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
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 and 7 (clams 2-10 by dependency) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 7 "can be latched" and “can be provided” are indefinite, because they are susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is a mere possibility that is not required.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, it is unclear in the recitation” in particular a fold and /or an impression” as to what the applicant requires in the invention. Where it is unclear what the applicant requires, the recitation is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 1-10, it is unclear what the applicant intends by the recitation of “bearing point” a point is commonly understood to be a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates. As such, relative recitation concerning dimensional definition is indefinite. It is unclear what structure the applicant intends as written. Claims will be interpreted broadly until otherwise clarified by the applicant.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
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, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lebsak (DE 1020009048222) in view of Faitl DE102019129152).
Regarding claim 1, Lebsak discloses a motor vehicle lock (1 and 2, abstract) that comprises
a locking mechanism having a rotary latch and at least one pawl, wherein the rotary latch can be latched in at least one latching position by means of the pawl, and having an actuating lever (3, 18, 30) which is received pivotably.
Lebsak does not disclose: an element which is received pivotably in a bearing point, wherein the bearing point has arms for retaining the actuating lever in the bearing point), and wherein the retaining arms of the actuating element fit over the bearing point after being inserted into the bearing point, wherein the retaining arms are deformable.
Faitl teaches an element which is received pivotably in a bearing point, wherein the bearing point has arms for retaining the actuating lever in the bearing point), and wherein the retaining arms of the actuating element fit over the bearing point after being inserted into the bearing point, wherein the retaining arms are deformable for the purpose of pivotable attachment of two components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lebsak with an element which is received pivotably in a bearing point, wherein the bearing point has arms for retaining the actuating lever in the bearing point), and wherein the retaining arms of the actuating element fit over the bearing point after being inserted into the bearing point, wherein the retaining arms are deformable. as taught by Faitl for the expected benefit of utilizing known structure to pivotably attach two components.
Regarding claim 2, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock according to the motor vehicle lock according to wherein two, three, or more retaining arms (4, blades plural) fit over the actuating element (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 4, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock (2) according to claim 1, wherein the bearing point is formed from an opening (space denoted by 3) having an identical diameter.
Note: see indefinite rejection above, claim interpretation, device has an opening.
Regarding claim 5, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock (2) according to claim 1, wherein the bearing point has at least one deformation (conformed by mandrel 3), in particular a fold and/or an impression.
Regarding claim 6, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock (2) according to claim 4, wherein the bearing point has a separation point (between 4) in the region of the openings.
Regarding claim 7, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock (2) according to claim 4, wherein the bearing point has a tab (4b), wherein the tab extends at least partially into the opening of the bearing point (Fig.4), so that a bearing lock for the actuating element can be provided (not required).
Regarding claim 8, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 2, wherein the deformation, in particular the fold and/or impression (22, 23) and/or the separation point and/or the tab (4b), forms a stop (Fig, 4) for the actuating element (with 3b).
Regarding claim 9, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1, wherein the bearing point is formed as part of a pivotably mounted lever (1 and 2).
Note: it is completed apparatus that carries the weight of structure. Applicant is directed to product by process for guidance.
Regarding claim 10, Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock according to claim 1 wherein the bearing point has a greater material thickness (Fig. 2, at least partially) than the actuating element (portions of 1 and 2) .
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lebsak (DE 1020009048222) in view of Faitl DE102019129152) further inview of Howard .
Regarding claim 3. Lebsak as modified by Faitl discloses the motor vehicle lock (2) according to claim 1, wherein the bearing point and the actuating element (3, 18, 30) are formed from a metal sheet.
Lebsak as modified by Faitl does not discuss materials: a metal sheet.
Howard teaches elements made of metal ([0062]) for the purpose of providing durable materials of adequate strength in a door locking mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lebsak as modified by Faitl with elements made of metal as taught by Howard for the expected benefit of providing durable materials of adequate strength in a door locking mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
