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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-15 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.
Drawings
The examiner agrees with the present arguments regarding the drawings and the objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been overcome by the present amendments however new issues have become apparent.
Claim 2 and 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 “the bearing surface” should read “the convex bearing surface”.
In claim 12 “the stop surface” should be “the plurality of stop surfaces”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are overcome by the present amendments.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanisch US 20070278802 A1 (hereinafter Hanisch).
In regards to claim 1, Hanisch teaches a motor vehicle lock comprising: a locking mechanism (see fig 8) having locking mechanism parts including at least a rotary latch (2) and a pawl (2), and a stationary supporting body (4), wherein the locking mechanism parts are rotatably mounted on the stationary supporting body, and wherein the stationary supporting body has a plurality of stop surfaces (at least some of the stop surfaces seen in refence image 1) for at least one locking mechanism part of the locking mechanism parts to limit rotation of the at least one locking mechanism part (see reference image 1), wherein when the at least one locking mechanism part rotates in a first direction to a main latching position a stop surface (one of the stop surfaces shown in reference image 1) of the plurality of stop surfaces directly engages the at least one locking mechanism part as a result of the at least one locking member part moving into the main latching position, to limit rotation of the at least one locking mechanism part in the first direction beyond the main latching position (see fig 8 and para 19), wherein the stationary supporting body has at least in some sections a convex bearing surface for the at least one locking mechanism part (see reference image 1), wherein the stationary support body has a guide surface (see reference image 1) for guiding rotation of the at least one locking mechanism part (see fig 8), and wherein the stop surface of the plurality of stop surfaces extends an entire distance between the convex bearing surface and the guide surface (see reference image 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 2, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the convex bearing surface is flush with the at least one locking mechanism part whereby the at least one locking mechanism part rests continuously against the bearing surface during operation of the locking mechanism (see fig 8).
In regards to claim 4, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of stop surfaces directly adioin the convex bearing surface (see reference image 1).
In regards to claim 5, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the convex bearing surface has a uniform radius (see reference image 1).
In regards to claim 10, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the stationary support body is received in a recess of the at least locking mechanism part, and wherein the recess is formed at least regionally with a bearing (portion around 23).
In regards to claim 12, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8, wherein the convex bearing surface, the stop surface, and the guide surface together form a symmetrical shape (see fig 8).
In regards to claim 14, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 10, wherein the bearing completely encloses the recess (see fig 8).
In regards to claim 15, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, further comprising a lock case (32) that has the stationary supporting body to hold the locking mechanism parts (see fig 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanisch as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Himself.
In regards to claim 6, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 5.
However, Hanisch does not teach wherein the uniform radius is 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the uniform radius is 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanisch as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Baniak US 5941579 A (hereinafter Baniak).
In regards to claim 7, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the convex bearing surface of the stationary support body forms part of a bearing point (see fig 8).
However, Hanisch does not teach the bearing point is a pawl bearing point.
Baniak teaches and recognizes a need for stops (30 and 32) for a pawl (24) to limit rotational travel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Hanisch bearing point be a pawl bearing point in order to limit the rotational range of a pawl while reducing noise (Hanisch para 10).
In regards to claim 8, Hanisch in view of Baniak teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 7, wherein the at least one locking mechanism part is the pawl, and the guide surface is for guiding the pawl (as per the modification above).
In regards to claim 9, Hanisch in view of Baniak teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8.
However, Hanisch does not teach wherein the guide surface has a radius of 3-6 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide surface have a radius of 3-6 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 11, Hanisch in view of Baniak teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8.
However, Hanisch does not teach wherein the guide surface has a radius of 4-5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guide surface have a radius of 4-5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanisch as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Paulik et al. (hereinafter Paulik).
In regards to claim 13, Hanisch teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 10.
However, Hanisch does not teach wherein the bearing includes plastic.
Paulik teaches a Similar device where a bearing (38) includes plastic in order to reduce noise (Col 7 lines 46-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a bearing of Hanisch include plastic, in order to reduce noise (Paulik Col 7 lines 46-58).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights