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
“the actuating lever can be fixed by the blocking section in a state of the blocking lever deflected by the control contour” (examiner emphasis added) of claim 5.
“at least one blocking lever” of claims 4 and 11-12 (multiple blocking levers are not shown).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 2-3, 8-9, 13 and 19 “the driver” should be “the rotatable driver”.
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 1-9 and 11-20 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, “a drive mechanism” in line 6 is unclear. Specifically, “a drive mechanism” was already claimed in lines 1-2. Therefore, it’s unclear if the applicant intended to claim a new element or refer to the element previously introduced. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
In regards to claim 7, 14-17, “the blocking lever” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. It’s unclear if the applicant intended to introduce this term in the claim or for the claim to depend on a claim which introduces this term. For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed and “the blocking lever” is assumed to read “a blocking lever”.
In regards to claims 5-6 and 20 “the driver” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. It’s unclear if the applicant intended to introduce this term in the claim or for the claim to depend on a claim which introduces this term. For the purposes of examination, the former is assumed and “the driver” is assumed to read “a rotatable driver”.
Claims 2-4, 8-13 and 18-19 are rejected due to their dependencies 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, 6-7, 10-12, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dupont FR 2768761 A1 (hereinafter Dupont).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches a double-stroke locking system, comprising: a rotary latch (5), a locking pawl (7 and 11) and a drive mechanism (at least 41 and 50), wherein the rotary latch has a receiving region (6) which is designed to receive a locking element (see fig 12), and wherein the locking pawl is designed to lock the rotary latch in at least one rotational position (see figs 13 and 15), wherein the locking pawl has an actuating lever (11) and can be moved into an unlocking position (see figs 17-18 and 12) or into a locking position by the actuating lever , wherein the actuating lever can be connected to a drive mechanism, wherein the actuating lever can be decoupled (at least operationally) from the drive mechanism by performing a first unlocking stroke by the drive mechanism (see figs 16 -17; also note fig 12 and para 107).
In regards to claim 2, Dupont teaches a locking system according to claim 1, wherein the actuating lever can be moved into an unlocking position by a rotatable driver (50) of the drive mechanism, wherein, after the first unlocking stroke, the actuating lever can be decoupled from the drive mechanism by the driver sliding off (note sliding is defined as “to move smoothly along a surface “ by Merriam-Webster) the actuating lever (see figs 16-18 and 12).
In regards to claim 3, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 2, wherein the driver can be moved into a basic position (fig 18 at least as this is the starting point for the movement in para 107) by the drive mechanism (at least partially) after actuation of a second unlocking stroke (see fig 17-18, at least stroke of 5), wherein, in the basic position of the driver, the actuating lever is coupled to the drive mechanism (see fig 18).
In regards to claim 4, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 1, wherein the locking system has at least one blocking lever (52), wherein the blocking lever is designed to interact with a positive fit with a control contour of the rotary latch (at 10, see fig 15).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 4, wherein a deflection of the blocking lever can be reset after rotation of the rotary latch and the driver (see figs 12 and 18) and/or the actuating lever can be released (from 5 via 49, see fig 18).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 1, wherein the locking pawl and/or the rotary latch and/or the blocking lever (49) are spring-loaded (at least via Pr), wherein the rotary latch is arranged to be rotatable about a first axis of rotation (5a) and the locking pawl is arranged to be rotatable about a second axis of rotation and the blocking lever is arranged to be rotatable about the second axis of rotation (see fig 12, 7 and 49 pivot about the same axis).
In regards to claim 10, Dupont teaches a method for operating a locking system, wherein a drive mechanism (50 and 41) is actuated and a first unlocking stroke is carried out (from figs 16-17), wherein during the first unlocking stroke a driver (50) of the drive mechanism moves a locking pawl (7) via an actuating lever (11) from a first tilting position (see fig 16) into a second tilting position (see fig 17), wherein after the end of the first unlocking stroke the driver is decoupled from the actuating lever (see fig 17, fig 12 and para 107).
In regards to claim 11, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 2, wherein the locking system has at least one blocking lever (52), wherein the blocking lever is designed to interact with a positive fit with a control contour (about 10, see fig 15) of the rotary latch.
In regards to claim 12, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 3, wherein the locking system has at least one blocking lever (52), wherein the blocking lever is designed to interact with a positive fit with a control contour (about 10, see fig 15) of the rotary latch.
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 2, wherein the locking pawl and/or the rotary latch and/or the blocking lever (49, at least via Pr) are spring-loaded, wherein the rotary latch is arranged to be rotatable about a first axis of rotation (5a) and the locking pawl is arranged to be rotatable about a second axis of rotation and the blocking lever is arranged to be rotatable about the second axis of rotation (7 and 49 rotate about the same axis of rotation, see fig 12).
In regards to claim 15, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 3, wherein the locking pawl and/or the rotary latch and/or the blocking lever 49, at least via Pr) are spring-loaded, wherein the rotary latch is arranged to be rotatable about a first axis of rotation (5a) and the locking pawl is arranged to be rotatable about a second axis of rotation and the blocking lever is arranged to be rotatable about the second axis of rotation (7 and 49 rotate about the same axis of rotation, see fig 12).
**** Below is a separate interpretation of Dupont claims 4 and 6 for the purposes of claims 16 and 18.
In regards to claim 4, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 1, wherein the locking system has at least one blocking lever (49), wherein the blocking lever is designed to interact (indirectly) with a positive fit (of 7 and 8) with a control contour of the rotary latch (contour of 8).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 4, wherein a deflection of the blocking lever can be reset after rotation of the rotary latch and the driver and/or the actuating lever can be released (from interaction with 5; see fig 17) .
In regards to claim 16, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 4, wherein the locking pawl and/or the rotary latch and/or the blocking lever are spring-loaded (at least via Pr), wherein the rotary latch is arranged to be rotatable about a first axis of rotation and the locking pawl is arranged to be rotatable about a second axis of rotation and the blocking lever is arranged to be rotatable about the second axis of rotation (7 and 49 rotate about the same axis of rotation, see fig 12).
In regards to claim 18, Dupont teaches the locking system according to claim 6, wherein the locking pawl and/or the rotary latch and/or the blocking lever (at least via pr) are spring-loaded, wherein the rotary latch is arranged to be rotatable about a first axis of rotation and the locking pawl is arranged to be rotatable about a second axis of rotation and the blocking lever is arranged to be rotatable about the second axis of rotation (7 and 49 rotate about the same axis of rotation, see fig 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
If the relevant 112 rejections are properly overcome claims 5, 8-9, 13, 17 and 19-20 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hunt US 20180171680 A1 – teaches a sliding and pivoting driving member.
Digel et al. US 20190301212 A1 – teaches a similar blocking lever.
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
Prosecution Insights