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
Claim 1 limitation “a stationary lever” and “stationary closing lever”
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the specification is silent about claim 1 limitation “stationary lever”, and “stationary closing lever” in the last paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner considers any lever as “a stationary lever” when the lever is not in motion.
Claim Objections
(a) Claim 1 is objected to because the specification is silent about the of the limitation “stationary lever”, and “stationary closing lever” in the last paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
(b) Numbering of claim 13 is repeated twice. 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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stationary closing lever" in the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) that depend(s) from the rejected claim(s), that is, claim(s) 3-16 is/are rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Barth et al., US Pub. App. 2011-0127780) in view of D2 (Ostrowski et al., US 6,053,542) and D3 (Bartel et al., US 6,109,674).
For claim 1, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-8, a lock for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a closing device including a closing pawl,
a locking mechanism (includes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) including: a rotary latch (2) including a metallic main body having an angled region that forms a pre-latching element, and a pre- latching pawl (5) and a main latching pawl (6) (The body of the rotary latch 2 defines the main body. The angled region in the vicinity of 4 is the pre-latching element.),
wherein the rotary latch (2) is latched in a pre-latching position (Figure 3) and a main latching position (Figure 4),
wherein the pre-latching element of the locking mechanism is formed by the angled region of the metallic main body of the rotary latch (Since the angled region in the vicinity of 4 defines the pre-latching element, the pre-latching element of the locking mechanism is formed by the angled region of the main body of the rotary latch 2), and
wherein the angled region is placed in engagement with the closing pawl of the closing device, and
wherein the closing device further includes a stationary lever and the closing pawl is arranged pivotably on the stationary closing lever.
D2 teaches, in Figures 1-16, a vehicle door with closing mechanism 80 ensuring the engagement of detent 32 and forkbolt 30 when the forkbolt 30 moved to latch position. The closing pawl 86 drives the forkbolt 30, via other mechanisms, to latch position (Col.5, L 49-55; Col.6, L 1-5). The closing pawl 86 is pivotably connected to link 106, which is also considered as a stationary closing lever when not in motion. D2 teaches a closing mechanism for securely and safely closing the latch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a closing device including a closing pawl, and stationary lever such that the angled region is placed in engagement with the closing pawl of the closing device, and the closing pawl is arranged pivotably on the stationary closing lever, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a safe and secured closing latch.
D3 teaches a vehicle door latch with latching element 3 made of metallic fork 22 and pawl 23 (Col.3, L 42-45) providing strong and reliable latching components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 to have a metallic rotary latch, as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of providing strong and reliable latching components.
D1 modified with features of D2 and D3 teaches the claimed limitations.
For claim 3, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the closing pawl is configured to be actuated by means of at least one the rotary latch, the pre-latching pawl and the main latching pawl (In D2 the closing pawl 86 is configured to be actuated by means of at least one the rotary latch 30, the pre-latching pawl 5 and the main latching pawl 6, via other structures, as in Figures 5-6. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 4, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the closing pawl is actuated by the pre-latching pawl (In D2 the closing pawl 86 is actuated by the pre-latching pawl 5 via other structures, as in Figures 7-10. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 5, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the closing pawl is released from engagement with the rotary latch by the pre-latching pawl (In D2 the closing pawl 86 is released from engagement with the rotary latch by the pre-latching pawl 5 via other structures, as in Figures 5-6. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 6, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the closing pawl includes a driver, wherein the driver projects into a movement region of the pre-latching pawl (D2 teaches closing pawl 86 includes a drive lever 90, as in Figure 2. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 7, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the pre-latching pawl includes a driver contour (D2 teaches closing pawl 86 includes a drive lever 90, which has a driver contour, as in Figure 2. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 8, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the closing pawl is released from engagement with the rotary latch by the pre-latching pawl (In D2 the closing pawl 86 is released from engagement with the rotary latch by the pre-latching pawl 5 via other structures, as in Figures 5-6. D1 modified with features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 9, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the pre-latching pawl (5) is configured to be actuated independently of the main latching pawl (Para. [0016].)
For claim 10, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the pre-latching pawl is configured to unlock the locking mechanism and to release the closing pawl from an engagement region with the rotary latch (Movement of the pre-latching pawl 5 in clockwise direction, releases the locking mechanism. Para, [0033].)
For claim 11, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the main latching pawl (6) is spring-loaded (Para. [0039].)
For claim 12, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the pre- latching pawl (5) is spring-loaded (Para. [0039].)
For claim 13, D1 discloses the lock for a mother vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the rotary latch (2) includes a beveled region (Portion of 2 that engages with 5, see Figures 3 and 5.)
For claim 13, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the beveled region of the rotary latch (2) engages with the pre-latching pawl (5) such that the pre- latching position is achieved (Figure 3.)
For claim 14, the combination teaches the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the driving contour is configured to hold the closing pawl at a distance from the angled region of the metal body of the rotary latch (in D2 driving contour of 106 is configured to hold the closing pawl 86 at a distance. D1 combined with the features of D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 15, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the pre- latching pawl (5) is configured unlock the locking mechanism from the pre-latching position (Para. [0033].)
For claim 16, D1 discloses the lock for a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the pre- latching pawl (5) is configured unlock the locking mechanism from the main latching position (Para. [0033, 0039].)
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Shibayama (US 8,894,103); Stefanic (US 7,905,523); Weller (US 6969,023).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675