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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 7-10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160208522 to Reinert in view of US 20020084657 to Spurr.
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).
Reinert does not explicitly disclose: and wherein the coupling lever rotates about a first axis and the actuation lever rotates about a second axis, wherein the first axis and the second axis are parallel.
However, Spurr teaches that it is well known in the art for a coupling lever (26) to rotate about a first axis (fig 4, top end of 26), and an actuation lever (28) to rotate about a second axis (axis near the right end of 28), wherein the first axis and the second axis are parallel (fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coupling lever and the actuation lever as taught by Spurr into the assembly of Reinert at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a coupling lever and an actuation lever. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 2, Reinert in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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)
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 20020084657 to Spurr, and in further view of US 20210207411 to Cumbo.
Regarding claim 11, Reinert in view of Spurr 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 in view of Spurr 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 Spurr and 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 Spurr and 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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