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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 1, change “claim 1” to -claim 2- in order to provide proper antecedent of basis for the “hood” limitation.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claim will be examined as dependent on claim 2.
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 1-10 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 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, it is unclear how the reinforcing element 9 couples the pins at a distance from the lock case 6. As illustrated. The reinforcing element 9 is coupled by means of the pins so as to be at a distance from the lock case. Correction is required.
Claim 2 requires the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since the reinforcing element is not equipped, since it is not an assembly or the like that has multiple elements. As illustrated, the reinforcing element 9 is actually a plate. Correction is required.
Claim 6 requires the phrase “rib-like manner”. At the instant, the term renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP 6447169 (JP 169).
PNG
media_image3.png
541
1427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, JP 169 discloses a motor vehicle lock, in particular a motor vehicle tailgate lock. The lock comprises a locking mechanism that comprises a latch (20) and a pawl (30) and having an additional reinforcing element (10).
The reinforcing element is coupled at least to a rotary pin (21) of the latch and to a rotary pin (31) of the pawl, at a distance from a lock case (40). The reinforcing element is additionally connected to a door panel or a vehicle body component (through 15a, 15b).
As to claim 2, JP 169 discloses that the reinforcing element (10) comprises a locking plate (12) arranged predominantly parallel to the lock case (40), and a wind hood. The wind hood is connected to the door or body component (indirectly by being attached to the actuator 70).
As to claim 9, JP 169 discloses that the edge of the reinforcing hood is provided with reinforcing ribs (18) at least in associated fastening regions (15a, 15b).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6447169 (JP 169) in view of CN 110173171 to Liu et al (Liu).
JP 169 fails to disclose that the wing hood is convexly curved in the wing closure direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
694
1682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a wing hood (10) that defines a convexly curvature at a wing closure direction.
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 wing described by JP 169, curved, as taught by Liu, in order to create a space between the wing and any structure behind it.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6447169 (JP 169) in view of US Pat No 8,727,403 to Johnson et al (Johnson).
JP 169 discloses that the lock comprises a front side cover (11) that receives a lock holder (75).
However, JP 169 fails to disclose that the lock holder comprises a receptacle that receives the cover of the lock.
PNG
media_image5.png
444
1372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Johnson teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a lock holder (134) with a holder receptacle (130) in order to guide a lock case (170) into engagement with the lock holder.
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 holder described by JP 169, with a holder receptacle, as taught by Johnson, in order to guide the lock case into engagement with the lock holder.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1022217 to Baukholt in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20200115932 to Ottino et al (Ottino) and DE 102018217967 to Schmitz et al (Schmitz).
PNG
media_image6.png
585
700
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Baukholt discloses a motor vehicle lock. The lock comprises a locking mechanism that comprises a latch (7) and a pawl (8) and having an additional reinforcing element (2).
The reinforcing element is coupled at least to a rotary pin (3) of the latch and to a rotary pin (3’) of the pawl, at a distance from a lock case (1).
First, Baukholt fails to disclose that the motor vehicle lock is a tailgate lock.
Ottino teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a similar lock that can be used in a passenger door or a tailgate (par 72).
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 Baukholt in a tailgate door, as taught by Ottino, since a recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus, which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim.
Second, Baukholt fails to disclose that the reinforcing element is additionally connected to a door panel or a vehicle body component. As shown above, Baukholt illustrates that the reinforcing element comprises holes that are capable of being considered as attachment points that are capable of being connected to a door panel of vehicle body component.
PNG
media_image7.png
582
1108
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Schmitz teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a tailgate latch (3) wherein at least one of the attachment points is connected to a door panel (2, fig 3).
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 plate described by Baukholt having an attachment point to connect the plate to a door panel or structure, as taught by Schmitz, in order to provide a rigid structure to secure the plate.
As to claim 2, Baukholt discloses that the reinforcing element comprises a locking plate arranged predominantly parallel to the lock case, and a wind hood. The wind hood is connected to the door or body component (as modified by Schmitz).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1022217 to Baukholt in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20200115932 to Ottino et al (Ottino), DE 102018217967 to Schmitz et al (Schmitz) and further in view of CN 110173171 to Liu et al (Liu).
Baukholt, as modified by Ottino and Schmitz, fails to disclose that the wing hood is convexly curved in the wing closure direction.
Liu teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a wing hood (10) that defines a convexly curvature at a wing closure direction.
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 wing described by Baukholt, as modified by Ottino and Schmitz, curved, as taught by Liu, in order to create a space between the wing and any structure.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1022217 to Baukholt in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20200115932 to Ottino et al (Ottino), DE 102018217967 to Schmitz et al (Schmitz) and further in view of JP 6447169 (JP 169).
Baukholt, as modified by Ottino and Schmitz, fails to disclose that the edge of the reinforcing hood is provided with reinforcing ribs at least in associated fastening regions
JP 169 teaches that it is well known in the art to provide the edge of the reinforcing hood is provided with reinforcing ribs (18) at least in associated fastening regions (15a, 15b).
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 wing described by Baukholt, as modified by Ottino and Schmitz, with reinforcing ribs, as taught by JP 169, in order to reinforce the area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-8 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claim 4 above.
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
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights