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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160208522 to Reinert.
Regarding claim 1, Reinert discloses:
A motor vehicle lock (fig 1) comprising: an actuation lever chain (2, 27) comprising at least one latching lever (2) and an actuation lever (27), an electromagnet unit (3,7) configured to selectively hold and release the latching lever (see paragraph 0076), and a sensor (hall sensor not shown, see paragraph 0082) configured to check and detect existence and strength of a magnetic field generated by the electromagnet unit (hall sensors are configured to detect the strength of magnetic fields), wherein the actuation lever chain further comprises a coupling lever (4) that directly interacts with the latching lever (fig 2), and , wherein the coupling lever is rotatably mounted on the actuation lever (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 2, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is designed as a magnetic field sensor (Hall sensor).
Regarding claim 3, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is arranged in an interaction area of the latching lever with the electromagnet unit (paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 4, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured to detect the switching state of the electromagnet unit (paragraph 0082) and to measure the magnetic field and is thus capable of diagnosis to determine whether the magnetic field is sufficient to hold the latching lever in contact with the electromagnet unit (Hall sensors are capable of identifying the strength of a magnetic field, including a strength sufficient to hold the latching lever in contact with the electromagnetic unit).
Regarding claim 7, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 5, wherein the latching lever has a driving contour (22) directly acting on the coupling lever (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 8, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the latching lever and the actuation lever are elastically coupled to one another by a spring (spring seen behind 29 that has 2 vertical legs extending to the left as seen in fig 1 couples 27 to 2 via 23)
Regarding claim 9, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the coupling lever is engaged/disengaged in accordance with the electromagnet unit acting on the latching lever (3 drives 2 which rotates 4 based on the desired state, engaging/disengaging it from 6).
Regarding claim 10, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the latching lever is designed as a locking lever (2 is a locking lever, see 23).
Regarding claim 14, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuation lever chain further comprises a release lever (26) mounted coaxially to the actuation lever (fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1 wherein the latching lever is magnetizable in the interaction area with the electromagnet unit (via 5, see paragraph 0042, 5 is a magnet of 2)
Regarding claim 16, Reinert discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 5 wherein the actuation lever comprises an axis of rotation (axis shown above 25 in fig 1), wherein the coupling lever is configured to move about the axis of rotation (4 moves about the axis in the clockwise/anticlockwise direction).
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160208522 to Reinert in view of US 20210207411 to Cumbo.
Regarding claim 11, Reinert does not explicitly disclose:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 1 further comprising a control unit, wherein the electromagnet unit is controlled by the control unit.
However, Cumbo teaches that it is well known in the art for a control unit (110) to control an electromagnet unit (22). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cumbo into Reinert at least because doing so would provide additional utility by allowing remote access and control of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Reinert in view of Cumbo discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 11 wherein, the sensor is configured to transmit signals indicating the status of the electromagnet unit to the control unit (paragraph 0088, Cumbo).
Regarding claim 13, Reinert in view of Cumbo discloses:
The motor vehicle lock according to claim 11, wherein the control unit is configured to record signals from the sensor (110 is configured to record signals from the sensor in order to process them, paragraph 0088).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Reinert does not disclose the amended features of claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim mapping of the Applicant does not match the claim mapping provided in the rejection. While the functions of the instant application and the prior art may differ, only the claims recited are considered in the rejection, and not what is recited in the specs.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the spring of claim 8 is not disclosed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The spring indicated connects to 27 as seen by the dotted lines, and the left leg connects to 23 which connects to 2. Therefore, Rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights