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 10 April 2026, 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 Objections
Claim(s) 2 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein at least one of the locking bolt and the connecting bolt includes an increased cross sectional area in a contact region with the lock holder plate”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 17 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the material thickening forms [[a]] the contact surface for the catch.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 18 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the material thickening is [[a]] the collar that forms the contact surface.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabia (US-5316354-A) in view of Moury (US-6073980-A). All citations refer to the Arabia reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 1, Arabia discloses a lock holder (18 Figure 4) for a motor vehicle door lock (16 Figure 1), the lock holder comprising:
a lock holder plate (20 Figure 4),
a locking bolt (24 Figure 4),
a center piece (22 Figure 4), and
a connecting bolt (26 Figure 4),
wherein the locking bolt and the connecting bolt are separately formed (Figure 4, Col. 3 Lines 31-49),
wherein locking bolt includes an engagement region (region of constant diameter including the space occupied by catch 11, Figure 1) for a catch (11 Figure 2) of the motor vehicle door lock.
Arabia does not disclose wherein the locking bolt further includes a collar.
However, Moury discloses a similar lock holder (10 Figure 1) wherein the locking bolt (18 Figure 1) further includes a collar (38 Figure 3) arranged between the engagement region (40 Figure 3) and the center piece (28 Figure 1) to form a contact surface (left surface of 38, Figure 3) for a catch of the motor vehicle door lock (interpreted as a statement of intended use, Col. 2 Lines 30-43), and wherein the engagement region has a first thickness and the collar has a second thickness that is larger than the first thickness (as shown Figures 1 and 3). 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 Moury’s collar to Arabia’s lock holder, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a collar to increase the deformation resistance of the locking bolt.
With regards to claim 2, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) and the connecting bolt (26 Figure 4) includes an increased cross section (34 Figure 1) in a contact region with the lock holder plate (20 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 4, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the center piece (22 Figure 40) is flat (as shown Figures 1, 4) at least in a mounting region for the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) and/or the connecting bolt (26 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 5, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the center piece (22 Figure 40) is designed flat such that a cross-sectional area of the center piece as a whole has a rectangular cross-sectional shape (shown Figure 1).
With regards to claim 9, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the collar (38 Figure 3 – Moury) and the catch (11 Figure 2) includes a plastics coating in a contact region of the catch on the collar (specifically the catch, Col. 4 Lines 9-12).
With regards to claim 10, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) and the connecting bolt (26 Figure 4) is a rivet bolt (Figure 4, Col. 3 Lines 31-49).
With regards to claim 12, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the center piece (22 Figure 4) and the lock holder plate (20 Figure 4) includes at least one rivet hole (32, 38 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 13, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) is cylindrical.
With regards to claim 14, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) and the connecting bolt (26 Figure 4) is configured to be connected to at least one of the center piece (22 Figure 4) and the lock holder plate (20 Figure 4) via cold forming (Col. 3 Lines 31-49).
With regards to claim 15, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) and the connecting bolt (26 Figure 4) are symmetrical.
With regards to claim 16, Arabia in view of Moury teaches a motor vehicle lock (16 Figure 1) comprising:
the lock holder (18 Figure 4) according to claim 1, and a catch (11 Figure 2), wherein the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) has a material thickening (formed by collar 38, Figure 3 – Moury) in a mounting region for the center piece (22 Figure 4).
With regards to claim 17, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 16, wherein the material thickening forms a contact surface (left surface of 38, Figure 3 – Moury) for the catch (11 Figure 2, shown in cross-section but unlabeled in Figure 1).
With regards to claim 18, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 17, wherein the material thickening is a collar (38 Figure 3 – Moury) that forms the contact surface (left surface of 38, Figure 3 – Moury).
With regards to claim 19, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 18, wherein at least one of the collar (of locking bolt 24, Figure 1) and the catch (11 Figure 2) includes a plastics coating in a contact region of the catch on the collar (specifically the catch, Col. 4 Lines 9-12).
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabia in view of Moury in further view of Burton (US-20060055179-A1). All citations refer to the Arabia reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 3, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 2.
Arabia in view of Moury does not teach wherein at least one of the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) and the connecting bolt (22 Figure 4) includes a cross-sectional area continuously increasing towards the contact region (with lock holder plate 20, Figure 4).
However, Burton discloses a high strength vehicle striker (40 Figure 7) wherein the locking bolt (50 Figure 7) and the connecting bolt (52 Figure 7) includes a cross-sectional area continuously increasing (56 Figure 7) towards the contact region with the lock holder plate (42 Figure 7). 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 Burton’s cross-sectional area continuously increasing towards the contact region with the lock holder plate to at least one of Arabia’s locking bolt and connecting bolt, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a feature to improve the strength of the lock holder.
With regards to claim 11, Arabia in view of Moury teaches the lock holder according to claim 10, wherein the rivet bolt includes a rivet head (Figure 4, Col. 3 Lines 31-49).
Arabia does not disclose that the rivet head has a bevel.
However, Burton discloses a high strength vehicle striker (40 Figure 7) wherein the locking bolt (44 Figure 12a) is a rivet bolt having a rivet head (end of bolt 44, Figure 12a) with a bevel (56 Figure 12a). 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 a bevel to Arabia’s rivet head, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add a bevel to improve the strength of the lock holder.
With regards to claim 20, Arabia in view of Moury in further view of Burton teaches the lock holder according to claim 3, wherein the cross-sectional area of the locking bolt (24 Figure 4) continuously increases (as taught by Burton, 56 Figure 7) from the engagement region (region of constant diameter including the space occupied by catch 11, Figure 1) toward the contact region (between the bolts and lock holder plate, Figure 4).
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