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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “locking member” is not used in the specification. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the limitation “a locking member” in claims 1 and 3 will be interpreted as referring to the “attachment hole 27” which functions to restrain the biasing member and is released from the release operator by rotating the release operator to align the through hole. The specification describes a “locker 212” however the locker is not disclosed as being released from a release operator.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schenk et al., DE 10044902 A1, in view of Bajul et al., US 2023/0203853 A1.
Claim 1: Schenk discloses a vehicle door unlocking apparatus ([0033]) comprising:
a release operator (handle 10 with lock 35 is a release operator) disposed in the door (Fig. 3) and configured to be rotatable ([0019] (rotates with handle 10); Fig. 2 depicts a key cylinder structured to rotate with a key);
a biasing member urging the release operator toward an outside of the door (“spring” in [0020-21] and [0026]);
a locking member engageable with the release operator to restrain the biasing member ([0021], [0026]: “locking connection is released” corresponds to having a locking member that holds the release operator in the door, therefore restraining the biasing member, and is released to allow it to spring out) and releasable when the release operator is rotated ([0021] “opening the lock 35 with the corresponding key” correlates to rotating the release operator with a key to disengage the locking member); and
a processor (control module 45 and sensor 50 form a processor) configured to:
detect a state of the vehicle including at least one of a power loss and a contact event ([0023] “in the event of an impact” corresponds to a contact event);
and in response to detecting the state of the vehicle, causes the locking member to be released from the release operator by rotating the release operator ([0022] (“the locking means 55 also include the lock 35”); [0023] (“automatically releasing the locking and/or latching of the cylindrical door handle” would include rotating the release operator in order to release the locking member)),
wherein, when the locking member is released, the release operator is protruded to the outer side of the door by the biasing member ([0023]).
Schenk teaches opening the corresponding door, but is silent to the release operator being mechanically coupled to a latch of a door locker and being pullable to mechanically unlock a door locker.
Bajul teaches a release operator being mechanically coupled to a latch of a door locker ([0054]; [0062]) and the release operator is pullable to mechanically unlock the door locker ([0054]; [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the release operator disclosed by Schenk to be mechanically coupled to a door locker, as taught by Bajul, in order to improve safety by providing a mechanical connection to the door locker for manually opening the door in case of an emergency or power failure (Bajul [0053]).
Claim 3: Schenk discloses a vehicle door locking apparatus comprising:
a key cylinder (35) disposed inside a door (Fig. 3) and configured to be rotated by a key ([0019]; Figs. 2-3 depict a key cylinder structured to be rotated by a key in a key hole);
a biasing member urging the key cylinder toward an outside of a door (“spring” in [0020-21] and [0026]); and
a locking member engageable with the key cylinder to restrain the biasing member ([0021], [0026]: “locking connection is released” corresponds to having a locking member that holds the release operator in the door and thus restrains the biasing member and is released to allow it to spring out), and releasable when the key cylinder is rotated ([0021] “opening the lock 35 with the corresponding key” correlates to rotating the release operator with a key to release the locking member); and
wherein, when rotation of the key cylinder causes the locking member to be released from the key cylinder, the key cylinder is protruded to the outside of the door by the biasing member ([0021]; Fig. 2).
However, Schenk is silent to the key cylinder being mechanically coupled to a latch of a door locker, alone or indirectly by the handle (10), and being pullable to mechanically unlock the door locker.
Bajul teaches an actuated member being mechanically coupled to a latch of a door locker ([0054]; [0062]) and being pullable to mechanically unlock the door locker ([0054]; [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the key cylinder disclosed by Schenk to be mechanically coupled to a door locker, as taught by Bajul, in order to improve safety by providing a mechanical connection to the door locker for manually opening the door in case of an emergency or power failure (Bajul [0053]).
Claim 6: Schenk, in view of Bajul, teaches the vehicle door lock according to claim 1, further comprising a motor engaged with the release operator (Schenk [0022] (“the locking means 55 also include the lock 35. … the locking means 55 also comprise a motor”).
Schenk depicts the release operator includes a key cylinder structured to rotate to be released from the locking member (Fig. 2). Schenk further discloses the processor is configured to cause the motor to release the release operator from the locking member (Schenk [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the processor is configured to cause the motor to rotate the release operator so the release operator is released from the locking member to electronically actuate the release operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 Nov. 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues the cited references do not disclose or suggest a processor detects a power loss or contact event and then actively rotates a release operator to release a locking member.
Schenk teaches a release operator structured as a key cylinder and the locking connection is released by operating the key cylinder ([0021]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a key cylinder is rotated by the corresponding key to release the locking connection. Schenk further discloses automatically releasing the release operator. Schenk teaches the processor detects a contact event in paragraph 0023, “the sensor 50, upon detection of an accident, causes the closure means 55 to open the access to the handle recess 15” and paragraph 0026, “by means of the remote control 40 or the sensor 50, the locking means 55 could be controlled in such a way that first an electromagnet or a motor releases the locking connection.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor to cause the key cylinder to be rotated automatically to release the locking member in the same manner as with the corresponding key to protrude.
With respect to claim 3, Applicant argues the cited art does not disclose or suggest coordinated interaction between a rotatable key cylinder, a locking member, and a protrusion that enables pulling to mechanically unlock the door locker. Applicant contends the key-operated lock cylinder disclosed by Schenk merely secures or releases a cylindrical handle in its recessed position and does not cause the key cylinder itself to protrude because it allows the handle as a whole to rotate outward from the recess. In paragraph 0021, Schenk describes the “complete or partial springing out of the cylindrical door handle 10 is again carried out by means of a spring” when the release operator is released from the locking member. Figures 2-3 of Schenk teaches the key cylinder moves with the door handle, Figure 2 depicts the key cylinder protruding with the cylindrical handle and Figure 3 depicts the key cylinder in the recess with the cylindrical handle. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the key cylinder likewise moves together with the cylindrical door handle during the “springing out of the cylindrical door handle.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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