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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiekert (DE202008015789).
Regarding claim 1, Kiekert discloses a motor vehicle lock, comprising;
a locking mechanism including a rotary latch (3) and a pawl (4),
a combined opening/closing drive(6) for the locking mechanism, and
a drive pawl (9) for directly engaging the locking mechanism,
wherein the combined opening/closing drive(6), engages the drive pawl to move the drive pawl in an opening direction for directly engaging the pawl and in an opposite closing direction for directly engaging the rotary latch ( This control unit then controls the drive 6 the closing / opening device 6 . 7 . 8th . 9 on, until the pawl 4 has fallen into a main branch H.).
Regarding claim 14, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the combined opening/closing drive acting in the opening direction comprises pivoting the drive pawl (206) about an axis of rotation in a first direction (clockwise counter clockwise operation reversing discusses [0055]), and the combined opening/closing drive acting in the closing direction comprises pivoting the drive pawl about the axis of rotation in a second direction opposite from the first direction.
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiekert (DE202008015789) in view of Kurita et al. (US 2014/0225382).
Regarding claim 10, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1.
Note: The process of molding is considered to be non-limiting as the process by which a product is made can be given little to no patentable weight.
Kiekert does not disclose: wherein the drive pawl a metal (and/or plastics molded part.
Kurita et al. teaches wherein the drive pawl (206) a metal (sector gear made of metal [0047]) and/or plastics molded part for the purpose of choosing a material by the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiekert with wherein the drive pawl (206) a metal (sector gear made of metal [0047]) and/or plastics molded part as taught by Kurita et al. for the expected benefit of choosing a material by the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 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: Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle lock except: wherein the drive pawl has a toothing for engagement with a gear wheel of the combined opening/closing drive.
Wherein the drive pawl comprises a toothed segmented wheel which is rotatable about an axis.
The above elemental features do not appear to be obvious inview of the prior art of record.
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