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 drive wheel having a spiral contour AND a toothed contour as in claim 1 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 § 112
Claims 7-8 and 16 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 05/29/2026. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
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, 9-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6386599 to Chevalier. [Note: This is a new interpretation of Chevalier].
Regarding claim 1, Chevalier discloses:
A drive unit for motor vehicle applications (fig 11), comprising an electromotive drive (70) comprising an electric motor (70), and a drive wheel (60,61), an actuating element (50) acted upon by the drive wheel, and a crown gear transmission stage (71) implemented between a pinion (31) on an output shaft (25) of the electric motor and the drive wheel, wherein the drive wheel has a spiral contour and/or a toothed contour (teeth of 61) for acting upon the actuating element, wherein the drive wheel comprises a crown toothing (62) on a first surface (bottom surface of 60) of the drive wheel, wherein the spiral contour (54) is rotationally fixed on a second surface (top surface of 60) of the drive wheel opposite the first surface, and wherein the toothed contour is provided on the first surface of the drive wheel (fig 11).
Regarding claim 9, Chevalier discloses:
The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor with the output shaft and the pinion thereon forms a right-hand angle of engagement with the drive wheel with the crown toothing (right hand angle formed in fig 11).
Regarding claim 10, Chevalier discloses:
The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor with the output shaft has a longitudinal extension (25) which is aligned in a direction of a center of the drive wheel (fig 11) in the center.
Regarding claim 12, Chevalier discloses:
The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein at least the drive wheel and the actuating element are each designed as plastic injection-molded parts (fig 1). [NOTE: The italicized limitation recites a product by process limitation. Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, only the end result. See MPEP2113. Since Haas teaches a drive wheel and an actuating element, the end result is the same regardless of the method used to produce the elements.]
Regarding claim 13, Chevalier discloses:
The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuating element includes a gear wheel arch (16), and wherein the electric motor with the output shaft has a longitudinal extension (71) which is largely oriented tangentially in comparison to the gear wheel arch on the actuating element (fig 11).
Regarding claim 14, Chevalier discloses:
The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuating element acts upon a transmission lever (20) of a motor vehicle latch (see abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Chevalier discloses:
A motor vehicle latch (fig 11, see abstract), comprising- the drive unit according to claim 1, and a locking mechanism (20) acted upon by the drive unit.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6386599 to Chevalier in view of US 20200325706 to Inan.
Regarding claim 16, Chevalier does not explicitly disclose:
The drive unit according to claim 8, wherein the spiral contour is a helical spiral surface wound around an axis of the drive wheel.
However, Inan teaches that it is well known in the art for a spiral contour to be a helical spiral surface (17) wound around an axis of the drive wheel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Inan into Chevalier at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a drive wheel. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights