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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1 April 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 7-8 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 20 February 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of 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.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetnar (US-5529356-A) in view of Nakamura (US-5209532-A) in further view of Waldmann (EP-2031158-A2). All citations refer to the Cetnar reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 1, Cetnar discloses a lock holder (40 Figure 1) for a motor vehicle door lock (18 Figure 1), comprising:
a lock holder plate (50 Figure 1) and a lock holder bracket (58 Figure 1) which is secured to the lock holder plate,
wherein the lock holder bracket comprises a locking pin (66 Figure 1), a central piece (70 Figure 1), and a connecting pin (74 Figure 1),
wherein the lock holder is designed in at least two parts (50, 58 Figure 1), and
wherein the lock holder bracket defines an opening (as shown Figures 1-2) for receiving a load arm (46 Figure 2) of a catch (42 Figure 2).
Cetnar does not disclose wherein the central piece is equipped with a projection in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the central piece (left/right, Figure 1).
However, Nakamura discloses a lock holder (10 Figure 5) for a motor vehicle door lock (24 Figure 5) comprising a locking pin (18 Figure 5), a central piece (22 Figure 5), and a connecting pin (14 Figure 5), wherein the central piece is equipped with a projection (22a Figure 5) in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the central piece (left/right, Figure 5), wherein the projection and the central piece are arranged on a common plane to form a flat contact surface for a catch (30 Figure 5)(Col. 3 Lines 23-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equip the central piece with a projection in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the central piece, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a projection to form a flat contact surface for a catch so that the strength of the door lock device against the load is increased, without increasing the thickness and width of the catch (Col. 3 Lines 37-44 – Nakamura).
Cetnar does not disclose wherein the central piece includes an indentation extending along the central piece above the opening.
However, Waldmann discloses a lock holder (2 Figure 1) for a motor vehicle door lock comprising a locking pin (5 Figure 1), a central piece (6 Figure 1) and a connecting pin (7 Figure 1), wherein the central piece includes an indentation (14 Figure 1) extending along the central piece above the opening (as shown Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Waldmann’s indentation to the central piece of Cetnar, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such an indentation in order to reduce the amount of material required to achieve a high-strength cross-sectional profile of the central piece.
With regards to claim 2, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder bracket (58 Figure 1) is non-detachably secured (by mean rivet heads 64 of projections 62, Figure 1) to the lock holder plate (50 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 3, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder bracket (58 Figure 1) comprises a mounting web (60 Figure 1) arranged parallel to the central piece (as shown Figure 1).
With regards to claim 4, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 3, wherein the mounting web (60 Figure 1) comprises a flat contact surface (as shown Figures 1, 4) corresponding to the lock holder plate (50 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 5, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 3, wherein the mounting web (60 Figure 1) comprises at least one mounting element (62 Figure 1) integrally formed on the mounting web.
With regards to claim 6, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) forms a contact surface (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura) for a catch (42 Figure 1) of the motor vehicle door lock (18 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 7, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 6, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) and the central piece (70 Figure 1) are arranged on a common plane (Figure 5 – Nakamura / Figure 4 – Cetnar) to form the contact surface (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura) for the catch (42 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 8, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 6, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) and the central piece (70 Figure 1) form the contact surface (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura) for the catch (42 Figure 1), and wherein the contact surface is flat (Figure 5 – Nakamura / Figure 4 – Cetnar).
With regards to claim 9, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder bracket (58 Figure 1) is designed as one piece.
With regards to claim 10, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the locking pin (66 Figure 1) has a cylindrical cross-sectional shape (as shown Figure 2), and the central piece (70 Figure 1), the connecting pin (74 Figure 1) and a mounting web (60 Figure 1) have a square cross-sectional shape (as shown Figures 2, 4).
With regards to claim 11, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 3, wherein the mounting web (60 Figure 1) extends along the lock holder plate (50 Figure 1) and abuts the lock holder plate.
With regards to claim 12, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 3, wherein the lock holder bracket (58 Figure 1) is connected to the lock holder plate (50 Figure 1) using the mounting web.
With regards to claim 13, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) is configured to extend from the central piece (70 Figure 1) beyond the locking pin (66 Figure 1) to engage with a catch arm of the catch (42 Figure 1) (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura).
With regards to claim 14, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) has a cross-sectional shape corresponding to the central piece (70 Figure 1) (as taught by Figure 5 – Nakamura).
With regards to claim 15, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches a motor vehicle lock (18 Figure 1) comprising:
the lock holder (40 Figure 1) according to claim 1, and a catch (42 Figure 1), wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) forms a contact surface for the catch (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura).
With regards to claim 16, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 15, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) and the central piece (70 Figure 1) are arranged on a common plane (Figure 5 – Nakamura / Figure 4 – Cetnar) in relation to the contact surface of the catch (42 Figure 1) to form a common contact surface for the catch (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura).
With regards to claim 17, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 15, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) and the central piece (70 Figure 1) form a flat contact surface (Figure 5 – Nakamura / Figure 4 – Cetnar) as the contact surface (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura) for the catch (42 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 18, Cetnar in view of Nakamura in further view of Waldmann teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 15, wherein the projection (22a Figure 5 – Nakamura) is configured to extend from the central piece (70 Figure 1) beyond the locking pin (66 Figure 1) to engage with a catch arm of the catch (42 Figure 1) (Col. Lines 23-36 – Nakamura).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Kristina Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights