanded polytetrafluoroethylene)).
Claim 7: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 4, wherein the semi-permeable plastic material has a two-layer structure including an upper layer that is supported by a lower supporting layer (Stevens col. 5 ln. 65-67 and col. 6 ln. 62-67 (upper layer of the breathable element 402 supported by lower supporting layer 404)).
Claim 8: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 7, wherein the upper layer is made of semi-permeable and stretched polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material (Stevens col. 6 ln. 17-18 (stretch polytetrafluoroethylene is also known as expanded polytetrafluoroethylene)) and the lower supporting layer is made of polyamide (Stevens col. 7 ln. 21-22 (nylon is a polyamide)).
Claim 9: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the at least one cover includes a cover cap (Taurasi 32) that separates the dry space form a wet space (Taurasi Fig. 2 (wet space formed by housing 60)) of the lock housing (Taurasi [0027], [0034]).
Claim 10: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the membrane is moisture-permeable across the membrane in a direction away from the interior of the lock housing (Stevens col. 2 ln. 24-25 and col. 6 ln. 1-8).
Claim 11: Taurasi, in view of Cumbo and Stevens, teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the housing cover includes a peripheral seal that is brought into engagement with the lock housing to form the dry space (Taurasi [0029-30]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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. Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0145502 A), Shigyo et al. (US 7936566 B2), Nishida et al. (US 9723734 B1), and Kojima (US 8014158 B2) are related to assemblies comprising a PCB in a dry space of a housing and a membrane located in a housing cover directly above and across the dry space from the PCB.
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