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) 1-5, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (WO 2020 224707).
For claim 1, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-5, a motor vehicle lock comprising:
a locking mechanism (7, 8) including:
a rotary latch (8) and a pawl (7),
an operating lever chain (H, 14, 15, 6) including a coupling element (14, 15),
a blocking element (10, 12),
an actuator (11, 16), and
an electromotive drive (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5a, 5b) including an electric motor (1),
wherein, by the actuator (11), the electromotive drive is configured to selectively urges the coupling element of the operating lever chain into an "engaged" position and a "disengaged" position (The electromotive drive is reversed, the coupling element 14 closes and acts on 10 to block the opening drive. Abstract. P3, para. [5]),
wherein the blocking element (10) is configured to ensures temporary blocking of the actuator in order to switch off the electric motor following an actuator movement, and subsequent reversal of the actuator (Abstract. P3, para. [5].)
For claim 2, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the blocking element (10, 12) is rotatable about a first axis and the actuator (11) is rotatable about a second axis, wherein the first and second axes run predominantly parallel to one another and are spaced apart from one another (Figure 1.)
For claim 3, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuator (11) includes a blocking contour (contour of 11), and wherein the blocking element (10, 12) is arranged adjacent to the blocking contour of the actuator (Figure 1.)
For claim 4, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the blocking element (10, 12) is designed as a blocking lever including at least one blocking arm (10) and a control arm (12, Figure 1.)
For claim 5, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 4, wherein the blocking arm has a pin interacting with the blocking contour of the actuator (Pin between 10 and 12, Figure 1.)
For claim 8, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 4, wherein the blocking element lever has an associated spring, in particular tilting spring (P4, para. [2].)
For claim 9, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8, wherein the blocking lever further includes a spring arm, and wherein the spring is arranged on the spring arm of the blocking lever (P4, para. [2].)
For claim 10, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the electromotive drive has a spring for reversing the actuator (P5, last paragraph.)
For claim 11, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 8, wherein the associated spring is tilting spring (Return spring, P5, last paragraph.)
For claim 12, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 5, wherein the control arm (12) is configured to support the blocking lever (10, 12) when pivoting the blocking lever in and out relative to the blocking contour of the actuator (Figures 1 and 3A.)
For claim 13, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 10, wherein the electromotive driver further includes a gear box, and wherein the spring for reversing the actuator is integrated into the gear box (Motor 1 is connected to gear 2 via worm. Figure 1.)
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (WO 2020 224707) in view of D2 (US Pub. 2013-0145065).
For claim 14, D1 discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a sensor for detecting current consumption.
D2 teaches a control device for vehicle with sensor for detecting current (Para. [0011]) for safe operation. 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 sensor for detecting current consumption, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a safe operation.
For claim 15, the combination teaches the motor vehicle lock according to claim 14, wherein the electric motor (1 of D1) of the electromotive drive is in communication with the sensor to detect an increased current consumption of the electric motor during a blocking movement by the blocking element (D2 teaches a control device for vehicle with sensor for detecting current (Para. [0011]) for safe operation. 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 sensor such that the electromotive drive is in communication with the sensor to detect an increased current consumption of the electric motor during a blocking movement by the blocking element, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a safe operation.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Shibayama (US 8,894,103); Fisher (US 7,000,956); and Nozawa (US 10,728,868).
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, 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, 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
