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 .
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 interior actuation lever acting directly on the pawl (claim 2) and the lock cylinder actuating the actuation lever (claim 7), see 112 2nd paragraph rejection below, 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the word “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1 and 5, the term “impulse-type” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Therefore, the word “type” should be deleted. Correction is required.
Claim 2 requires that the interior actuation lever acts directly on the pawl. At the instant, it is unclear how. This is what is described:
PNG
media_image1.png
331
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, as described by the applicant, in order to unlatch, the exterior actuation lever 12 is moved in the direction P1, or the interior actuation lever 11 in the direction P, in order to “respectively” contact the pawl and/or the connector 7. So as described, lever 12 contacts the pawl and lever 11 with the connector.
As shown in figs 2 and 3, the exterior actuation lever 12 has a surface 15 that is configured to engage with a lower surface of the pawl. However, it is unclear what surface of lever 11 engages the pawl.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required.
Claim 7, the claim requires that the lock comprises a lock cylinder that is configured to operate the exterior actuation lever. At the instant, it is unclear what is claimed here.
As well known in the art, a lock cylinder is the core of a lock that controls whether the door is locked or unlocked, to control access.
So, with that in mind, the lock cylinder then will prevent operation of the exterior actuation lever; not that is configured to operate it.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required.
Claim 9 requires a 2nd spring. However, claim 9 depends from claim 1, which does not provide any basis for a first spring.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required.
Claim 10, the claim requires a connector. However, the claim fails to provide any functionality to the connector so as to understand what it does.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 3,799,596 to Nozomu et al (Nozomu) in view of GB 2275727 to Hugues et al (Hugues) and EP 1241305 to Wegg et al (Wegg).
PNG
media_image2.png
785
1351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Nozomu Bendel discloses a lock that comprises a latching mechanism with a rotary latch (12) and a detent pawl (13); an actuation lever (21, 28), wherein the latching mechanism is configured to be unlatched by the actuation lever; and a catch lever (19).
Wherein, the latching mechanism is configured to be prevented from unlatching by means of the catch lever, subject to an impact from an impulse vehicle acceleration of the motor vehicle.
However, Nozomu fails to disclose that the catch lever is configured to be brought directly into mesh with the detent pawl. Nozomu discloses a different configuration, having the catch attached to the pawl and brought into contact with a blocking cup (23).
PNG
media_image3.png
732
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hugues teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock that has a latch (5) and a pawl (2), with a catch lever (7) configured to be brought directly into contact with the detent pawl, to block movement of the lock.
PNG
media_image4.png
724
1089
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wegg teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a catch lever (6) that is configured to be brought directly into mesh with a member (9) to provide a strong engagement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the catch lever described by Nozomu mounted to engage and block the pawl, as taught by Hugues, in order to provide a lock with less members and simpler way to block the pawl.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the catch lever to mesh, as taught by Wegg, in order to provide a strong engagement.
As to claim 2, Nozomu discloses that the actuation lever includes an exterior actuation lever (28) and an interior actuation lever (21) to operate the pawl to disengage the latch. Wherein, both levers act directly on the pawl.
As to claim 3, Nozomu discloses that the lock further comprises a lock case (10), wherein the catch lever is mounted in a pivoting manner in the lock case (by 14).
As to claim 4, Hugues teaches that the lock further comprises a 1st spring element (10), wherein the catch lever is configured to be held in a starting position by the 1st spring element.
As to claim 5, Hugues teaches that the catch lever is configured to be pivoted into a range of motion of the detent pawl in the event of the impulse vehicle acceleration of the motor vehicle.
As to claim 6, Wegg teaches that the catch lever has at least one stop face (12, 12a, 12b), and wherein the at least one stop face is configured to be brought into mesh with the other element.
As to claim 8, Nozomu discloses that the lock further comprises a compression spring (17), wherein the exterior actuation lever is configured to be positioned in a starting position, by the compression spring.
As to claim 9, Nozomu discloses that the lock comprises a spring element (15), wherein the detent pawl is in mesh with the rotary latch by spring element.
As to claim 13, Hugues teaches that the first spring element is a spiral spring (10).
As to claim 14, Hugues teaches that the range of motion is a swiveling range.
As to claim 15, Nozomu teaches that the spring element (15) is a tension spring.
As to claim 16, Nozomu discloses that the latching mechanism is blocked by the catch lever, regardless of a movement of the actuation lever.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 3,799,596 to Nozomu et al (Nozomu) in view of GB 2275727 to Hugues et al (Hugues), EP 1241305 to Wegg et al (Wegg) and further in view of US Pat No 3,400,962 to Martens.
Nozomu, as modified by Hugues and Wegg, fails to disclose that the lock comprises a lock cylinder to prevent operation of the exterior actuation lever.
PNG
media_image5.png
777
1458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Martens teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock cylinder (66) that is configured to prevent operation of an actuation lever (42) to prevent access through a door by disconnecting a pawl (40) from a latch (31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lock described by Nozomu, as modified by Hugues and Wegg, with a lock cylinder, as taught by Martens, in order to prevent unlatching of the pawl from the latch.\
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 3,799,596 to Nozomu et al (Nozomu) in view of GB 2275727 to Hugues et al (Hugues), EP 1241305 to Wegg et al (Wegg) and further in view of US Pat No 10,472,864 to Takagi et al (Takagi).
As to claim 10, Nozomu, as modified by Hugues and Wegg, fails to disclose that the rotary latch has a connector.
PNG
media_image6.png
613
1005
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Takagi teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a rotary latch (11) with a connector (98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lock described by Nozomu, as modified by Hugues and Wegg, with a connector, as taught by Takagi, in order to reinforce the rotary latch.
As to claim 11, Takagi teaches that the rotary latch further includes an axle (11s), and wherein the rotary latch and the connector are connected via the axle.
As to claim 12, Takagi teaches that the detent pawl (12) “acts reciprocally” with the connector such that at least one latching position is achievable in the latching mechanism (by being connected to the connector).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
September 2, 2026
