Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/873,938

MOTOR VEHICLE LOCK

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 11, 2024
Examiner
WILLIAMS, MARK A
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Brose Schliesssysteme GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
912 granted / 1175 resolved
+25.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1199
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1175 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2009/112016A1 (WO ‘016). As in claim 1, a motor vehicle lock comprising a catch 3 and a pawl 1, wherein the catch can be brought from an open position into at least one closed position for holding the closure element in holding engagement with a closing element (door/striker), wherein the pawl can be brought into a blocking state, in which it holds the catch in the closed position, into a release state, in which it releases the catch, and into a contact state, in which the pawl is in contact with the catch in the open position and can be brought into its blocking state in order to allow the catch to be held in the closed position, wherein the motor vehicle lock comprises an opening device comprising an electrical opening drive for establishing the release state by motor, wherein the motor vehicle lock comprises a lock controller (including 9) for controlling the opening drive (all as conventional), wherein the lock controller is coupled or can be coupled with a sensor 6 on the vehicle, on the closure element or on the lock, in that the lock controller is configured to detect, by the sensor, whether the closure element is mounted on the motor vehicle or has been dismounted from the motor vehicle, and wherein the lock controller, on detecting the dismounted state of the closure element, transfers the motor vehicle lock into an open mode, which is accompanied by the pawl being brought into its release state and in particular then being held in that state. As in claim 2, the motor vehicle lock comprises a motor vehicle lock energy source that is electrically connected to the lock controller, or wherein the lock controller is electrically connected to a motor vehicle lock energy source formed separately from the motor vehicle lock. As in claim 12, a closing part with which the catch of the motor vehicle lock can be brought into holding engagement. As in claim 13, a closure element and, associated with the closure element, a motor vehicle lock assembly. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 3-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2009/112016A1 (WO ‘016). Regarding 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 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597306
ELECTRIC LOCK AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595695
ADHESIVE DOOR STOPPER INSTALLATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590472
SECURITY SYSTEM AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579910
VARIABLE PATTERN SHIELD PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR A TAMPER-EVIDENT CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560008
LOCKING APPARATUSES AND A METHOD OF PROVIDING ACCESS CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1175 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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