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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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. The arguments are directed towards the amendments which Ikeda US 4756564 A has been introduced to teach.
Drawings
The previous drawing objections have been overcome by the present claim and drawing amendments.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deblock EP 2966247 A1 (hereinafter Deblock) in view of Ikeda US 4756564 A (hereinafter Ikeda).
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).
However, Deblock does not teach the protrusion part protruding toward the inner side of the latch groove is provided at a center in a width direction of the surface of the latch groove that contacts the striker when the latch rotates , the protrusion part being spaced from edges of the surface of the latch groove on both sides of the protrusion part in the width direction.
Ikeda teaches a protrusion part (convex protrusion of 11) protruding toward an inner side of the latch groove is provided at a center in a width direction (up to down wrt fig 17) of a surface of the latch groove that contacts the striker when the latch rotates (see figs 16-17), the protrusion part being spaced from edges of the surface of the latch groove on both sides of the protrusion part in the width direction (see fig 17).
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 protrusion part protruding toward the inner side of the latch groove is provided at a center in a width direction of the surface of the latch groove that contacts the striker when the latch rotates , the protrusion part being spaced from edges of the surface of the latch groove on both sides of the protrusion part in the width direction in order to provide a smaller contact area with the striker such that the protrusion part is more liable to deform (see Ikeda Col 5 lines 23-30).
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 (Deblock: see figs 2-3).
In regards to claim 3, Deblock in view of Ikeda 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 (Deblock: see fig 2).
In regards to claim 4, Deblock in view of Ikeda teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion part is a resin part covering the latch (Deblock: para 27).
In regards to claim 7, Deblock in view of Ikeda 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 (Deblock: seen in fig 1).
In regards to claim 8, Deblock in view of Ikeda 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(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deblock in view of Ikeda 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 in view of Ikeda 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 Ikeda and Inan teaches the door lock device for a vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the abutted part is a rubber stopper (Inan para 7).
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 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