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 .
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.
Claim(s) 9-11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokohama JP S62135760 (Applicant provided IDS reference).
Regarding claim 9, Yokohama discloses a vehicle door locking mechanism comprising:
a lock cylinder (1/1a) configured to lock or unlock a vehicle door (7) by rotating a control paddle (9a) linked to a door latch (9); and
a slidable stopper (2/2a) configured to be manually actuated from the inner side of the door between a first position (neutral/up position) allowing rotation of the control paddle and a second position (when 2a is pushed down) in which said stopper blocks rotation of the control paddle to prevent opening of the vehicle door from outside. (fig1-3)
Regarding claim 10, Yokohama discloses the vehicle door locking mechanism according to claim 9, wherein the door latch comprises a control lever (lever attached to cylinder 1/1a directly, see fig1-3) for unlocking the latch, the control lever is linked to the control paddle of the lock cylinder and the stopper is in contact with the control lever of the latch in said second position. (fig1-3)
Regarding claim 11, Yokohama discloses the vehicle door locking mechanism according to claim 10, wherein the door latch and the stopper are housed in a common housing (the common housing being between the exterior and interior panels of the door, fig.1-3)
Regarding claim 14, Yokohama discloses the vehicle door locking mechanism according to claim 10, wherein the stopper comprises a blocking portion (head and shaft of stopper attached to 4/11) which is configured to intercept (based on the definition according to Oxford Languages online which states “obstruct so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination; the end of the stopper is configured to obstruct further movement of control lever via the interconnecting elements, wherein obstruct is defined by Oxford Languages as “prevent or hinder”) the control lever of the latch in said second position.
Regarding claim 15, Yokohama discloses the vehicle door locking mechanism according to claim 14, wherein the blocking portion presents a T-shaped cross section (see fig1, cross section of 2a), where a base (end of shaft of 2a) of the T-shaped cross-section protrudes towards the control lever of the latch for providing a resistive force (via interconnecting elements, fig1-3) against rotation of the control lever.
Regarding claim 16, Yokohama discloses the vehicle door locking mechanism according to claim 11, wherein the stopper comprises a gripping portion (head of 2a, fig1) extending outwardly from the housing to be gripped by a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the IDS 09/16/2024: Examiner acknowledges the issue and has attached the IDS again with the correct consideration stamp.
Regarding claim 9: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Also, it is unclear what Applicant’s argument is because Applicant states that the cited control paddle, 9a from the above rejection, is “part of the latch” (page 3 Remarks) and therefore Applicant considers this “not linked to the latch as required by Claim 9” (page 3 Remarks). It appears that Applicant is contradicting themselves. If 9a is part of the latch, as admitted by the Applicant, then 9a is considered linked to the latch. Applicant is not specific about how the control paddle is linked to the latch. The definition of link is “connect or join physically” according to Oxford Languages online. This definition does not dictate that this must occur via other components or that the two components being linked together must be separate components, etc. Although it is clear the latch is considered all of 9, and 9a is separate as shown in fig 2 of Yokohama. Rejection maintained.
Regarding the slidable stopper: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not state that the slidable stopper must prevent the opening of the door from the outside via the lock cylinder as argued by the Applicant (page 3 Remarks). The claim only states that it must be prevented from opening the door from the outside. The stopper when in the locked position, locks the door from the inside, thus no longer allowing the door to be opened from the outside. Examiner acknowledges that a user with a key may be able to open the door from the outside, but until the key is present and used, the door cannot be opened from the outside. Applicant does not disclose preventing from using the lock cylinder in the claims. Rejection maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, references of record do not teach all of claim 9 and 10 as well as the control lever rotating about a rotation axis that is parallel to the linear pathway in which the stopper is configured to slide. In Yokohama, the rotation axis and the linear pathway are perpendicular to each other.
Regarding claim 13, references of record do not teach all of claims 9-11 and the recited indexing elements.
Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to vehicle door locking mechanisms.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 20200157856, US 20050093305, US 5738394.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675