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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 1, “wherein the first electromotive actuator when opening the latching mechanism simultaneously acts by a freewheel motion on the blocking traveler that applies force to the second coupling element” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how “freewheel motion” is intended to limit the scope of the claim. It’s unclear what is considered the freewheel motion and in what aspect of this motion is “freewheel”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to require lost motion, at least in part of a rotation of the first electromotive actuator, with the blocking traveler, while in some part of an opening operation.
In further regards to claim 1, both “a second electromotive actuator (at least 12, 5 and 20) for applying force to the second coupling element” and “the blocking traveler that applies force to the second coupling element” is unclear. From the drawing and original disclosure, it’s unclear how the electromotive actuator and the second blocking traveler applies force to the second coupling element. Is this force applied in a direct manner, indirect manner, is this a movement force or frictional force etc. For the purposes of examination as long as the electromotive actuator and blocking traveler causes a force to be applied either directly or indirectly to the second coupling element, the limitations are assumed to be met.
In regards to claim 7, “the first electromotive actuator shifts the first coupling element selectively into the engaged position and the disengaged positions of the actuation lever chain” is unclear. To the examiner’s understanding the actuation lever chain is separate from the first coupling element and thus it’s unclear how the first coupling element moves into positions of the actuation lever chain. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to read “the first electromotive actuator shifts the first coupling element selectively to cause the engaged position and the disengaged position of the actuation lever chain”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the freewheel motion of blocking traveler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The freewheel motion previously described was of the first electromotive actuator acting on the blocking traveler. It’s unclear if this is intended to be a different freewheel motion, the same, or if the claim is intending to further define the freewheel motion as of the blocking traveler as well (which this would be unclear as well). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to read "the freewheel motion of the electromotive actuator".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the wheel motion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this wheel motion is referring to the freewheel motion of claim 1 or intending to introduce a different motion. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to read “a wheel motion".
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuyama et al. US 20200248486 A1 (hereinafter Okuyama).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Okuyama teaches a motor vehicle lock, comprising, a first coupling element (19) , a second coupling element (20), a latching mechanism including: a rotary latch (6) and a detent pawl (8), a first electromotive actuator (14 and 15) at least for opening the latching mechanism (see fig 12) and for applying force to the first coupling element (see fig 12), and a second electromotive actuator (11-12 and 27-28) for applying force to the second coupling element (see fig 12), the second electromotive actuator including a blocking traveler (28 at least as it confines 20’s movement to 12a ), wherein the first electromotive actuator when opening the latching mechanism simultaneously acts by a freewheel motion (note lost motion between figs 11 and 12) on the blocking traveler that applies force the second coupling element (see fig 12).
In regards to claim 2, Okuyama teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein the first electromotive actuator has a setting element (15) with at least one freewheel arm (15a).
In regards to claim 3, Okuyama teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 2,wherein the blocking traveler includes a shoulder (see reference image 1), and wherein the at least one freewheel arm acts reciprocally with the shoulder of the blocking traveler (at least as it causes back and forth motion of 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 4, Okuyama teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1,further comprising an actuation lever (13) equipped with the second coupling element (equipped with in the housing), wherein the blocking traveler has a blocking nose (nose of 28) for the actuation lever.
In regards to claim 7, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Okuyama teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1,further comprising an actuation lever chain (at least 18) having an engaged position (see fig 7) and a disengaged position (see fig 12), wherein the first electromotive actuator shifts the first coupling element selectively into an engaged position and a disengaged positions of the actuation lever chain (as 18 becomes disconnected as 19 moves).
In regards to claim 9, Okuyama teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein the blocking traveler has a spring (29) that applies force to cause the blocking traveler to assume a base position (para 41).
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffer et al. DE 102017124522 A1 (hereinafter Schiffer).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Schiffer teaches a motor vehicle lock comprising, a first coupling element (release lever in para 32), a second coupling element (15), a latching mechanism including: a rotary latch (1; para 19) and a detent pawl (2), a first electromotive actuator (at least 10, 11 and 21) at least for opening the latching mechanism and for applying force to the first coupling element, and a second electromotive actuator (at least 12, 5 and 20) for applying force to the second coupling element (see figs 2-3), the second electromotive actuator including a blocking traveler (20; see fig 4), wherein the first electromotive actuator when opening the latching mechanism (from fig 2 with 11 continuing counterclockwise rotation of 11) simultaneously acts by a freewheel motion (when further rotating from fig. 2 there would be lost motion between 21 and 20) on the blocking traveler (at least acting by applying engagement in fig 2) that applies force to the second coupling element (see fig 2).
In regards to claim 2, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1, wherein the first electromotive actuator has a setting element (11) with at least one freewheel arm (21).
In regards to claim 3, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 2,wherein the blocking traveler includes a shoulder (19), and wherein the at least one freewheel arm acts reciprocally with the shoulder of the blocking traveler (see figs 2 and 4).
In regards to claim 4, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1,further comprising an actuation lever (6) equipped with the second coupling element, wherein the blocking traveler has a blocking nose (lower portion of 5) for the actuation lever.
In regards to claim 5, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 4, wherein the actuation lever includes a blocking contour (portion of 7 contacting 15), and wherein the blocking nose is in adjoining contact with the blocking contour of the actuation lever when the actuation lever is pivoted out (see fig 4 once 7 is rotated, para 40).
In regards to claim 6, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 5,wherein the first electromotive actuator when opening the latching mechanism frees the blocking traveler along with the blocking nose adjoining the blocking contour (at least free to be moved by the inside handle via the inside operating lever see para 35).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood in light of the previous 112 rejections Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1,further comprising an actuation lever chain (8-9) having an engaged position (see fig 4) and a disengaged position (any other position see para 40), wherein the first electromotive actuator shifts the first coupling element selectively into an engaged position (see para 44 as the release lever is now engaged) and disengaged positions of the actuation lever chain (when not shifting to fig 4; see para 44).
In regards to claim 8, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 2,further comprising a release leaver (6) and a transfer lever (7), wherein the transfer lever is configured to control the first coupling element (see para 44), wherein- in addition to the at least one freewheel arm, the setting element of the first electromotive actuator is equipped with a peg (worm of 10), and wherein the peg acts (at least indirectly) in one rotary direction (counterclockwise) on a the release lever (para 32) and in another rotary direction (clockwise) on the transfer lever (at least indirectly; para 41 and fig 4).
In regards to claim 11, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 8, wherein the latching mechanism is configured to be opened via the release lever (para 42).
In regards to claim 12, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 11, wherein the release lever is configured to lift the detent pawl away from the rotary latch in a locked position of the latching mechanism (paras 42 and 19).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffer as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Chavalier US 20020121784 A1 (hereinafter Chavalier)
In regards to claim 9, Schiffer teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 1.
However, Schiffer does not teach wherein the blocking traveler has a spring that applies force to cause the blocking traveler to assume a base position. The examiner would like to note Schiffer does mention a spring-assist to the positions of figure 2.
Chavalier teaches the uses of a spring (58) on an element similar to the blocking traveler (see fig 13 and para 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the blocking traveler has a spring that applies force to cause the blocking traveler to assume a base position in order to provide a well-known and conventional way of maintaining the blocking traveler to Schiffers figure 2 as desired (see Schiffer para 34).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood in light of the previous 112 rejections, Schiffer in view of Chavalier teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 9, wherein the spring is compressed during the freewheel motion of blocking traveler (as Chavalier’s springs rest position is a relatively compressed position which would be maintained during the freewheel motion of the first electromotive actuator).
In regards to claim 13, as best understood in light of the previous 112 rejections, Schiffer in view of Chavalier teaches the motor vehicle lock of claim 9, wherein the spring is configured to cause the blacking traveler to be back in the base position when the wheel motion (Schiffer: motion of 13) is complete (Schiffer: such as moving from figs 3 to 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rathmann et al. US 6474704 B1 – teaches a similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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 M 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
