DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 10 July 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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) 1, 2, 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basavarajappa (DE102019135230).
Regarding claim 1, Scholz discloses a motor vehicle lock, comprising:
an actuating lever chain (4,6,8) with at least one release lever (8) at least one actuating lever (4), and
a securing device (8) which, in "a secured" position, mechanically decouples (Fig.2a 2b) the actuating lever from the release lever, and in "an unsecured" position, mechanically couples (Fig.) the actuating lever and the release lev er to one another,
wherein the securing device has a coupling slide (9), which is supported on a release lever and is linearly movable (Fig.1) or selectively mechanically decoupling or coupling the actuating lever from or to the release lever, and coupling slide toward an engaged position coupling the actuating lever and the release lever.
Basavarajappa discloses the claimed invention except for the location of a coupling slide, which is supported on the actuating lever.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify the location of a coupling slide, which is supported on the actuating lever as the location of the slide is kinematically equivalent, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Basavarajappa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the securing device further has a securing lever (13), and wherein the coupling slide is acted upon by the securing lever (Fig.1).
Claim 3 is canceled.
Regarding claim 4, Basavarajappa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 2, wherein, in "the secured" position (Fig.3a) of the securing device, the securing lever acts on the coupling slide (9) against the force of the spring into a "disengaged" position of the coupling slide (Fig.2A).
Regarding claim 5, Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1.
Basavarajappa discloses the claimed invention except for the coupling slide (9) is guided in a recess in the actuating lever.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify the coupling slide is guided in a recess in the actuating lever instead of the release lever, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Basavarajappa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the coupling slide has a longitudinal bore (10)3 through which a guide element (11) on the release lever passes (Fig.1).
Basavarajappa discloses the claimed invention except for the coupling slide (9) is guided in a recess in the actuating lever.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify the coupling slide is guided in a recess in the actuating lever instead of the release lever, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the lever (18) is operable in an override function in which a single stroke a lever is sufficient to both unlock and open the motor vehicle lock.
Basavarajappa discloses the claimed invention except for a single stroke of the actuating lever is sufficient to both unlock and open the motor vehicle lock.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a single stroke of the actuating lever is sufficient to both unlock and open the motor vehicle lock, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basavarajappa (DE102019135230) in view of Scholz DE102017124531.
Regarding claim 7, Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1.
Basavarajappa does not discuss: an electromotive drive, wherein the securing lever is pivotable about axis by the electromotive drive.
Scholz teaches an electromotive drive (4), wherein the securing lever is pivotable about axis by the electromotive drive (Fig.3). for the purpose of remotely operating a latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Basavarajappa with an electromotive drive, wherein the securing lever is pivotable about axis by the electromotive drive as taught by Scholz for the expected benefit of remotely operating a latch.
Regarding claim 8, Basavarajappa as modified by Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, further wherein the securing lever has a sensor (description l.12), that monitors a position of the securing lever.
Regarding claim 9, Basavarajappa as modified by Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8, further comprising an electromotive drive (4; Scholz) that drives the securing lever and a control unit (description l.21; Scholz), wherein the sensor and the electromotive drive are connected (in assembly) to the control unit that controls operation of the securing lever.
Regarding claim 10, Basavarajappa as modified by Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 9, wherein the control unit releases the electromotive drive and thus the securing lever, so that when the securing lever (8; Basavarajappa) is acted upon, the actuating lever (4; Basavarajappa) pivots the secured securing lever, thereby "engaging" the coupling slide.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basavarajappa (DE102019135230) in view of Scholz DE102017124531 further in view of Wolf (DE 4228233).
Regarding claim 11, Basavarajappa as modified by Scholz discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8, wherein the sensor.
The combination does not disclose: the sensor is a microswitch.
Wolf teaches the sensor is a microswitch for the purpose of using a switch to provide release command to locking system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scholz with the sensor is a microswitch as taught by Wolf for the expected benefit of a switch to provide release command to locking system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
