Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/104,250

MOTOR VEHICLE LOCK

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 17, 2025
Priority
Aug 26, 2022 — DE 10 2022 121 658.6 +1 more
Examiner
TULLIA, STEVEN A
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kiekert AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
222 granted / 297 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
325
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 297 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 13, line 3, “the “disengaged” position into the “engaged” position” is recited. In claim 1, these positions were amended to remove the quotation marks. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims to read “the disengaged position into the engaged position”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al., JP 2004300828 A (hereinafter Kobayashi). Note: paragraph numbers are from the attached Espacenet machine translation of JP 2004300828 A. Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a motor vehicle lock (latch unit 1), comprising: a latch mechanism (latch unit 1; [0012]) including: a rotary latch (unnumbered latch; [0012]) and a detent pawl (unnumbered engaging member; [0012]), an actuation lever chain including a coupling element (first engagement/disengagement lever 19; second engagement/disengagement lever 20) and an actuation lever (operating lever 17), the coupling element including a pushing member (20), a stationary counter-blocking element (worm wheel 13; [0022] discusses 13 being pivotally mounted to case 11 therefore it is fixed in a station thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of stationary and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) configured to release the coupling element, an electromotive actuator (motor 12) configured to apply force to move the coupling element of the actuation lever chain selectively into at least one of an engaged position (Fig 3 depicts 19 engaged with knob lever 15) and a disengaged position (Fig 4 depicts 19 disengaged with 15; [0021-0024]), wherein the electromotive actuator acts via the pushing member on the coupling element mounted on the actuation lever ([0042 discusses motor 12 driving 13 to engage arm portion 20a of 20 to further act on and move 19), wherein the pushing member includes a blocking element (arm portion 20a; 20a hinders 13 in the same manner as the instant invention thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster verb definition 1b of block and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) that acts reciprocally on the stationary counter-blocking element to release the coupling element [0042]. Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the motor vehicle lock of Claim 1, wherein the pushing member (20) in adjoining contact with the coupling element (19; 20) shifts the coupling element into the disengaged position (Fig 3; [0031] discusses 20a engaging 19b for movement). Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the motor vehicle lock of Claim 1, wherein the coupling element (19; 20), when released from the pushing member (20), assumes the engaged position, under spring tension as the case may be ([0035] discusses 19 being biased into engagement). Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches the motor vehicle lock of Claim 1, wherein the actuation lever (17) has a repelling arm (shaft portion 17c) for applying force to the blocking element (20a; movement from Fig 3 to Fig 4 depicts the 17 applying force to 20, therefore 20a, when it translates). Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi teaches the motor vehicle lock of Claim 1, wherein the electromotive actuator (12) is configured to electrically open the latch mechanism (1) in one direction ([0022] discusses how 12 rotates in an unlocking direction thereby meeting the definition of opening found in instant specification page 1 where the actuator unlocks the latch which then opens under the bias of an unclaimed spring) and is further configured to apply force to the pushing member (20) in another direction ([0031; 0042] discusses how 12, via 13, applies force to 20a is two directions therefore in another direction from the unlocking of the first limitation). Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi teaches the motor vehicle lock of Claim 1, wherein the pushing member (20) is configured to move away from the coupling element (19; 20) such that the coupling element is shifted from the disengaged position (Fig 4) into the engaged position (see claim interpretation under claim 13 Claim Objection; Fig 3; movement from Fig 4 to Fig 3 depicts 19 shifting from disengaged to engaged by rotating to the left and 20 rotating away from the left to the right). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 4, while Kobayashi teaches wherein the pushing member is designed as an at least two-armed lever mounted in a pivoting manner, wherein the at least two-armed lever includes a first lever arm and a second lever arm; one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Kobayashi as claimed in the instant application wherein the blocking member is designed as an at least two-armed lever mounted in a pivoting manner on the pushing member, wherein the at least two-armed lever includes a first lever arm and a second lever arm; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the reference. Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, they would be allowable because they pend from claim 4. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for vehicle locks. Hunt et al., US 7399010 B2, teaches a power-actuated motor-vehicle door latch with quick unlock with an actuation chain, a stationary counter-blocking element, an electromotive actuator, and a block element. Taurasi et al., US 12577813 B2, teaches a closure latch assembly with single motor actuator configured to control multiple latch functions with an actuation chain, an electromotive actuator, and a block element. Scholz et al., EP 2326779 B1, teaches a motor vehicle door lock with an actuation chain, an electromotive actuator, and a block element. Kleefeldt et al., DE 4307523 B4, teaches a motor vehicle door lock with central locking drive with an actuation chain, an electromotive actuator, and a block element. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET. 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 on (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. /STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 17, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12767034
LOCKING MECHANISM
3y 0m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12768202
A LOCK
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12768203
DOOR LOCK
2y 0m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12768207
DOOR LOCK ASSEMBLY
1y 12m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12760574
Actuating Mechanism for Actuating Covers for Vehicles
3y 2m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+18.8%)
2y 7m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 297 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month