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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on March 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified species have overlapping subject matter and that Figure 1 of Species I illustrates the pull-cable wheel unit 102b of Species III in Figures 17-27. The examiner agrees that the lock device of Figure 1 illustrates the pull-cable wheel unit of Figures 17-27, and therefore, Figures 17-27 should be included in Species I. In regards to Species II, applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive because Species I and Species II have structural differences, i.e. Species I includes a notch in a pivot member 10 cooperating with an abutment element 45 of guide plate 2 and Species II includes an engaging slot 101 on one of the pivot member and the guide plate cooperating with a release column/pin 3 on the other of the pivot member and the guide plate, and therefore, the search for Species I and II would be different and Species I and II are patentably distinct. Therefore, applicant’s election of Species I has been considered to include Figures 1-6, 8-14, and 17-27, and the restriction between Species I and II is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The examiner agrees that claims 1-17 are readable on elected Species I, and the examination of the claims is set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 1, the preamble recites a pull-cable wheel unit mounted between a pawl and a drive member on a base plate on a body of a vehicle, with the pawl having an unlocking position, a half-locked position, and a full-locked position, and the body of the claim having positive recitations of the pawl and its position(s), which suggests that claim 1 is drawn to the combination of the pull-cable wheel unit and the pawl and the drive member of the vehicle. However, claim 10 seems to suggest that the pawl and the drive member are not positively recited in claim 1. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim in claim 1 the subcombination of the pull-cable wheel unit or the pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl, its positions, and the drive member of the vehicle. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “A pull-cable wheel unit, mounted between a pawl and a drive member” should be changed to “A pull-cable wheel unit in combination with a pawl and a drive member, the pull-cable wheel unit mounted between the pawl and the drive member,” and in line 3, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a half-locked position.”
In regards to claim 2, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 1, further comprising” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 1, wherein,” in line 2, the phrase “the positioning post fixedly arranged” should be changed to “the positioning post is fixedly arranged on the base plate,” and in lines 3 and 4, the phrase “each of the cable wheel and the return wheel being rotatably sleeved on the positioning post” should be changed to each of the cable wheel and the return wheel being rotatably sleeved on the positioning post, so as to rotatably mount each of the cable wheel and the return wheel on the positioning post.”
In regards to claim 3, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 1” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 1.”
In regards to claim 4, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 3” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 3.”
In regards to claim 5, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 1” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 1.”
In regards to claim 6, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 5” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 5.”
In regards to claim 7, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 1” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 1.”
In regards to claim 8, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 7” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 7.”
In regards to claim 9, line 1, the phrase “The pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 1” should be changed to “The pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl and the drive member according to Claim 1.”
In regards to claim 10, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “A lock device comprising a base plate, a ratchet, a pawl, a drive member and the pull-cable wheel unit according to Claim 1” should be changed to “A lock device comprising a ratchet, and the pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl, the drive member, and the base plate according to Claim 1.”
In regards to claim 11, line 1, the phrase “with each of” should be changed to “wherein each of,” and in line 2, the phrase “being rotatably sleeved on the positioning post” should be changed to “being rotatably sleeved on the positioning post, so as to rotatably mount each of the cable wheel and the return wheel on the positioning post.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 2, the boundaries of the functional language of the phrase “the positioning post fixedly arranged” are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the “fixedly arranged” function. Specifically, it is unclear on what structure the “positioning post is fixedly arranged,” when it is understood from the specification that the positioning post of fixedly arranged on the base plate of claim 1 and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 2, the relationship between each of the cable wheel and the return wheel being sleeved on the positioning post, as recited in claim 2, and the cable wheel and the return wheel being “rotatably mounted” on the positioning post, as recited in claim 1, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the cable wheel and the return wheel are each rotatably sleeved on the positioning post, such that the cable wheel and the return wheel are rotatably mounted on the positioning post and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 10, since claim 1 is drawn to the combination of the pull-cable wheel unit with the pawl, the drive member, and the base plate, the relationship between the “base plate,” the “pawl,” and the “drive member” of claim 10 and the base plate, the pawl, and the drive member of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “base plate,” the “pawl,” and the “drive member” of claim 10 must be equivalent to the base plate, the pawl, and the drive member of claim 1, respectively, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 11, the relationship between each of the cable wheel and the return wheel being sleeved on the positioning post, as recited in claim 11, and the cable wheel and the return wheel being “rotatably mounted” on the positioning post, as recited in claim 1, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the cable wheel and the return wheel are each rotatably sleeved on the positioning post, such that the cable wheel and the return wheel are rotatably mounted on the positioning post and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 12-17, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoch (DE 102016005265 A1) in view of Hanaki et al. (US-9670700).
In regards to claim 1, Schoch discloses a pull-cable wheel unit in combination with a door lock 30 and a drive member 10 (inner door handle, Paragraph 32 of the Computer Generated Translation), with the pull-cable wheel unit mounted between the door lock and the drive member on a base plate 8 mounted on a body of a vehicle (Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Computer Generated Translation), with the door lock having a full-locked state (state in which the inherent pawl that engages with a claw in a position in which the claw is fully engaged with a striker of the vehicle, as is known in the art), the pull-cable wheel unit comprising: a positioning post 7; a cable wheel 3 and a return wheel 2, each of the cable wheel and the return wheel rotatably mounted on the positioning post (Figure 1), the cable wheel configured to be wound with a first pull cable 32 connected to the door lock, and the return wheel configured to be wound with a second pull cable 11 connected to an output end of the drive member; and an elastic member 2.3 positioned between the cable wheel and the return wheel (Figure 2), the elastic member configured to bias the return wheel to rotate by a preset angle when the door lock is in the full-locked state (the elastic member biases the return wheel, in addition to wheel 4, back to an original or unactuated position after rotation of the return wheel by the second pull cable 11, with the original or unactuated position of the return wheel capable of corresponding with the full-locked state of the door lock, since in the full-locked state, the drive member or handle 10 is not actuated and therefore, the return wheel is in the original or unactuated position, Paragraph 40 of the Computer Generated Translation). Schoch fails to specify that the door lock includes a pawl cooperating with a claw, with the pawl having an unlocking position, a half-locked position, and a full-locked position, corresponding to the full-locked state of the door lock. Hanaki et al. teaches a door lock including a pawl 9 having an unlocking position (Figure 5), a half-locked position (Figure 7), and a full-locked position (Figure 8), in which the pawl engages with a claw 7, such that the claw is held in full engagement with a striker S, with the pawl being connected to a cable 502 for actuation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the door lock include a pawl with the recited positions, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is known in the vehicle door lock art for a door lock to include a pawl cooperating with a claw to lock and release a door of a vehicle.
In regards to claim 2, Schoch discloses that the positioning post is fixedly arranged on the base plate (Figure 1); each of the cable wheel and the return wheel being rotatably sleeved on the positioning post, so as to rotatably mount each of the cable wheel and the return wheel on the positioning post (Figure 1).
In regards to claims 3 and 12, Schoch discloses that the return wheel has a sliding groove 9.11, and the cable wheel has a sliding block 9.1 disposed in the sliding groove for sliding movement therein (the cable wheel includes the sliding block 9.1 via the connection of the return wheel with wheel 4).
In regards to claims 7 and 15, Schoch discloses a circumferential outer edge of each of the cable wheel and the return wheel is recessed inwardly to form a cable winding groove (Figure 2), at least part of the first pull cable is wound on the cable winding groove of the cable wheel, and at least part of the second pull cable is wound on the cable winding groove of the return wheel (Figure 2).
In regards to claims 8 and 16, Schoch discloses that the cable wheel and the return wheel are each provided with a lock post (see Figure 2 below), one end of the first pull cable is fixedly connected to the lock post of the cable wheel, the other end of the first pull cable is connected to the pawl, one end of the second pull cable is fixedly connected to the lock post of the return wheel, and the other end of the second pull cable is connected to the output end of the drive member (Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 9 and 17, Schoch in view of Hanaki et al. teaches that one end of the first pull cable connected to the pawl (connected to the pawl via at least component 19, Figure 11 of Hanaki et al.) is provided with a collar (see Figure 11 below), and the collar is connected to the pawl (connected to the pawl via at least component 19, Figure 11 of Hanaki et al.).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 10, Schoch in view Hanaki et al. teaches a lock device comprising a ratchet 7 (Hanaki et al.), and the pull-cable wheel unit in combination with the pawl, the drive member, and the base plate according to Claim 1, wherein the ratchet and the pawl are each rotatably disposed on the base plate (Hanaki et al. teaches that the ratchet, the pawl, and coupling components between the pawl and the drive member are all located on a base plate 5, 61 (as a unit)), the positioning post of the pull-cable wheel unit is fixedly arranged on the base plate (Figure 1 of Schoch), and the drive member is drivingly connected to the pawl through the pull-cable unit (Figures 1 and 2 of Schoch).
In regards to claim 11, Schoch in view of Hanaki et al. teaches that each of the cable wheel and the return wheel being rotatably sleeved on the positioning post, so as to rotatably mount each of the cable wheel and the return wheel on the positioning post (Figure 1 of Schoch); and the elastic member having one end abutting the cable wheel (abutting the cable wheel via wheel 4, Figure 1 of Schoch) and another end abutting the return wheel (Figure 1 of Schoch), such that said bias drives the return wheel to rotate by the preset angle in a reverse direction when the pawl is in the full-locked position (the elastic member biases the return wheel, in addition to wheel 4, back to an original or unactuated position after rotation of the return wheel by the second pull cable 11, with the original or unactuated position of the return wheel capable of corresponding with the full-locked state of the door lock, since in the full-locked state, the drive member or handle 10 is not actuated and therefore, the return wheel is in the original or unactuated position, Paragraph 40 of the Computer Generated Translation of Schoch).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoch (DE 102016005265 A1) in view of Hanaki et al. (US-9670700) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Laudanski (DE 102007027753 A1). Schoch discloses that the sliding groove is an arc-shaped groove having a central angle α (Figure 3), but fails to disclose 180°<α<360°. Laudanski teaches a rotatable element 14 having a sliding groove 18 that is an arc-shaped groove having a central angle α, wherein 180°<α<360° (Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to size the arc-shaped groove of Schoch to have an angle between 180° and 360°, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the return wheel to have a further actuation range and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoch (DE 102016005265 A1) in view of Hanaki et al. (US-9670700) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Hillgaertner (US-10538944).
In regards to claims 5 and 13, Schoch discloses that the elastic member is mounted to the return wheel (Figures 1 and 2), but fails to disclose that the return wheel is provided with an annular groove, and that the elastic member is mounted in the annular groove. Hillgaertner teaches a rotatable component 4 that includes an annular groove 17, 20 (as a unit) in which an elastic member 18 is mounted (Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include an annular groove in which the spring of Schoch is located, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide some protection to the spring.
In regards to claims 6 and 14, Schoch in view of Hillgaertner teaches that the return wheel has a first end facing the cable wheel (end facing wheel 4 and cable wheel 3, Figure 1 of Schoch) and a second end facing away from the cable wheel (end with protrusion 2.1, Figure 1 of Schoch), the second end having a projection 2.1 (Schoch), and the annular groove extending from the first end into the projection (Hillgaertner teaches that the annular groove includes a portion 20 that extends beyond portion 17 into a projection 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights