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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sardelli et al., US 11,280,121 B2.
Claim 1: Sardelli discloses a motor vehicle lock comprising:
a locking mechanism including a rotary latch (30) and a pawl (32),
an electromotive drive including a control element (Fig. 3G depicts a motor 50 with a control element formed by gear 56 with stop 114 and a cam 58), and
an actuating lever mechanism with at least a release lever (60) and a control lever (68), wherein the control element directly operates on the release lever for opening the locking mechanism (Fig. 2B; col. 8 ln. 4-9) and on the control lever (col. 9 ln. 61-col. 10 ln. 6),
wherein the locking mechanism is opened during a normal powered operation by operation of the electromotive drive causing the control element to operate directly on the release lever (col. 8 ln. 4-9), and the control lever assumes a locked position during the normal powered operation (movement from Fig. 4 to Fig. 5),
a manually actuatable operating lever (24), wherein the locking mechanism cannot be opened with the aid of the manually actuatable operating lever during the normal powered operation (col. 8 ln. 63-67),
a clutch lever (36), wherein with the aid of the control lever, the clutch lever is transferred into an engaged position corresponding to an unlocked state of the control lever in which a position of the release lever is manually biased (Fig. 9; col. 11 ln. 66-col. 12 ln. 7) and the locking mechanism is opened via the manually actuatable operating lever by movement as an alternative to the electromotive drive (col. 7 ln. 24-33; col. 11 ln. 66-col. 12 ln. 7), and
a force transmission element (108), wherein the locking mechanism is opened during an emergency powered opening by operation of the electromotive drive causing the control element to move the control lever to an emergency opening position (Fig. 8) such that the force transmission element is directly engageable by the control element (col. 11 ln. 45-66),
wherein the force transmission element cooperating with the release lever provides an emergency opening of the locking mechanism, with the aid of which a rotary movement exerted by the electromotive drive on the locking mechanism is translated or reduced (col. 11 ln. 48-col. 12 ln. 7 (force transmission member translates movement of the electromotive drive from element 114 and the force transmission element indirectly cooperates with the release lever by coupling it with the control lever for an emergency opening)),
wherein during normal powered operation, the control element is spaced from the force transmission element (Fig. 5B; col. 10 ln. 66-67), and
wherein the force transmission element is a lever or lever arm which is connected to the release lever (Figs. 4-4B illustrate the force transmission element 108 is structured as a lever and is connected in the same assembly with the release lever 60).
Claim 8: Sardelli discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the manually actuatable operating lever is provided as a component of the actuating lever mechanism (Fig. 10, the manually operably operating lever is part of the actuating lever mechanism).
Claim 11: Sardelli discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the emergency powered opening occurs when an on-board power supply voltage is below a threshold amount (col. 13 ln. 20-41).
Claim 12: Sardelli discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the control lever (68) is movable between the locked position (Fig. 4), the emergency opening position (Fig. 8), and an unlocked position (Fig. 9).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardelli, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leondardi et al., US 2022/0282530 A1.
Claim 10: Sardelli discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, but is silent to the electromotive drive having an output disk that acts on the control element that operates the release lever.
Leonardi teaches an electromotive drive (Fig. 5A) having an output disk (96) that acts on a control element (100). 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 electromotive drive disclosed by Sardelli to include an output disk that acts on the control element that operates the release lever to provide a gear reduction arrangement to achieve increased torque and reduce the motor size, as taught by Leonardi (Leonardi [0102]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 allowed.
Claims 4-7, and 9 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: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 4-7, 9, 13-14.
In regards to claim 4, Sardelli fails to disclose the force transmission element dips into a control contour of the control lever. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the force transmission element and control lever disclosed by Sardelli to be configured such that the force transmission element dips into a control contour of the control lever without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
In regards to claims 5-7, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 4 from which the claims depend.
Claim 9 is allowable for the reasons indicated in the previous non-final office action, mailed 14 Aug. 2025.
Claim 13 includes the subject matter of claim 7 and is allowable for the reasons indicated in the previous non-final office action.
Claim 14 includes the subject matter of claim 9 and is allowable for the reasons indicated in the previous non-final office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), Applicant argued Sardelli does not teach the feature of the control element being spaced from the force transmission element during normal powered operation and does not teach the locking mechanism is opened during a normal powered operation by operation of the electromotive drive causing the control element to operate directly on the release lever.
Applicant’s arguments 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. It is noted Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, and the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied reference.
As shown above, Sardelli teaches a control element (power release gear 56 with stop member 114 and power release cam 58 that is connected to the gear) that is spaced apart from a force transmission element (double pull sector 108) during normal powered operation; Sardelli further teaches the control element is configured to operate directly on a release lever (actuator output lever 60) during a normal powered operation.
Applicant's arguments with respect to new claims 11 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above interpretation of Sardelli teaches the emergency powered opening occurs when an on-board power supply voltage drops below a threshold and the control lever is movable between the three positions.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the objections to the specification and claims 3, 8, 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
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 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