Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 22, 2026
Application No. 18/873,513

MOTOR VEHICLE LOCK HAVING AN ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 19, 2024
Priority
Jun 14, 2022 — DE 10 2022 114 890.4 +1 more
Examiner
WILLIAMS, MARK A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Audi AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
940 granted / 1206 resolved
+17.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1223
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1206 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-15 in the reply filed on 9-18-26 is acknowledged. These claims have been withdrawn from further consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015044323 A1 (WO ‘323 A1). As in claim 1, a motor vehicle lock comprising: an electronic control device, wherein the electronic control device has a circuit board (including 34) with electronic components connected to the circuit board and arranged on the circuit board in a first plane (see figure 4), and an energy store (including 40) connected to the circuit board, and the energy store is arranged in a second plane, offset from the first plane, and at least partially above the electronic components. As in claim 2, the energy store and the electronic components are arranged at least partially congruently one above the other in the first plane and the second plane. As in claim 4, a housing and a housing cover arranged the housing, wherein the circuit board with the electronic components and the energy store are arranged within the housing, and the energy store is fixed in place by the housing and/or by the housing cover. As om claim 5, the housing and/or the housing cover comprises plastic and/or metal. As in claim 6, the housing and/or the housing cover has a recess into which the energy store is inserted and the energy store is fixed in place by closing the housing cover. As in claim 17, the first plane and the second plane are parallel to each other. As in claim 18, the housing forms the first plane and the housing cover forms the second plane. 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. Claims 3, 7-11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015044323 A1 (WO ‘323 A1). Regarding each of these claims, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday. 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. /MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768204
PORTABLE ELECTRONIC LOCK
2y 7m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12760559
CONTROL METHOD FOR LOCKING AND UNLOCKING LOCKS
2y 7m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12760564
METHOD FOR ENABLING UNLOCKING OF A VEHICLE DOOR OF A VEHICLE
2y 3m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12751523
QUICK-DISASSEMBLY DEVICE AND ASSEMBLING METHOD THEREOF
2y 2m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12753637
EXIT DEVICE PUSH FORCE REDUCER
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 0m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1206 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month