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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 “the lock housing: should be “the associated lock housing”.
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 1-15 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 at least one the functional unit is interchangeably accommodated in an associated lock housing” is unclear. It’s unclear what the functional unit is interchanged with and thus it’s unclear what the claim is intended to require. For the purposes of examination, so long as the at least one the functional unit is capable of being swapped for something (including an identical functional unit) the limitation is assumed to be met.
In regards to claim 8, “the lever chain housing is detachably accommodated in the lock housing as an interchangeable insert “ is unclear. It’s unclear what the functional unit is interchanged with and thus it’s unclear what the claim is intended to require. For the purposes of examination, so long as the lever chain housing is capable of being swapped for something (including an identical functional unit) the limitation is assumed to be met.
In regards to claim 9, “the method comprising the steps of: interchangeably accommodating respective one of the at least one functional unit in an associated lock housing” is unclear. It’s unclear what the functional unit is interchanged with and thus it’s unclear what the claim is intended to require. For the purposes of examination, so long as the at least one the functional unit is capable of being swapped for something (including an identical functional unit) the limitation is assumed to be met.
Claims 2-7 and 10-15 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okawa US 20230279702 A1 (hereinafter Okawa).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Okawa teaches a motor vehicle comprising: a locking mechanism comprising a rotary latch (33) and a pawl (34), an actuating lever chain (at least 35, 36, 37 and/or 56) for the locking mechanism, and at least one functional unit (54-55) driven by an electric motor (54; see fig 16), wherein a respective one of the at least one the functional unit is interchangeably accommodated in an associated lock housing comprising a lock case (52) and a cover (53), wherein the at least one functional unit is designed as an opening drive (see para 67) and/or an active mass inertia element.
In regards to claim 2, Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuating lever chain is designed as an external actuating lever chain (para 69).
In regards to claim 3, Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 2, the external actuating lever chain is designed to be modular (as it is “consisting of separate parts that, when combined, form a complete whole” – Cambridge Dictionary) and is accommodated in the lock housing (see fig 2).
In regards to claim 15, Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuating lever chain comprises a release lever (35 at least as it releases 34, see para 65), a control lever (37 at least as it controls 33), an internal actuating lever (56, at least as it is within the housing), and a coupling lever (36, at least as it couples 34 and portion attached to 36d).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. US 20150035300 A1 (hereinafter Taylor).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Taylor teaches the method for manufacturing a motor vehicle lock wherein the motor vehicle lock has a locking mechanism comprising a rotary latch (described in para 33) and a pawl (catch; see para 33), an actuating lever chain for the locking mechanism (described in para 33), and at least one functional unit (2) driven by an electric motor (2a), the method comprising the steps of: interchangeably (see paras 12-14) accommodating a respective one of the at least one functional unit (2) in an associated lock housing (1), wherein the at least one functional unit is designed as an opening drive (para 13) and/or active mass inertia element.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Mittelbach US 20150233155 A1 (hereinafter Mittelbach).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Taylor teaches a motor vehicle lock comprising: a locking mechanism a rotary latch (described in para 33) and a pawl (catch; see para 33), an actuating lever chain (described in para 33 and including the coupling lever 7) for the locking mechanism, and at least one functional unit (2) driven by an electric motor (2a), wherein a respective one of the at least one the functional unit is interchangeably accommodated in an associated lock housing (1; paras 12-14; 2 is a separate item attached to the housing that is capable of being removed and replaced), wherein the at least one functional unit is designed as an opening drive (para 13) and/or an active mass inertia element.
However, Taylor is silent on the associated lock housing comprising a lock case and a cover. This is common in the art.
Mittelbach teaches a similar device with a lock case (11) and a cover (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Taylor’s associated lock housing with a lock case and a cover such as in Mittelbach, to provide a well-known and conventional way of protecting against dirt and humidity (see Mittelbach para 19).
In regards to claim 2, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuating lever chain is designed as an external actuating lever chain (Taylor: see para 33).
In regards to claim 3, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 2, wherein the external actuating lever chain is designed to be modular (as it is “consisting of separate parts that, when combined, form a complete whole” – Cambridge Dictionary) and is accommodated in the lock housing (Taylor: see fig 1 and para 33).
In regards to claim 5, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the respective one of the at least one functional unit is equipped with a functional unit housing (Taylor: 8 and 9), wherein the functional housing is detachably accommodated in the associated lock housing as an interchangeable insert (Taylor: see paras 12-14 and figs 1-2).
In regards to claim 7, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 5, wherein the functional unit housing is detachably accommodated in the lock housing (see fig 2 and para 35).
In regards to claim 11, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuating lever chain is designed as an internal actuating lever chain (Taylor: see para 33).
In regards to claim 13, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 5, wherein the functional housing is designed as a plastic injection-molded part (Taylor: para 35).
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Mittelbach as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Dimig et al. US 20040154364 A1 (hereinafter Dimig).
In regards to claim 4, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the associated lock housing is equipped with bearing points, and receptacles (see fig 1).
However, Taylor is silent on the associated lock housing is equipped with stops. Stops are well known in the art.
Dimig teaches a lock housing equipped with stops (see fig 25 and para 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have equipped Talor’s associated lock housing with stops in order to achieve the conventional and well-known method of preventing parts from moving out of their desired positions.
In regards to claim 6, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 5, wherein the functional unit housing is equipped with bearing points (5 and 15), and receptacles (see fig. 3) for the respective one of the at least one functional unit accommodated therein (see fig. 3).
However, Taylor is silent on the functional unit housing is equipped with stops. Stops are well known in the art.
Dimig teaches a housing equipped with stops (see fig 25 and para 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have equipped Taylor’s associated lock housing with stops in order to achieve the conventional and well-known method of preventing parts from moving out of their desired positions.
In regards to claim 12, Taylor in view of Mittelbach teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the actuating lever chain is designed as a combined internal/external actuating lever chain.
Dimig teaches a similar device where the lever chain is a combined internal/external actuating lever chain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Talor’s lever chain be a combined internal/external actuating lever chain in order to provide the well-known and conventional functionality of releasing the pawl the door from both an interior and exterior handle (see Dimig para 88).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dimig.
In regards to claim 10, Taylor teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein during manufacture the associated lock housing is provided with bearing points and receptacles (see fig 1).
However, Taylor is silent on if the associated lock housing is equipped with stops , bearing points by a plastic injection molding process. This is common in the art.
Dimig teaches a lock housing equipped with stops (para 114), bearing points (para 118) a plastic injection molding process (para 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the associated lock housing is equipped with stops , bearing points, and the receptacles by a plastic injection molding process in order to provide a well known and conventional manufacture of the associated lock housing (see Dimig para 108) and to prevent parts from rotating to undesirable positions.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa as applied to claims 1-3 and 15 above, and further in view of Dimig.
In regards to claim 8, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 3, wherein the external actuating lever chain is equipped with a lever chain housing (at least in part; 31), wherein the lever chain housing is detachably accommodated in the lock housing as an interchangeable insert (see fig 2) and, the lever chain housing equipped with, bearing points, and receptacles for the external actuating lever chain accommodated in the lever chain housing (see fig 4).
However, Okawa is silent on if the lever chain housing is equipped with stops. This is common in the art.
Dimig teaches a lock housing equipped with stops (para 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have equipped Okawa’s lever chain housing with stops in order to achieve the conventional and well-known method of preventing parts from moving out of position.
In regards to claim 14, Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8.
However, Okawa is silent on wherein the lever chain housing is designed as a plastic injection-molded part.
Dimig teaches plastic injection molding (see para 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the lever chain housing is designed as a plastic injection-molded part in order to provide for a well known and conventional manufacturing of the lever chain housing (see Dimig).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
