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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 9 limitations “wherein the sheet metal strip has a width in a connection region with the locking pin that is wider than a width of an inlet region of a catch of the motor vehicle door lock” and claim 12 limitations “wherein the width of the inlet region of the catch is the region of the catch that extends around the locking pin when the catch is in a load position” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, line 2, “a contact regions” is recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “as contact regions” as discussed instant specification [0032].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The preamble of claim 1 recites “a lock striker for a motor vehicle door lock” with the “for a motor vehicle door lock” recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claims 9 and 12 contain positive recitations of door lock structure. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the “lock striker” or the “lock striker” in combination with the “motor vehicle door lock”. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claims must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant' s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
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 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, line 4, “the recess” is recited. . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 first recites “a recess” but claim 5 does not pend from claim 4. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a recess”.
Regarding claims 6, 11, 14, and 15, they are rejected because they pend from claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, the scope of the claim is unclear because it is understood in claim 1 preamble, “a motor vehicle door lock” is the intended use of the “a lock striker”. However, in claim 9, specific catch structure is required in order to meet the limitations of the lock striker.
Regarding claim 12, , the scope of the claim is unclear because it is understood in claim 1 preamble, “a motor vehicle door lock” is the intended use of the “a lock striker”. However, in claim 9, specific catch structure is required in order to meet the limitations of the lock striker. Claim 12 is also rejected because it pends from claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, line 2, “corresponding recesses” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this multiple limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites a singular “the recess” but there is an antecedent basis issue for that limitation. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “inserted into the recess of the lock striker plate”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paskonis, US 6883842 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Paskonis teaches a lock striker (striker 200) for a motor vehicle door lock (col 1, lines 10-42 discusses the background of the invention being the use on motor vehicles; in re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; Paskonis teaches all the structural limitations of the claim) having comprising:
a lock striker plate(base 202) and a lock striker bracket (locking arm 206),
wherein the lock striker bracket is which is secured to the lock striker plate (Fig 7 depicts 206 secured to 202), wherein the lock striker bracket comprises a locking pin (striker bar 204), a central piece (bridge 208) and a connecting region (trunk 212),
wherein the lock striker bracket is designed in at least two parts (Fig 7 depicts 206 designed with at least two constituent apparatus members (e.g. 208 and 212) thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1g of part and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and
wherein the central piece and the connecting region are made of a sheet metal strip (Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonis depicts 208 and 212 made of metal per MPEP 608.02 IX formed in a broad stretch thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3 of sheet and the broadest reasonable interpretation of sheet metal strip; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), the court held the selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the selection of a known material, such as metal stamped into a sheet as discussed in the Background of the Invention, col 1, lines 10-43; would be suitable for the intended use of an automotive striker).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonis
Regarding claim 2, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonis) is non-detachably connected to the lock striker plate (202; Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonis depicts the sheet metal plate to be non-detachably connected to 202).
Regarding claim 7, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonis) is bent at least in some regions (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts the sheet metal strip bent in at least in some regions).
Regarding claim 13 Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the locking pin (204) of the lock striker bracket (206) is cylindrical (Figs 6;7;8;9 depict 204 to be cylindrical).
Regarding claim 16, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the lock striker plate (202) has an elevated region (Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonis depicts the elevated region to be elevated from the bottom of opening 2021) from which the locking pin and connecting region extend (Annotated excerpt Fig 7-Paskonisn depicts 204 and 212 extending from the elevated region).
Regarding claim 17, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the locking pin (204) includes material thickenings (see Annotated excerpt Fig 8-Paskonis) that serve as contact regions (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection claim 17) wherein the locking pin bears against the lock striker plate (202) and the central piece (208; Annotated excerpt Fig 8-Paskonis depicts the thickenings serving as contact regions where 204 bears against 202 and 208).
PNG
media_image2.png
382
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 8-Paskonis
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paskonis, US 6883842 B2 (Note: a different embodiment 300 is used in these rejections).
Regarding claim 1, Paskonis teaches a lock striker (striker 300) for a motor vehicle door lock (col 1, lines 10-42 discusses the background of the invention being the use on motor vehicles; in re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; Paskonis teaches all the structural limitations of the claim) having comprising:
a lock striker plate(base 302) and a lock striker bracket (locking arm 306),
wherein the lock striker bracket is which is secured to the lock striker plate (Fig 10 depicts 203 secured to 302), wherein the lock striker bracket comprises a locking pin (striker bar 304), a central piece (bridge 308) and a connecting region (trunk 312),
wherein the lock striker bracket is designed in at least two parts (Fig 10 depicts 306 designed with at least two constituent apparatus members (e.g. 308 and 312) thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1g of part and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and
wherein the central piece and the connecting region are made of a sheet metal strip (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts 308 and 312 made of metal per MPEP 608.02 IX formed in a broad stretch thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3 of sheet and the broadest reasonable interpretation of sheet metal strip; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), the court held the selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the selection of a known material, such as metal stamped into a sheet as discussed in the Background of the Invention, col 1, lines 10-43; would be suitable for the intended use of an automotive striker).
PNG
media_image3.png
461
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis
Regarding claim 4, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) is inserted into a recess (recess 3023) of the lock striker plate (302).
Regarding claim 5, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) has at least one extension (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis), wherein a respective one of the at least one extension is inserted into a recess (3023; see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 5) of the lock striker plate (302; Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts at least one extension is inserted into 3023).
Regarding claim 6, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 5, wherein the at least one extension (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) is designed with insertion aids (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts the extension designed with an beveled edges which constitutes insertion aids).
Regarding claim 8, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) is at least partially conical in the region of the central piece (308; Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts 308 to have a symmetrical taper in a similar manner to the instant invention and instant specification [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the lock striker plate (302) has a depression, wherein a deformation of the locking pin (304) and the sheet metal strip (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) can is accommodated in the depression (n re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; the depression for mounting 304 and the sheet metal strip is discussed in instant specification [0026] with the depression accommodating the engaging portions of 304 and the sheet metal strip which is necessary for apparatus assembly, therefore routine and conventional, therefore the depression is not significant and Paskonis or one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a depression in the lock striker base to accommodate the sheet metal strip and locking pin; a lock striker base with depression is further taught by Arabia et al., US 5316354 A; and Burton, EP 1582661 A2).
Regarding claim 11, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 5, further comprising a contact region (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts the contact region to be the edges of recess 3023) between the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) and the lock striker plate (302), wherein the contact region forms an abutment for forming the at least one extension (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts edges of 3023 forming an abutment with sheet metal extensions abutting 302).
Regarding claim 14 Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 5, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) has two extensions (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) that are inserted into the recess (3023) of the lock striker plate (see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 14; Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts two extensions inserted into 3023).
Regarding claim 15, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 6, wherein the insertion aids (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) are chamfers (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis depicts the insertion aids to be beveled edges thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of chamfer).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paskonis, US 6883842 B2 (embodiment 300), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haake et al., US 9205500 B2 (hereinafter Haake).
Regarding claim 3, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1, wherein the sheet metal strip (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Paskonis) is connected to the lock striker plate (302) by a punch (3121).
Paskonis does not teach riveting.
Hakke teaches it is known in the lock art for mechanical connections such as crimp connection (e.g. the punch connection of Paskonis), a rivet connection, a screw connection, or a clip method to be equivalent securing means (col 2, lines 26-31).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Paskonis’ apparatus with the rivet mechanical connection taught by Haake. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to connect mechanical members. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to connect mechanical members (e.g. crimp connection, rivet connection, screw connection, using clips). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose a different mechanical connection in order to utilize established mechanical connection processes already in use by their manufacturing or suppliers. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Haake et al, US 9205500 B2, and redesigned Paskonis with Hakke with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of mechanical connection.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paskonis, US 6883842 B2 (embodiment 300), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Slembrouck et al., US 5707092 A (hereinafter Van Slembrouck).
Regarding claim 9, Paskonis teaches the lock striker according to claim 1.
Paskonis is silent on wherein the sheet metal strip has a width in a connection region with the locking pin that is wider than a width of an inlet region of a catch of the motor vehicle door lock.
Van Slembrouck teaches it is known in the art motor vehicle door lock strikers comprising a sheet metal strip (crossbar 38) with locking pin (leg 42) mounted to a striker base (base 50; Note: Van Slembrouck teaches multiple embodiments, reference characters and figures from other embodiments may be used for illustrative purposes if the same feature is not numbered in the embodiment of the rejection) which engages with a latch (latch 2) with housing (housing 4; metal frame member 6) which comprises a catch (latch bolt 8) with an inlet region (46; Fig 1) wherein the sheet metal strip has a width in a connection region with the locking pin that is wider than a width of an inlet region (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Van Slembrouck) of a catch of the motor vehicle door lock (Fig 1 depicts 38 to have an indefinite area around 42 connecting to 42, thereby satisfying the Merriam-Webster definition 3b of region and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, whose right end is square shaped and wider than the width the terminal end of 46 pointed to the right in the figure; Fig 1 also depicts the left end of 38 to be wider than the right end of 46).
PNG
media_image4.png
323
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Van Slembrouck
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the silent motor vehicle door lock of Paskonis with the depicted motor vehicle door lock of Van Slembrouck. The prior art contains a latch assembly which differs from the claimed, but not depicted, device by the substitution of a component (the motor vehicle door lock disclosed but not depicted by Paskonis) with another component (the motor vehicle door lock disclosed and depicted by Van Slembrouck). Motor vehicle door locks with inlet regions for catches are known in the art, as evidenced by Van Slembrouck, Arabia et al., US 5316354 A (Fig 2), and Nakagawa et al, JP H0586752 A (Fig 11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to detail the motor vehicle door lock which engages with the clamed lock striker in order to better define the physical structure of lock and strike to holistically manage component interaction, functionality, strength, and reliability. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a silent motor vehicle door lock for a known motor vehicle door lock with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a motor vehicle door lock which engages with a lock striker configured to function in the same manner as Paskonis.
Regarding claim 12, Paskonis in view of Van Slembrouck teaches the lock striker according to claim 9, wherein the width of the inlet region (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Van Slembrouck) of the catch (Van Slembrouck, 8) is the region of the catch that extends around the locking pin (van Slembrouck, 42) when the catch is in a load position (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Van Slembrouck depicts 46 and the width of 46 to be in the indefinite area surrounding 8 when 42 is loaded into contact with 8, resulting in the loading of 8, thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3b of region and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for lock strikers and motor vehicle door locks.
Granger, US 5927774 A, teaches a door lock bracket and method of making same comprising a sheet metal strip.
Burton, US 6267421 B1, teaches a door latch striker with captivated mounting bolts comparing a sheet metal strip.
Johnson et al., US 7140652 B2, teaches a door latch striker comprising a sheet metal strip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675