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 2 May 2026, with respect to the objection(s) to claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) of 20 February 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim(s) 1 have been considered, and in response the same art is applied to the amended claims. Although the amendments further limit the claimed invention, the Examiner maintains that the cited prior art is reasonably interpreted as teaching each and every one of the recited limitations. See the updated rejection(s) below.
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) 1-2 and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiekert (DE-202007012253-U1).
With regards to claim 1, Kiekert discloses a motor vehicle door lock (1 Figure 1) comprising:
a locking mechanism (4 Figure 1) including a rotary latch (5 Figure 1) and at least one pawl (6 Figure 1), wherein the rotary latch is engaged in at least one latch position (the single position shown Figures 1-3) by the at least one pawl,
a reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2), wherein at least a shaft of the rotary latch and a shaft of the at least one pawl are connected by the reinforcing plate (as shown by Figures 1-2),
a lock holder (7 Figure 2), wherein the rotary latch engages around the lock holder at least in the latch position (as shown Figure 1), and
a locking pin (12 Figure 4),
wherein the lock holder is brought into an engaging position with the reinforcing plate (as shown Figure 2),
wherein the lock holder (7 Figure 2) includes a projection (distal end of 17 extending beyond locking pin 12, Figure 4) that extends longitudinally beyond the locking pin (to the right, Figure 2), and
wherein the reinforcement plate only extends under the longitudinally extending projection (the entirety of reinforcement plate 3 only extends under the projection of central piece 17, at least in the into/out of the page direction from the perspective of Figure 3).
With regards to claim 2, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2), in at least the latch position of the locking mechanism (4 Figures 1-3), is brought into an engaging position (as shown by Figure 2) between the rotary latch (5 Figure 1) and at least one of a projection (distal end of 17 extending beyond locking pin 12, Figure 4) and/or a central piece of the lock holder.
With regards to claim 4, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein a positive overlap between the lock holder (7 Figure 2) and the reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2) is achieved in at least the latch position of the locking mechanism (as shown Figures 2-3).
With regards to claim 5, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder (7 Figure 2) includes a projection (distal end of 17 extending beyond locking pin 12, Figure 4) in a direction (left/right, Figure 3) of a longitudinal extension of a central piece (17 Figure 4) of the lock holder.
With regards to claim 6, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder (7 Figure 2) includes a projection (distal end of 17 extending beyond locking pin 12, Figure 4) in a plane of a central piece (17 Figure 4) of the lock holder, wherein the projection extends in a direction (up/down, Figure 3) transverse to a center axis (extending left/right, Figure 3) of the central piece.
With regards to claim 7, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 6, wherein the projection (distal end of 17 extending beyond locking pin 12, Figure 4) extends in more than one direction (up/down and left/right, Figure 3) in a plane of the central piece (17 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 8, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2), at least on one side, is brought into an engaging position (as shown Figure 2) with the lock holder (7 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 9, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2) is a one-piece metallic stamped and bent part (Para. 0007).
With regards to claim 10, Kiekert discloses a method (Para. 0016) for locking a moveable component (15 Figure 1) attached to a motor vehicle (16 Figure 1) with a motor vehicle lock (1 Figure 1) according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
when the moveable component is closed and at least one latch position (Figures 1-3) of the motor vehicle lock is reached, moving the reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2) at least in certain regions into the engaging position with the lock holder (7 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 11, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder (7 Figure 4) includes a lock holder plate (8 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 12, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, wherein the lock holder (7 Figure 4) includes a lock holder bracket (9 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 13, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 12, further comprising a connecting web (8 Figure 4), wherein the lock holder bracket (9 Figure 4) is at least one of angled, S-shaped, and round-shaped in the region of the connecting web (the lock holder bracket 9 is rounded in the region of the connecting web 8, Figure 4).
With regards to claim 14, Kiekert discloses the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 1, further comprising a locking pin (12 Figure 4), wherein the reinforcing plate (3 Figure 2) engages positively around at least a portion of the locking pin (by means of the recess 11 as shown Figure 3).
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