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 8 is objected to because of the limitation “the latch shaft” in the limitation “an annular portion to which …” It is suggested amending the limitation as “[[the]] a latch shaft.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (JP 5828173).
For claim 1, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-10, a door lock device provided to a door of a vehicle, the door lock device comprising:
a latch (20) that engages with a striker (S) of a body of the vehicle, the latch being rotatable about a latch axial direction orthogonal to an approach direction of the striker (Figures 1-2);
a top cover (10) that supports a latch shaft (12) serving as a rotation center of the latch on an upper side in the latch axial direction (Figure 2);
a lever latch (110) integrally provided with the latch (20); and
a pressing unit (124) that is driven by a motor (150) and rotates about a drive shaft (142) in the approach direction of the striker (P5, last two paragraphs.),
wherein the lever latch (110) is positioned on a lower side with respect to the top cover in the latch axial direction (Figure 2), and
the pressing unit (124) presses and drives the lever latch (110) on a lower side with respect to the top cover in the latch axial direction (P5, last two paragraphs.)
For claim 2, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 1, further comprising: a meshing unit including the latch (20), the lever latch (110), and a ratchet (30) that holds the latch in an engagement state with the striker (P3, para. [3]); and a drive unit including the motor (150) and a sector gear (120) including the pressing unit (124), the sector gear being rotationally driven by the motor about the drive shaft, wherein the drive unit and the meshing unit form an L shape or an obtuse L shape (P5, para. [2]. Figures 2-3, and 6-9.)
For claim 3, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 1, further comprising: a ratchet (30) that maintains an engagement state between the striker and the latch (P3, para. [3]), the ratchet being rotatable about a ratchet shaft (13) parallel to the latch shaft (12, Figures 1-2); and a bottom cover (50) that supports the latch shaft and the ratchet shaft on a lower side in the latch axial direction, wherein the top cover (10) supports the ratchet shaft on an upper side in the latch axial direction, and the latch and the ratchet are disposed between the top cover and the bottom cover (Figures 1-2.)
For claim 4, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 3, wherein the top cover (10) and the bottom cover (50) are fastened together to the door (Figures 1-2.)
For claim 5, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 3, wherein the lever latch (110) has a lever portion whose distal end protrudes radially outward from an outer peripheral edge of the latch (20) when viewed in the latch axial direction (Figures 1-2), the distal end pressed and driven by the pressing unit (P8, para. [4-6]), and at least a part of the lever portion always overlaps the top cover when viewed in the latch axial direction (Figures 1-2.)
For claim 6, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 1, wherein an operation range for the pressing unit to press and drive the lever latch is set to an area extending across a reference line in an up-down direction passing through the drive shaft below the drive shaft (Since the lever latch is U-shaped, when pressing unit 124 presses lever latch 110, lever latch moves in up-down direction. P5, para. [5]; P8, para. [4].)
For claim 7, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 2, wherein the drive unit includes an emergency operation unit that releases engagement between the latch and the striker by a manual operation, the drive unit being covered with a resin housing except for the emergency operation unit (P7, para. [3].)
For claim 8, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-10, a door lock device provided to a door of a vehicle, the door lock device comprising:
a latch (20) that engages with a striker (S) of a body of the vehicle, the latch being rotatable about a latch axial direction orthogonal to an approach direction of the striker (Figures 1-2), the latch (20) having an engagement recess (the recess that carries 109) in the latch axial direction (Figure 5);
a lever latch (110) integrally provided with the latch (20); and
a pressing unit (124) that is driven by a motor (150) and rotates about a drive shaft (142) in the approach direction of the striker (P5, last two paragraphs.),
wherein the lever latch (110) includes:
a lever portion (one of the arms of 110) whose distal end protrudes radially outward from an outer peripheral edge of the latch (20) when viewed in the latch axial direction (Figures 1-2), the distal end being pressed and driven by the pressing unit (P5, last two paragraphs.);
an engagement protrusion (109) being fitted into the engagement recess (A portion 114 of lever latch 110 engages 109 which is fitted into the engagement recess. Figure 5);
an annular portion (Portion of 114 surrounding 12) to which the latch shaft (12) is fitted (Figure 5); and
a column portion (114) extending in the latch axial direction, the column portion (114) connecting the engagement protrusion (109) and the lever portion (Latch lever is U-shaped, P5, para. [5]. Column portion 114 connects both arms of 110, Figure 2.)
For claim 9, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 8, wherein the engagement recess is a notch formed in the outer peripheral edge of the latch (109 and surface of 20 form a notch. Figure 5.)
For claim 11, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 8, wherein the lever portion extends along a plane orthogonal to the latch (20) axial direction (Figure 3.)
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 5828173) alone.
For claim 10, D1 discloses the door lock device according to claim 8, wherein the latch and the lever latch are made of a metal material, and a surface of the engagement recess on a side where the engagement protrusion applies a pressing force when the lever latch is pressed and driven from the pressing unit is exposed of the metal material (P5, last two paragraphs; p8, para. [4].), and a surface of the engagement recess on an opposite side is covered with a resin material.
D1 discloses the claimed invention except for the lever latch are made of a metal material, and a surface of the engagement recess on an opposite side is covered with a resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lever latch are made of a metal material, and a surface of the engagement recess on an opposite side is covered with a resin material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One skill in the art would realize that having the lever latch are made of a metal material, and a surface of the engagement recess on an opposite side is covered with a resin material would yield the durable and wear resistance 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 Hiramoto (US 9,970,220); Inoue (US 8,025,320); Hayakawa (US 6,945,574).
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