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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 2-9 and 11-13 are withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Oberheide et al. (US 7,261,334) and (US 2016/0130840). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 14-16 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being unpatentable over Oberheide et al. (US 7,261,334) .
Regarding claim 1, Oberheide et al. discloses a motor vehicle lock comprising:
a locking mechanism including a rotary latch (30) and a pawl (76),
a combined opening/closing drive (48) for the locking mechanism, and a drive pawl (16) for directly engaging the locking mechanism,
wherein the combined opening/closing drive engages the drive pawl to move the drive pawl in an opening direction (C4, l.1-9) for directly engaging the pawl and in an opposite closing direction for directly engaging the rotary latch (note: opening direction and return to park are the same directionc.3, l.46-50), and
wherein the drive pawl comprises a toothed segmented wheel (58) which is rotatable about an axis.
2-3. (Cancelled)
Regarding claim 4, Oberheide et al. discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the drive pawl has an extension arm (68) which directly engages the pawl or the rotary latch.
Regarding claim 5, Oberheide et al. discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 4, wherein a toothed segment (58) of the drive pawl and the extension arm are arranged at an angular distance from one another.
Regarding claim 6, Oberheide et al. discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 4, wherein the drive pawl further comprises a pot-shaped (instead of indefinite, taken broadly as any cross section) cross section with a central axis of rotation (72).
11. (Cancelled)
Regarding claim 4, Oberheide et al. discloses t14. (Previously Presented) The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the combined opening/closing drive moving the drive pawl in the opening direction (Fig.3, note: opening direction and return to park are the same direction,c.3, l.1-9) comprises pivoting the drive pawl about an axis (72) of rotation in a first direction, and the combined opening/closing drive moving the drive pawl in the closing direction comprises pivoting the drive pawl about the axis of rotation in a second direction (cinching, c.3, l.46-50, Fig.4) opposite from the first direction.
Regarding claim 15, Oberheide et al. discloses a motor vehicle lock comprising:
a locking mechanism including a rotary latch (30) and a pawl (76),
a combined opening/closing drive (48) for the locking mechanism, and
a drive pawl (16) for directly engaging the locking mechanism,
wherein the combined opening/closing drive engages the drive pawl to move the drive pawl in an opening direction (Fig.3, note: opening direction and return to park are the same direction,c.3, l.1-9 )for directly engaging the pawl and in an opposite closing direction (cinching, c.3, l.46-50, Fig.4) for directly engaging the rotary latch, and
wherein the drive pawl has a toothing for engagement (58) with a gear wheel of the combined opening/closing drive.
Regarding claim 16, Oberheide et al. discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 15, wherein the toothing (58) is positioned on only one peripheral segment of the drive pawl that engages with the combined opening/closing drive (Fig.2).
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 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oberheide et al. (US 7,261,334) in view of Atushi ( JP 2022042319).
Regarding claim 7, Oberheide et al. discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 4.
Oberheide et al. does not disclose: a sensor wherein the drive pawl has a contour for interaction with the sensor which queries an angular position of the drive pawl.
Atushi teaches sensor switches (60,61; Atushi), for the purpose of detecting the determining position of latch components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberheide et al. with a sensor, wherein the drive pawl has a contour for interaction with the sensor which queries an angular position of the drive pawl as taught by Atushi for the expected benefit of detecting the determining position of latch components.
Regarding claim 8, Oberheide et al. as modified by Atushi discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 7, wherein the extension arm (68; Oberheide et al.) of the drive pawl is arranged in an unloaded state (Fig.3 Oberheide et al.) in a parking region which engages neither on the pawl nor on the rotary latch.
Regarding claim 9, Oberheide et al. as modified by Atushi discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8, wherein the sensor ([0058]; Garneau) detects the parking region.
Regarding claim 12, Oberheide et al. as modified by Atushi discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 7, wherein the contour is positioned on a truncated cylinder that is connected to the drive pawl.
Regarding claim 13, Oberheide et al. as modified by Atushi discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 12, wherein the truncated cylinder (Fig.2 about 72; Oberheide et al.) defines a central axis (72; Oberheide et al.) of the drive pawl.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oberheide et al. (US 7,261,334) in view of Garneau (US 2016/0130840).
Regarding claim 10, Oberheide et al. as modified by Garneau discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the drive pawl is a metal and/or plastics ([0078] molded part.
Oberheide et al does not disclose: drive pawl is a metal and/or plastics ([0078] molded part
Garneau teaches various components may be stamped from metal or injection molded from plastic ([0078; Garneau), for the purpose of choosing materials for cost consideration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberheide et al with various components may be stamped from metal or injection molded from plastic, as taught by Garneau for the expected benefit of choosing materials for cost consideration.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights