DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 20 April 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 25-54 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 25-40 and 48-51 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner’s Note: The examiner notes that new claim 53 recites “a push body” at lines 10-11. Previously presented claims 43-44 claim “a pusher body.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends to change the claim term in the new claims, or if “push body” is perhaps a typographical omission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 41-42, 45-46 and 52
Claims 41-42, 45-46 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0299994 to Paskonis (hereinafter “Paskonis”).
Regarding claim 41, Paskonis discloses a method for producing a locking device for a motor vehicle, comprising the steps of: a) providing a striker (100; see Fig. 4); b) providing a mounting plate (200) having an opening (210); c) arranging an axial portion (leg 110 or 120) of the striker in the opening (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0028]); and d) after the axial portion (leg 110 or 120) is arranged in the opening (see paragraph [0030]; “each aperture is for receiving a respective end, such as a first or second end of the striker pin”), deforming material regions of the mounting plate (see paragraph [0031]; edge of the bore of the aperture in the base plate is deformed by the bottom taper) at a mouth of the opening (210) against an outer circumferential surface (see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0031]) of the axial portion (leg 110 illustrated in Fig. 4a) so that the material regions contact the outer surface (see paragraph [0031]; tapers 142, 152 mate with sidewalls of aperture). Further, Paragraphs [0009]-[0013] of Paskonis teaches that the method of forming the striker assembly may include “(a) inserting an end of a striker pin into an aperture in a base plate where the striker pin extends through the aperture in the base plate from a top side of the base plate to a bottom side of the base plate” and a distinctly presented step “(c) pressing the raised section into the aperture from the top size of the base plate wherein the bottom side taper deforms the aperture and is recessed into the aperture.” This passage of Paskonis is understood to teach that insertion of the striker end and the deformation are distinct from one another are performed sequentially. Further, because the tapered sections 140 and 150 of the striker of Paskonis are shown a distance from the terminal lower end of the striker, there must be some amount of time between the initial insertion of the terminal ends of the striker into a plate before the deformation of the aperture of in the plate can begin.
Regarding claim 42, Paskonis discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Paskonis discloses including step d) so that an annular contact of the material regions (edge of the aperture 210) with the outer circumferential surface (tapers 142, 152 of legs) is achieved (see Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 45, Paskonis discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Paskonis discloses further comprising, following step d) (step d) performed in paragraph [0031]), the step of: e) deforming the striker (100) to achieve a radial expansion at an axial region (160; see paragraph [0032] following paragraph [0031]) immediately adjacent to the axial portion and immediately adjacent to the material regions (see Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 46, Paskonis discloses the limitations of claim 45, and further Paskonis discloses including providing, to perform step e), a striker (100) that comprises a radial step (140, 150; see paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 52, Paskonis discloses a method for producing a locking device for a motor vehicle, comprising the steps of: a) providing a striker (100; see Fig. 4); b) providing a mounting plate (200) having at least one opening (210); c) arranging an axial portion (leg 110 or 120) of the striker in the at least one opening (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0028]); and d) deforming material regions of the mounting plate (see paragraph [0031]; edge of the bore of the aperture in the base plate is deformed by the bottom taper) at a mouth of the opening (210) against an outer circumferential surface (see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0031]) of the axial portion (leg 110 illustrated in Fig. 4a) so that the material regions contact the outer circumferential surface (see paragraph [0031]; tapers 142, 152 mate with sidewalls of aperture), wherein step d) is performed after step c is terminated (deforming understood to occur at paragraph [0031], after the arranging of paragraph [0030]). Further, Paragraphs [0009]-[0013] of Paskonis teaches that the method of forming the striker assembly may include “(a) inserting an end of a striker pin into an aperture in a base plate where the striker pin extends through the aperture in the base plate from a top side of the base plate to a bottom side of the base plate” and a distinctly presented step “(c) pressing the raised section into the aperture from the top size of the base plate wherein the bottom side taper deforms the aperture and is recessed into the aperture.” This passage of Paskonis is understood to teach that insertion of the striker end and the deformation are distinct from one another are performed sequentially. Further, because the tapered sections 140 and 150 of the striker of Paskonis are shown a distance from the terminal lower end of the striker, there must be some period of time between the initial insertion of the terminal ends of the striker into a plate before the deformation of the aperture of in the plate can begin.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 53
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paskonis in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0079208 to Mizuno et al. (hereinafter “Mizuno”).
Regarding claim 53, Paskonis discloses a method for producing a locking device for a motor vehicle, comprising the steps of: a) providing a striker (100; see Fig. 4); b) providing a mounting plate (200) having an opening (210); c) arranging an axial portion (leg 110 or 120) of the striker in the opening (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0028]); and d) deforming material regions of the mounting plate (see paragraph [0031]; edge of the bore of the aperture in the base plate is deformed by the bottom taper) at a mouth of the opening (210) against an outer circumferential surface (see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0031]) of the axial portion (leg 110 illustrated in Fig. 4a) so that the material regions contact the outer circumferential surface (see paragraph [0031]; tapers 142, 152 mate with sidewalls of aperture).
Paskonis does not explicitly disclose that step d) is performed by a push body that is an element separate from the striker. Paskonis fairly teaches “pressing the raised section into the aperture from the top side of the base plate wherein the bottom side taper deforms the aperture” (see paragraph [0012]), however appears to be silent as to the mechanism for performing the pressing.
However, it is known in the art of assembling strikers to use separate push bodies. For example, Mizuno teaches a striker assembly including a striker (29) which has been introduced into a plate member (10). The striker may be secured to the plate using a press apparatus (see paragraph [0040]), with the striker (29) being deformed from an upper end and a lower end by press components (93a, 93b from below and 91 from above; see paragraphs [0040]-[0041]). The press apparatus secures the striker to the plate by forming caulking ball portions (21m, 22m, 21n, 22n) and causing material of the striker within an aperture in the plate (10) to flow (see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Paskonis to includes a conventional pressing apparatus, such as the apparatus taught by Mizuno. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably result in a striker member being deformed in a predictable manner around the body of a plate member, securing the striker to the plate in the manner described by Paskonis, predictably forming a secured striker and plate assembly.
Thus, the combination of Paskonis and Mizuno teaches the limitations of claim 53.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-44, and 47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 43-44, and 47 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 54 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 54, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “deforming material regions of the mounting plate at a mouth of the opening in a radially inward directed movement against an outer circumferential surface of the axial portion so that the material regions contact the outer circumferential surface” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 20 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 41-47 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 20 October 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 41-42 and 45-46 were previously rejected as anticipated by Paskonis.
Applicant asserts that claim 41 has been amended to require “after the axial portion is arranged in the opening, deforming material regions of the mounting plate at a mouth of the opening against an outer circumferential surface of the axial portion so that the material regions contact the outer circumferential surface.” Applicant asserts that Paskonis does not anticipate the amended claim, because, allegedly, “[t]he deformation occurs simultaneously with insertion of the striker into the bore.” Applicant does not point to any portion of Paskonis for teachings this alleged simultaneous insertion and deformation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion. The examiner notes that a text search of Paskonis does not fine the word “simultaneous” or “at the same time.” Paragraphs [0009]-[0013] of Paskonis teaches that the method of forming the striker assembly may include “(a) inserting an end of a striker pin into an aperture in a base plate where the striker pin extends through the aperture in the base plate from a top side of the base plate to a bottom side of the base plate” and a distinctly presented step “(c) pressing the raised section into the aperture from the top size of the base plate wherein the bottom side taper deforms the aperture and is recessed into the aperture.” This passage of Paskonis is understood to teach that insertion of the striker end and the deformation are distinct from one another and can be performed at different times. Paskonis is thus not understood to disclose only simultaneous insertion and deformation. Further, because the tapered sections 140 and 150 of the striker of Paskonis are shown a distance from the terminal lower end of the striker, there must be some time between the initial insertion of the terminal ends of the striker into a plate before the deformation of the aperture of in the plate can begin.
The rejection of claim 41 is maintained.
Applicant asserts that dependent claims 42, 45, and 46 are alleged allowable for depending from claim 41.
The examiner maintains the rejections of claims 42, 45, and 46.
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 DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights