DETAILED ACTION
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 1-19 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.
In claim 1, “the fastened state” has a lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, it is unclear what intended function the claimed functional unit is intended to perform in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, it is unclear what is intended to constitute a bodywork component and what functional or structural purpose it is intended to serve in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, line 2, it is unclear exactly what previous claim element “being” is referring to in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, in the phrase “for the purpose of connection to the body work component”, it is unclear in the context of the claim what claim element is intended to connect to the body work component.
In claim 1, it is unclear in the context of the claim language exact what “for this purpose” is referring to.
In claim 1, “in such as way” is indefinite in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, it is unclear and not fully understood what constitutes “a tearing force in the functional connection plane” and when and how such a tearing force may occur in the context of the claim language.
Similar 112 issues as above are found throughout the remaining claims.
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.
Claim 1 is, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10233802A1 (DE ‘802 A1). As in claim 1, a motor vehicle lock inherently comprising a locking mechanism unit 4 and what can at least broadly be considered a functional unit (including at least part of 14 and/or 5) and, in the fastened state, being connected to a bodywork component, the locking mechanism unit comprising a locking mechanism connection plate (included as part of 8) in a locking mechanism connection plane and the functional unit comprising a functional connection plate in a functional connection plane for the purpose of connection to the bodywork component, the motor vehicle lock being L-shaped and, for this purpose, the locking mechanism connection plane and the functional connection plane inherently being oriented at an angle to one another (even if the angle is near zero), the locking mechanism connection plate and the functional connection plate are configured as separate components and are coupled to one another in, as best understood, such a way that said coupling allows, on the one hand, the transmission of a tearing force in the functional connection plane by way of a form fit between the locking mechanism connection plate and the functional connection plate and, on the other hand, a compensating movement between the locking mechanism connection plate and the functional connection plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10233802A1 (DE ‘802 A1).
Regarding each of the limitations of each of these claims, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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 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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights