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
Claim 21 “an electrical locking motor”, and “a locking gear”
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 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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (Byun et al., US Pub. 2016-0281400).
For claim 13, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-6, Vehicle door latch equipment, comprising:
an engagement mechanism (51, 52) configured to engage with a striker (abstract);
a rotatable opening lever (55) configured to rotate between a rest position and an actuation position wherein the rotatable opening lever releases the engagement mechanism (Para. [0044]);
an electrical release mechanism (20, Figures 2-6) comprising an electrical release motor (31) with an output shaft and a worm (32) arranged on the output shaft of the electrical release motor which is configured to mesh with a gear wheel (35) in order to displace the rotatable opening lever (Electrical release mechanism operates the release cable 44 which in turn operates the Opening lever 55. Figures 2-6.),
wherein the electrical release mechanism further comprises a planetary gear (30) arranged between the electrical release motor (31) and the rotatable opening lever (55. Figures 2-6.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Byun et al., US Pub. 2016-0281400) in view of D2 (Gulkan et al. EP 2 857 616).
For claim 14, D1 discloses the vehicle doorlatch equipment in accordance with claim 13, wherein the planetary gear (30) comprises a sun gear which is coupled in rotation with the gear wheel that is configured to mesh with the worm arranged on the output shaft of the electrical release motor, a ring gear, planet gears configured to mesh on one side with the sun gear and on the other side with the ring gear, and a planet carrier, the planet carrier being configured to displace the rotatable opening lever between its rest position and its actuation position.
D2 teaches a vehicle lock with planetary gear (13, 16) including a sun gear 13. D2 teaches a ring gear 15. The planetary gear is configured to mesh with the worm for smooth operation of the lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a planetary gear comprises a sun gear which is coupled in rotation with the gear wheel that is configured to mesh with the worm arranged on the output shaft of the electrical release motor, a ring gear, planet gears configured to mesh on one side with the sun gear and on the other side with the ring gear, and a planet carrier, the planet carrier being configured to displace the rotatable opening lever between its rest position and its actuation position .. as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a smooth operation of the lock.
For claim 15, the combination teaches the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 14, wherein the ring gear (15 of D2) is configured to be fixed with respect to a housing of the vehicle door latch equipment (D1 modified with D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 16, the combination teaches the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 13, wherein the worm comprises a single lead thread, a double-lead threads, or a triple-lead threads (23 of D2) according to a predetermined gear ratio of the electrical release mechanism (D1 modified with D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Byun et al., US Pub. 2016-0281400) in view of D2 (Gulkan et al. EP 2 857 616) and further in view of D3 (Strum et al., WO 20 210 63 440).
For claim 17, the combination teaches the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the gear ratio of a set comprising a mechanism including the gear wheel the worm and the planetary gear is comprised between 150 and 300.
D3 teaches a lock with gear ratio between 100 and 1000 for compact design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with gear ratio of a set comprising a mechanism including the gear wheel the worm and the planetary gear is comprised between 150 and 300, as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a compact design.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Byun et al., US Pub. 2016-0281400) in view of D4 (Chinchillas et al., US Pub. 2023-0167658).
For claim 18, D1 discloses the vehicle doorlatch equipment in accordance with claim 13, but does not disclose further comprising a spring arranged between the rotatable opening lever and a part which is fixed with respect to a housing of the vehicle door latch equipment to bring the rotatable opening lever back in the rest position.
D4 teaches a lock with trigger 211, spring 219 which biases the trigger 211 (para. [0061]), a cable connected to 227a to cause the trigger to move from locked to unlocked position (para. [0067]) for effective operation of the lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a spring arranged between the rotatable opening lever and a part which is fixed with respect to a housing of the vehicle door latch equipment to bring the rotatable opening lever back in the rest position, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having an effective operation of the lock.
Claim(s) 19-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Byun et al., US Pub. 2016-0281400) in view of D5 (Wilke et al., US Pub. 2023-0313571).
For claim 19, D1 discloses the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 13, but does not disclose further comprising a mechanical release mechanism comprising a rotatable mechanical lever configured to be linked mechanically to a handle to be rotated between a rest position and an opening position, the rotatable opening lever being displaced by the rotatable mechanical lever so that the rotatable opening lever is in the actuation position when the rotatable mechanical lever is rotated in the opening position.
D5 teaches, in Figures 1-5, a lock with inside handle 110, mechanical linkage 128, and Bowden cable 103 for mechanical unlocking (para. [0034, 0036, 0042].) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a mechanical release mechanism comprising a rotatable mechanical lever configured to be linked mechanically to a handle to be rotated between a rest position and an opening position, the rotatable opening lever being displaced by the rotatable mechanical lever so that the rotatable opening lever is in the actuation position when the rotatable mechanical lever is rotated in the opening position, as taught by D5 with a reasonable expectation of success of mechanical unlocking.
For claim 20, the combination teaches the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 19, wherein the rotatable mechanical lever is linked to a return spring (120 of D5) configured to bring the rotatable mechanical lever back in the rest position (Para. [0041]. D1 modified with D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 22, the combination teaches a vehicle door comprising: the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 19; and the handle configured to be mechanically linked to a rotatable mechanical lever (D5 teaches, in Figures 1-5, a lock with inside handle 110, mechanical linkage 128, and Bowden cable 103 for mechanical unlocking [para. 0034, 0036, 0042]. D1 modified with D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 23, the combination teaches the vehicle door in accordance with claim 22, wherein the handle is an inner handle (110 of D5. D1 modified with D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 24, the combination teaches the vehicle door in accordance with claim 22, wherein the rotatable mechanical lever is linked to the handle by a Bowden cable or by a rod (103 of D5. D1 modified with D5 teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Byun et al., US Pub. 2016-0281400) in view of D6 (Okada et al., US Pub. 2022-0259900).
For claim 21, D1 discloses the vehicle door latch equipment in accordance with claim 13, but does not disclose further comprising a locking mechanism comprising an electrical locking motor with an output shaft, a worm arranged on the output shaft of the electrical locking motor, a locking gear wheel configured to mesh with the worm to be rotated between an unlock position and a lock position and a locking lever configured to be displaced by the locking gear wheel between a first position associated with the lock position of the locking gear wheel wherein the locking lever prevents the release of the engagement mechanism and a second position associated with the unlock position of the locking gear wheel wherein the engagement mechanism can be released.
D6 teaches a door lock with blocking lever 28, and a mechanism that prevents the release of the door (Para. [108, 0112]) providing a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a locking mechanism comprising an electrical locking motor with an output shaft, a worm arranged on the output shaft of the electrical locking motor, a locking gear wheel configured to mesh with the worm to be rotated between an unlock position and a lock position and a locking lever configured to be displaced by the locking gear wheel between a first position associated with the lock position of the locking gear wheel wherein the locking lever prevents the release of the engagement mechanism and a second position associated with the unlock position of the locking gear wheel wherein the engagement mechanism can be released, as taught by D6 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Cetnar (US 7,827,836); Rogers (US 6,123,372); Rojas (US 12,590,474).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights