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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electric motor acting directly upon the actuating element without the drive train, as suggested by the language of claim 1, the actuator acting as a closing drive on the rotary latch, as recited in claim 10, and the actuator including a second pinion between the output pinion 9 and the toothed segment 10a of the drive pawl, as recited in claim 13, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 3, the phrase “the actuator” should be inserted before the word “comprising,” and in line 10, the phrase “each of the first and second evoloid toothing” should be changed to “each of the first and second evoloid toothings.”
In regards to claim 2, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “one of the first or second evoloid toothings are” should be changed to “the first evoloid toothing is.”
In regards to claim 3, it is suggested that this claim be canceled based on the objection to claim 2 above.
In regards to claim 7, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the actuating element is a drive pawl, and wherein the drive train is equipped with an output pinion for driving the drive pawl.”
In regards to claim 8, line 2, the phrase “the drive pawl engages with a toothed segment in the output pinion” should be changed to “the drive pawl includes a toothed segment that engages with the output pinion.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the metes and bounds of the phrase “an actuating element which is acted upon directly or indirectly by the electric motor via the drive train” is unclear from the claim language. Specifically, it is understood from the specification and drawings that the actuating element 10 is acted upon indirectly by the electric motor because of the drive train coupled between the electric motor and the actuating element, however, it is unclear how the electric motor would act directly upon the actuating element with the drive train, since the term “directly” suggests the removal of the drive train. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as supported by the specification and drawings, in which the actuating element is acted upon indirectly by the electric motor via the drive train.
In regards to claim 2, it is unclear how the second evoloid toothing includes an evoloid axle 7a and a wheel axle 8a that are perpendicular to one another, as suggested by the phrase “one of the first or second evoloid toothings are positioned perpendicular relative to one another. It is understood from the specification and drawings that the evoloid axle 7a is parallel to the wheel axle 8a. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as only referring to the first evoloid toothing. See objections to claims 2 and 3 above.
In regards to claim 7, the relationship between the drive pawl of claim 7 and the actuating element of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the actuating element is a drive pawl, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, claim 1 is only drawn to an actuator and not a motor vehicle lock including the actuator and a locking mechanism. For examination purposes, the locking mechanism of claim 8 will be examined as intended use.
In regards to claim 8, line 2, it is unclear how the toothed segment 10a is part of the output pinion 9, as suggested by the phrase “the drive pawl engages with a toothed segment in the output pinion,” when it is understood from the specification and drawings that the toothed segment is part of the drive pawl, such that the toothed segment engages with the output pinion. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as best understood. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 10, it is unclear how the drive pawl 10 would act on the rotary latch so as to close or move the rotary latch to a latched position and how the actuator could act as both an opening drive and a closing drive simultaneously, as suggested by the phrase “an opening drive on the pawl and/or as a closing drive on the rotary latch,” using the drive pawl 10 as disclosed in the specification and shown in the drawings.
In regards to claim 13, it is unclear how the actuator includes a second pinion between the output pinion and the drive pawl. As discussed in the specification and shown in the drawings, the output pinion acts directly on the drive pawl by meshing with the toothed segment 10a of the drive pawl, not that a second pinion is located between the two, as recited in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as supported by the specification and drawings.
In regards to claims 3-6, 9, 11, and 12, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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) 1-7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leng et al. (CN 106761056 A).
In regards to claim 1, Leng et al. discloses an actuator for motor vehicle applications, the actuator comprising: an electric motor 305, a drive train 306, 309, 310, and an actuating element 104 which is acted upon indirectly by the electric motor via the drive train (acted upon by the drive train and component 308 and cable 2), wherein the drive train is equipped with a first evoloid toothing 306 and 309 (the toothing of worm gear 306 and wheel 309 is considered as evoloid because the toothing does not extend parallel to the rotation axis of the gear 306 and wheel 309, but is twisted relative to the rotation axes, Figure 3) and a second evoloid toothing (evoloid pinion on wheel 309, see Figure 3 below, and wheel 310, with the toothing of the pinion and the wheel considered as evoloid because the toothing does not extend parallel to the rotation axis of the pinion and wheel, but is twisted relative to the rotation axes, Figure 3) which adjoin one another (Figure 1), wherein each of the first and second evoloid toothings has an evoloid pinion (306 and pinion on wheel 309, see Figure 3 below) which is rotated about an evoloid axle (see Figure 3 below) and an evoloid wheel 309 and 310 which meshes with the evoloid pinion and is rotated about a wheel axle (see Figure 3 below), and wherein the first and second evoloid toothings are positioned perpendicular relative to one another in such a way that the evoloid axles are perpendicular relative to one another (Figures 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
872
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Leng et al. discloses that the evoloid axle and the wheel axle of the first evoloid toothing are positioned perpendicular relative to one another (see Figure 3 above).
In regards to claim 4, Leng et al. discloses that the evoloid axle of the first evoloid toothing and a drive axle of an output shaft of the electric motor coincide (see Figure 3 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 5, Leng et al. discloses that the wheel axle of the first evoloid toothing coincides with the evoloid axle of the second evoloid toothing (see Figure 3 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 6, Leng et al. discloses that the evoloid axle and the wheel axle of the second evoloid toothing are positioned parallel to one another (see Figure 3 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claims 7 and 13, Leng et al. discloses that the actuating element is a drive pawl (Figure 2), and wherein the drive train is equipped with an output pinion for driving the drive pawl (see Figure 3 on Page 8 of the current Office Action, with the output pinion driving the drive pawl via component 308 and cable 2).
In regards to claim 11, Leng et al. discloses that the output pinion is provided on the output wheel of the second evoloid toothing (see Figure 3 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 12, Leng et al. discloses that the output pinion includes a pinion axle that coincides with the wheel axle of the second evoloid toothing (see Figure 3 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108678575 A) in view of Pitsch et al. (DE 102008054398 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses an actuator for motor vehicle applications, the actuator comprising: an electric motor 21, a drive train 221, 222, 223, and an actuating element 224, 27 which is acted upon indirectly by the electric motor via the drive train (Figure 3), wherein the drive train is equipped with a first toothing 221 and 222 and a second toothing (pinion on the bottom of wheel 222, Figure 2, and wheel 223) which adjoin one another (Figure 3), wherein each of the first and second toothings has an pinion (221 and pinion on the bottom of wheel 222, Figure 2) which is rotated about an axle (axle 225 and see Figure 3 below) and an wheel 222 and 223 which meshes with the pinion and is rotated about a wheel axle 225 (Figure 3), and wherein the first and second toothings are positioned perpendicular relative to one another in such a way that the axles are perpendicular relative to one another (Figure 3). Zhang et al. fails to disclose that the toothings are evoloid toothings. Pitsch et al. teaches an electric motor 2 and a drive train 3, 4, 5, 6 having evoloid toothings (Figure 2) which cooperate to rotate an output element 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to utilize evoloid toothings between the gearing of Zhang et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since the use of the evoloid toothings would yield the predictable result of transmitting rotation between gears and since the toothings of Zhang et al. and Pitsch et al. are equivalent for their use in the gearing art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to provide the meshing toothing between gears would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
659
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Zhang et al. in view of Pitsch et al. teaches that the evoloid axle and the wheel axle of the first evoloid toothing are positioned perpendicular relative to one another (Figure 3 of Zhang et al.).
In regards to claim 4, Zhang et al. in view of Pitsch et al. teaches that the evoloid axle of the first evoloid toothing and a drive axle of an output shaft of the electric motor coincide (see Figure 3 on Page 11 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 5, Zhang et al. in view of Pitsch et al. teaches that the wheel axle of the first evoloid toothing coincides with the evoloid axle of the second evoloid toothing (Figure 3 of Zhang et al.).
In regards to claim 6, Zhang et al. in view of Pitsch et al. teaches that the evoloid axle and the wheel axle of the second evoloid toothing are positioned parallel to one another (Figure 3 of Zhang et al.).
In regards to claims 7 and 13, Zhang et al. discloses that the actuating element is a drive pawl (Figure 2 of Zheng et al.), and wherein the drive train is equipped with an output pinion for driving the drive pawl (output pinion located on the bottom of wheel 223, Figure 2 of Zhang et al.).
In regards to claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses that the drive pawl includes a toothed segment 224 that engages with the output pinion (Figure 3) and has a drive arm 27 for acting on a locking mechanism including a rotary latch 31 and a pawl 25.
In regards to claim 9, Zhang et al. fails to disclose that the output pinion and the drive pawl are made of metal and that the pinions and the output wheels are at least partially designed as plastic gears. Pitsch et al. teaches the use of metal for mechanical components, such as pinions, and plastic material for gears (Paragraph 14 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the output pinion and the drive pawl are made of metal and that pinions and the output wheels are at least partially designed as plastic gears, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within 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.
In regards to claim 10, Zhang et al. discloses a motor vehicle lock comprising: a locking mechanism including a rotary latch 31 and a pawl 25, a common housing 1, and an actuator according to claim 1 for the locking mechanism which works as an opening drive (Paragraph 27 of the Computer Generated Translation), and the actuator is accommodated together with the locking mechanism in the common housing (Figures 1 and 3).
In regards to claim 11, Zhang et al. in view of Pitsch et al. teaches that the output pinion is provided on the output wheel of the second evoloid toothing (Figure 2 of Zhang et al.).
In regards to claim 12, Zhang et al. in view of Pitsch et al. teaches that the output pinion includes a pinion axle 225 that coincides with the wheel axle of the second evoloid toothing (Figures 2 and 3 of Zhang et al.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng et al. (CN 106761056 A) in view of Pitsch et al. (DE 102008054398 A1). Leng et al. fails to disclose that the output pinion and the drive pawl are made of metal and that the evoloid pinions and the evoloid output wheels are at least partially designed as plastic gears. Pitsch et al. teaches the use of metal for mechanical components, such as pinions, and plastic material for gears (Paragraph 14 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the output pinion and the drive pawl are made of metal and that evoloid pinions and the evoloid output wheels are at least partially designed as plastic gears, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 March 11, 2026