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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification and the claims use inconsistent terminology; the meaning of every term used in the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import. MPEP 608.01(o). The terminology should be consistent between the specification and the claims to avoid confusion as to what subject matter is disclosed and being claimed, in particular it is not clear to what the term “connection region” recited in claim 7 refers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 requires “the central piece … to create an engagement region for the catch in the locking pin.” It is unclear how the central piece is configured to create an engagement region “in” in the locking pin. The drawings do not depict an engagement region in the locking pin for the catch. The disclosure does not clearly describe what portion of the device is being referred to as an engagement region so it remains unclear what Applicant intends to require. For purposes of examination, the engagement region is being interpreted as the area formed by the lock holder bracket to accommodate the catch while it is engaged with the locking pin.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Digel et al., EP 2128360 A1 (refer to translation submitted with IDS on 7 Jan. 2025).
Claim 1: Digel discloses a lock holder for a motor vehicle door lock, comprising:
a lock holder plate (11) and a lock holder bracket (12),
wherein the lock holder bracket is secured to the lock holder plate (¶ 0049),
wherein the lock holder bracket includes a locking pin (14), a central piece (15), and a connecting pin (13), and
wherein the lock holder bracket is designed in at least two parts (¶ 0009).
Claim 2: Digel further discloses the locking pin is designed as a separate component (Fig. 4; ¶ 0047).
Claim 3: Digel further discloses the at least two parts of the lock holder bracket comprises a first part including the locking pin (14; ¶ 0009) and a second part including the central piece and the connecting pin (13, 15; ¶¶ 0009, 0045).
Claim 4: Digel further discloses the locking pin has a cylindrical shape (Figs. 2-3 depict a cylindrical shape) and the locking pin is designed as a lock holder pin that engages with a locking mechanism of a motor vehicle door lock (¶ 0058; the locking pin is structured to engage a rotary lock).
Claim 5: Digel further discloses the central piece has a flattened region (17), and wherein in the flattened region is connected to the locking pin (¶¶ 0046-47).
Claim 6: Digel further discloses the lock holder bracket has at least one material thickening (shown in Fig. 4, rivet head 25 is a material thickening).
Claim 9: Digel further discloses the central piece and the connecting pin are formed in one piece from a wire (¶ 0045).
Claim 13: Digel further discloses wherein the locking pin is secured to the lock holder plate at a right angle in a direction normal to the lock holder plate (Figs. 3-4).
Claims 1, 6-7, and 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slattery, US 3,680,902 A.
Claim 1: Slattery discloses a lock holder for a motor vehicle door lock, comprising:
a lock holder plate (30) and a lock holder bracket (31 and 20 form a lock holder bracket),
wherein the lock holder bracket is secured to the lock holder plate (col. 2 ln. 5-7),
wherein the lock holder bracket includes a locking pin (20), a central piece (46), and a connecting pin (45), and
wherein the lock holder bracket is designed in at least two parts (col. 2 ln. 5-7; Fig. 5).
Claim 6: Slattery further discloses the lock holder bracket has at least one material thickening (shown in Fig. 2, head 40 is a material thickening).
Claim 7: Slattery discloses the lock holder bracket of claim 6, wherein the locking pin has a respective one of the at least one material thickening in a respective connection region to the central piece (shown in Fig. 4).
Claim 10: Slattery discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the central piece and the connecting pin have a different geometric cross-sectional shape (depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Claim 11: Slattery discloses the lock holder according to claim 1, wherein the locking pin is permanently connected to the lock holder plate on a first side (col. 2 ln. 28-31 (a “rivet” is a permanent fastener)) and permanently connected to the central piece on an opposite side relative to the first side (col. 2 ln. 52-58 (the head of the pin is connected to the central piece and cannot be removed due to the rivet, so the pin is permanently connected)).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fannon et al., US 2008/0100070 A1.
Claim 1: Fannon discloses a lock holder for a motor vehicle door lock, comprising:
a lock holder plate (24) and a lock holder bracket (70, 26 and 28 form a lock holder bracket),
wherein the lock holder bracket is secured to the lock holder plate (col. 2 ln. 51-62),
wherein the lock holder bracket includes a locking pin (70), a central piece (26), and a connecting pin (22), and
wherein the lock holder bracket is designed in at least two parts (Fig. 4; col. 2 ln. 51-62).
Claim 12: Fannon further discloses the lock holder plate includes a conical countersink (34) and a bevel for accommodating the lock holder bracket (depicted in Figs. 2-3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digel et al., EP 2128360 A1 (refer to translation submitted with IDS on 7 Jan. 2025), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sawajiri et al., US 2002/0089195 A1.
Claim 8: Digel discloses the lock holder according to claim 6, but is silent to wherein a respective one of the at least one material thickening forms a contact surface for a catch of the motor vehicle door lock.
Sawajiri teaches a lock holder bracket (12) with at least one material thickening (20, 21, 22, 23), wherein a respective one of the at least one material thickening (22) forms a contact surface for a catch (18) of the motor vehicle lock ([0013]; part 15 has a material thickening 22 structured to contact a catch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock holder bracket disclosed by Digel to include additional material thickenings wherein a respective one of the at least one material thickening forms a contact surface for a catch, as taught by Sawajiri, in order to provide a stronger lock holder bracket that is easily manufactured (Sawajiri [0004], [0016]) and without increasing the size of the device (Sawajiri [0021]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digel et al., EP 2128360 A1 (refer to translation submitted with IDS on 7 Jan. 2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawajiri et al., US 2002/0089195 A1.
Claim 14: Digel discloses a motor vehicle door lock (¶ 0003) comprising:
the lock holder according to claim 1 (shown above); and
a catch (¶ 0003 (“rotary latch”); ¶ 0058).
Digel does not explicitly disclose the catch comprises an inlet mouth and the inlet mouth includes a catch arm and a load arm, however the structure of a catch is well known in the art. Sawajiri teaches a motor vehicle door comprising a lock holder (10) and a catch (18), wherein the catch comprises an inlet mouth (19), wherein the inlet mouth includes a catch arm and a load arm (Fig. 4 depicts a catch arm and a load arm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a catch comprising an inlet mouth, wherein the inlet mouth includes a catch arm and a load arm, as taught by Sawajiri, with the motor vehicle door disclosed by Digel, in order to practice the device taught by Digel (see Digel ¶ 0058).
Claim 15: Digel, as modified by Sawajiri, teaches the motor vehicle door lock according to claim 14, but is silent to the lock bracket having at least one material thickening, that forms a contact surface for the catch.
Sawajiri teaches motor vehicle door lock comprising a lock holder bracket (12) with at least one material thickening (20, 21, 22, 23), wherein a respective one of the at least one material thickening (22) forms a contact surface for a catch (18) of the motor vehicle lock ([0013]; part 15 has a material thickening 22 structured to contact a catch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock holder bracket disclosed by Digel, in view of Sawajiri, to include at least one material thickening wherein a respective one of the at least one material thickening forms a contact surface for a catch, as taught by Sawajiri, in order to provide a stronger lock holder bracket that is easily manufactured (Sawajiri [0004], [0016]) and without increasing the size of the device (Sawajiri [0021]).
Claim 16: Digel, in view of Sawajiri, further wherein the central piece extends parallel to the lock holder plate to create an engagement region for the catch in the locking pin (Digel Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burton (US 2006/0055179 A1) is related to a lock holder comprising a lock holder plate and a lock holder bracket, the lock holder bracket having two portions with different geometric cross-sectional shapes and at least one material thickening.
Johnson et al. (US 7140652 B2) is related to a lock holder comprising a lock holder plate with a conical countersink for proper alignment while tightening a fastener.
Chung (KR 10-2006-0054612 A) is related to a lock holder comprising a lock holder bracket with a locking pin, a central piece, and a connecting pin, wherein the lock holder bracket includes at least one material thickening and the central piece extends parallel to a lock holder plate.
Ottino (EP 0894918 A1) is related to a lock holder bracket designed in at least two parts and a lock holder plate comprising conical countersinks, a central piece extending to create an engagement region for a catch with the locking pin.
Zimmermann (WO 2015/172759 A1) is related to a lock holder bracket comprising at least one material thickening to improve mechanical strength.
Arabia, Jr. et al. (US 5,316,354 A) is related to a motor vehicle door lock comprising a catch that has an inlet mouth with a catch arm and a load arm, a lock holder plate, and a lock holder bracket comprising a locking pin, a flattened central piece, and a connecting pin, and having at least one material thickening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights