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 “oblong shape” of claim 8 and the “sealing strip” of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deblock EP 2966247 A1 (hereinafter Deblock).
In regards to claim 1, Deblock teaches a door lock device for a vehicle, comprising: a base component (3), wherein the base component is fixed to a vehicle door (4, see abstract and para 12) for opening and closing an opening of a vehicle body (para 12); a striker (21), wherein the striker is fixed to an edge of the opening on the vehicle body (para 15 and fig 1); and a latch (1), wherein the latch is provided on the base component (para 2) and has a latch groove (11) capable of being engaged with and disengaged from the striker, and the latch is capable of rotating between a locking position (see fig 1) in which the striker is constrained by the latch groove and an unlocking position (when rotated from fig 1) in which the striker is released, wherein a protrusion part (114) protruding toward an inner side of the latch groove is provided on a surface of the latch groove that contacts the striker when the latch rotates (see fig 2).
In regards to claim 2, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a protrusion amount of the protrusion part gradually increases and then gradually decreases toward a disengagement direction in which the striker is disengaged from the latch groove (see figs 2-3).
In regards to claim 3, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the protrusion part is formed in an arc shape when viewed along a rotation axis direction of the latch (see fig 2).
In regards to claim 4, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion part is a resin part covering the latch (para 27).
In regards to claim 7, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the base component is provided with a base groove for the striker to pass through (seen in fig 1).
In regards to claim 8, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of a portion of the striker entering the latch groove is an oblong shape when viewed along a rotation axis direction of the latch (see reference image 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deblock as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Inan US 20090021027 A1 (hereinafter Inan).
In regards to claim 5, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Deblock does not teach wherein the latch is provided with an abutting part, and the base component is provided with an abutted part, further rotation of the latch when the latch is rotated to the unlocking position is restricted by the abutment between the abutting part and the abutted part, and the abutted part is made of a material different from the base component.
Inan teaches a latch (1) is provided with an abutting part (portion engaging 8, see fig 2), and a base component (6) is provided with an abutted part (8), further rotation of the latch when the latch is rotated to the unlocking position is restricted by the abutment between the abutting part and the abutted part (see fig 2), and the abutted part is made of a material different from the base component (as the housing is steel, see para 7 and the abutted part is rubber see para 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the latch is provided with an abutting part, and the base component is provided with an abutted part, further rotation of the latch when the latch is rotated to the unlocking position is restricted by the abutment between the abutting part and the abutted part, and the abutted part is made of a material different from the base component in Deblock in order to limit overtravel while suppressing noise (see Inan paras 4 and 7)
In regards to claim 6, Deblock in View of Inan teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the abutted part is a rubber stopper (Inan para 7).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deblock as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Wilkes et al. US 20150123407 A1 (hereinafter Wilkes).
In regards to claim 9, Deblock teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Deblock is silent on wherein a sealing strip is provided around the opening, and when the vehicle door closes the opening, the sealing strip is squeezed and deformed by the vehicle door. This is very common in vehicle doors.
Wilkes teaches a sealing strip is provided around the opening, and when the vehicle door closes the opening, the sealing strip is squeezed and deformed by the vehicle door (para 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Deblock with a sealing strip is provided around the opening, and when the vehicle door closes the opening, the sealing strip is squeezed and deformed by the vehicle door in order to provide a well-known and conventional solution to prevent water egress into the vehicle compartment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikeda US 4756564 A – teaches a similar protrusion.
NPL “DuPont™ Hytrel®” – teaches a resin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights