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) 1 -9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okawa WO 2020179098 [NOTE: Application is also published as US 20220145675, therefore although the priority date is given to the WO version, the US PGPUB is relied on as an equivalent translation in English. References below refer to the US PGPUB document.]
Claim 1. Okawa discloses a motor vehicle lock, comprising:
a locking mechanism (2) including a rotary latch (21) and a pawl (22),
a release lever (53),
a security unit (42,43,44) moveable between a control position (“lock” position) and a starting position (“unlock position”) opposite from the control position, wherein the security unit includes a first operating lever (43) and a second operating lever (44);
an electromotive drive (51,52) which acts on both the release lever for electrically opening the locking mechanism and simultaneously on the security unit (paragraphs 35-36,46-51) and
a control element (41), wherein the electromotive drive acts on the security unit by moving the control element to mechanically couple the first operating lever and the second operating lever to manually open the locking mechanism (paragraph 43) and the second operating lever to manually open the locking mechanism and to mechanically decouple (from its coupled position when opening the locking mechanism) the first operating lever and the second operating lever, (paragraph 43)
wherein when electrically opening the locking mechanism in an opening direction (normal, clockwise direction) of the electromotive drive, the control element transfers the security unit at least temporarily into the control position opposite the starting position, and the control element transfers the security unit back into the starting position when reversing the electromotive drive. (paragraph 60-67)
Claim 2. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the electromotive drive moves in a counter-opening direction (counterclockwise direction, paragraph 56) to transfer the security unit into the starting position (to move 43 of safety unit to the unlocked position, paragraph 56) or the control position.
Claim 3. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the control element includes a first control contour (upper side contour of 41a that is acted upon by 52b, fig 9) and a second control contour(underside contour of 41a that is acted upon by 52c, fig7-9).
Claim 4. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 3 wherein the first control contour in the opening direction (normal clockwise) of the electromotive drive at least temporarily acts (43a of the security unit moves via its engagement with 41b of 41 and therefore 41a of 41) on the security unit. (paragraphs 63-64)
Claim 5. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 3, wherein the second control contour acts on (via connection at 41b) the security unit when the electromotive drive moves in the counter-opening direction. (NOTE: paragraphs 35-38, 60-67)
Claim 6. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 3, wherein the control element further includes an actuating lever (length of body of 41 is an actuating lever), and wherein both the first and second control contours are together connected to the actuating lever (fig1-10).
Claim 7. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 3, wherein the electromotive drive includes a first counter-contour (52b) and a second counter-contour (52c),
wherein the first control contour of the control element is acted upon by the first counter-contour of the electromotive drive and the second control contour of the control element by the second counter- contour of the drive. (fig7-9)
Claim 8. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 7 wherein the electromotive drive further includes a driven pulley (52) having a circumference (see fig7-9), and wherein the first and second counter-contours of the electromotive drive are arranged on the circumference of the driven pulley. (fig7-9)
Claim 9. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1 wherein the control element includes a coupling element (41b) for mechanically coupling and decoupling the first operating lever and the second operating lever. (paragraph 41)
Claim 11. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 6 wherein the actuating lever includes an axis (at pivot point of 41), and wherein at least one of the first and second control contours is connected to the axis. (fig7-9)
Claim 12. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 11, wherein both the first and second control contours are connected to the axis of the actuating lever. (fig7-9)
Claim 14. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the release lever includes a release arm (53a). (fig7-9)
Claim 15. Okawa discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 14, wherein the release arm is configured to lift the pawl of the locking mechanism to open the locking mechanism. (paragraph 63)
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa WO 2020179098, as applied to claim 1 above, alone. [NOTE: Application is also published as US 2022145675, therefore although the priority date is given to the WO version, the US PGPUB is relied on as an equivalent translation.]
Claim 10. Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 9 wherein the control element includes the coupling element and there is a corresponding coupling element in the security unit (43a is said coupling pin [element] in the security unit).
However, Okawa does not teach wherein the security element includes a coupling recess, and wherein the coupling element of the control element is guided in the coupling recess of the security unit.
In Okawa, the components are reversed, the coupling element is a recess (41b) of the control element (41) and the security element includes a coupling pin (43a) wherein the coupling pin of the security element is guided in the coupling [element] recess of the control element (fig7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the coupling recess and the coupling element of Okawa so the recess was instead on the security unit and the coupling pin on the control element, since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts, wherein the device remains functionally equivalent, is a design consideration of routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.
Claim 13. Okawa teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 9, wherein the coupling element is a coupling pin (coupling pin 43a).
In Okawa, the components are reversed, the coupling element is a recess (41b) of the control element (41) and the security element includes a coupling pin (43a) wherein the coupling pin of the security element is guided in the coupling [element] recess of the control element (fig7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the coupling recess and the coupling element of Okawa so the coupling recess was instead on the security unit and the coupling pin on the control element, since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts, wherein the device remains functionally equivalent, is a design consideration of routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-17 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 16, although the two operating levers of Okawa are mounted on the same axis, the release lever is not. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 17, Okawa does teach some elements which are spring biased, however Okawa’s coupling element is not. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Okawa does not read on the amended limitations of claim 1. Paragraph 43 of Okawa discusses the contact of 43b (of the first operating lever) and 44a (of the second operating lever) when unlocking. That contact is later “decoupled” when locking. Therefore, Examiner maintains that Okawa reads on amended claim 1. Rejection maintained. Note: New claims 16-17 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to vehicle locks.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 9551172, US 20170350170, US 20170342749.
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 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
Prosecution Insights