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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, “the worm” should read –a worm--. Please note the worm has not yet been introduced in claim 4 and therefore an antecedent basis issue is present.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 10-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Digel (DE 10319952 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Digel teaches a drive unit for motor vehicle applications comprising:
An electromotive drive (12, motor and gear that engages with 11 not shown),
An actuation rod (9, 10) mounted at one end on the electromotive drive and acted upon by the electromotive drive, wherein the electromotive drive operates eccentrically on the actuation rod whereby a drive cam (13) of the electromotive drive engages in a drive cut out (concave cutout formed on the inside of 9 as shown in fig. 2) in the actuation rod, and
A guide cam (14) engaging in a guide cut out (concave cutout formed on the inside of 10 as shown in fig. 4) in the actuation rod,
Wherein the drive cam and the guide cam are arranged on a drive wheel (12) of the electromotive drive (fig. 6), and wherein the electromotive drive has an evoloid gear stage (gear stage configured to mesh with teeth 11 not explicitly shown).
Regarding claim 3, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the drive wheel (12) has evoloid teeth (11) inclined on an outer circumference relative to an axis of rotation of the drive wheel (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 3, wherein the worm (worm configured to engage with teeth 11) has a plurality of evoloid teeth which are bevelled in such a manner that at least one evoloid tooth always is in engagement with the outer circumferential evoloid toothing of the drive wheel (due to the constant teething of 11 the worm must be in constant engagement.
Regarding claim 6, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the guide cam and the drive cam are positioned at an acute angle to one another (annotated fig. 1) and with a common axis of rotation (Z).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 10, Digel teaches a motor vehicle latch comprising a locking mechanism that includes a catch (2) and a pawl (3), and a drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuation rod acts directly or indirectly on the pawl (9, 10 act directly on pawl 3).
Regarding claim 11, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 6, wherein the acute angle is from 20 degrees to 60 degrees (annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 13, wherein the drive cut-out and the guide cut-out are positioned in different planes (fig. 6).
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) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digel (DE 10319952 A1) in view of Topfer (DE 102017125819 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 1, however does not explicitly show wherein the electromotive drive further includes an electric motor having a drive shaft, and the evoloid gear stage is implemented between a worm on the drive shaft of the electric motor and the drive wheel.
Topfer teaches a similar drive unit wherein the electromotive drive further includes an electric motor (1) having a drive shaft (1’), and the evoloid gear stage (2) is implemented between a worm on the drive shaft of the electric motor and the drive wheel (3).
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 Digel with those of Topfer in order to utilize a gear stage configured to mesh with the evoloid gear of the drive wheel. Digel cites the use of an electric motor however does not show the structure. Utilizing a evoloid gear stage mounted on the worm of the electric motor provides a direct and reliable form of meshing between the electric motor and the drive wheel. 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 5, Digel in view of Topfer teaches the drive unit according to claim 2, Topfer further teaches wherein the screwworm is equipped with a maximum of three evoloid teeth on a circumferential side and in a longitudinal extension of the worm (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digel (DE 10319952 A1) in view of Bendel (DE 102009036834 A).
Regarding claim 7, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the guide cam, the drive cams and the drive wheel are a one-piece component (fig. 6).
Digel does not explicitly teach wherein the component is made of plastic.
Bendel teaches a similar drive unit wherein the drive is made of plastic.
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 Digel with those of Bendel in order to utilize plastic components. Utilizing plastic components provides a significant weight savings while still providing a strong component as identified by Bendel. 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 8, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 2, however does not explicitly teach wherein the worm and the actuation rod each is a plastic component.
Bendel teaches a similar drive unit wherein the drive is made of plastic.
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 Digel with those of Bendel in order to utilize plastic components. Utilizing plastic components provides a significant weight savings while still providing a strong component as identified by Bendel. 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) 9, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digel (DE 10319952 A1) in view of Cumbo (CN 114466964 A).
Regarding claim 9, Digel teaches the drive unit according to claim 1, however does not explicitly teach further comprising a drive housing that includes a dry room housing part, wherein the electromotive drive is arranged at least in part in the dry room housing part of a drive housing.
Cumbo teaches a similar drive unit further comprising a drive housing that includes a dry room housing part (24 is sealed), wherein the electromotive drive is arranged at least in part in the dry room housing part of a drive housing (housing of 24).
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 Digel with those of Cumbo in order to utilize a sealed dry room to house the electric motor component of the drive unit. Providing a watertight area for the electric motor prevents the ingress of water or debris which could cause the motor to fail. 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 16, Digel in view of Cumbo teach a motor vehicle latch comprising a locking mechanism that includes a catch and a pawl, and a drive unit according to claim 9, wherein the actuation rod acts directly or indirectly on the pawl (Digel’ fig. 1), and wherein the drive housing further includes a wet room housing part (Cumbo’ 30) that houses the locking mechanism (Cumbo’ 22) .
Regarding claim 17, Digel in view of Cumbo teach the motor vehicle latch according to claim 16, Cumbo further teaches wherein the dry room housing part and the wet room housing part are separated by a dividing wall (fig. 16) including a hole through which the actuation rod (128) extends (fig. 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 15 and 18 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the guide cam and drive cam have elliptical shapes. While an elliptical shaped dual cam arrangement is taught by Ursel (US 5676003 A), changing the shape of Digel’s cam’s would alter the operation of Digel’s drive unit. Therefore it would be improper hindsight to modify Digel with an elliptical shape.
Claim 13 contains allowable subject matter for depending upon claim 12.
Claims 15 and 18 contain allowable subject matter for disclosing a cantilever connected to an end of the actuation rod that engages with the pawl. The actuation rod of Digel acts directly on the pawl without any cantilevered structure and adding this structure would only add complexity to the invention of Digel. Therefore it would be improper hindsight to modify Digel with a cantilevered structure to engage the pawl.
Conclusion
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 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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675