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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 3/14/2023 has been considered and is included in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number “13” is not in drawings. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference to operating element 13 in Figure 7 are not shown in the Figure, and therefore need to be updated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 and 18-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “is the controller” should be changed to --the controller--.
In claims 2-16 and 18-23, “driver device” should be changed to --drive device--.
In claim 9, line 2, “includes a interior” should be changed to --includes an interior--.
In claim 21, line 3, “and a user force resulting from the target force value to” should be changed to --and a user force as follows:--.
In claim 22, line 1, “to the” should be changed to --the--.
In claim 22, line 3, “servo-controller” should be changed to --servo controller--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inhibiting device” in claim 2, “output element” in claim 3, and “operating element” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof such as:
“inhibiting device” corresponds to a brake (paragraph [0144]).
“output element” corresponds to a worm having worm teeth (paragraph [0142]).
“operating element” corresponds to a button (paragraph [0147]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the current control module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089, cited in IDS dated 3/14/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Frye et al. discloses a drive device (16) for adjusting an interior assembly (10) of a vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: an electromotive adjustment drive (Fig. 3) for adjusting the interior assembly and a controller (24) configured to control the adjustment drive, wherein is the controller is further configured to control the adjustment drive in a servo operation for providing a supporting force during a manual adjustment of the interior assembly by a user (Figs. 13A-14C, paragraphs [0004] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 1, and discloses wherein the drive device includes an inhibiting device (worm gear set (120) configured to inhibit an adjusting movement of the interior assembly in a locked position (paragraph [0050], when motor is not rotating), the control device being further configured to transfer the inhibiting device from the locked position to an unlocked position for adjusting the interior assembly (unlocking when the motor is controlled to rotate).
Regarding claim 3, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 1, and discloses wherein the drive device further includes an output element (threaded rod (114) operatively connected to the adjustment drive, wherein the inhibiting device is operatively connected to the output element in order to lock the output element against adjustment in the locked position and to release it for adjustment in the unlocked position (paragraph [0050] teaches that the worm gear set (120) provides a braking, i.e. locked position and releasing when unlocked).
Regarding claim 4, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 1, and discloses wherein the interior assembly (10) is a vehicle seat (Fig. 1) or an assembly of a vehicle seat.
Regarding claim 5, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 4, and discloses wherein the interior assembly is configured to be pivotable about a pivot axis or displaceable along a longitudinal direction (longitudinal along track (15), Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 5, and discloses wherein the interior assembly (10) includes an operating element (60) configured to be operable by a user to adjust the interior assembly (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 6, and discloses wherein the operating element is formed by a pushbutton to be actuated mechanically (paragraph [0047], pushbutton (61) of (60)).
Regarding claim 8, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 7, and discloses wherein the interior assembly includes a sensor (22) configured to detect a contact, an approach, an acceleration or a movement speed at the interior assembly, wherein the controller is configured to evaluate a detection signal of the sensor to identify an adjustment request of a user (paragraphs [0046] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 8, and discloses wherein the drive device further includes a interior monitoring device (checking the enablement button and gesture adjustment requests), wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate a detection signal of the interior monitoring device for detecting an adjustment request of a user (Figs. 19-21, paragraphs [0037], [0128]).
Regarding claim 10, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 9, and discloses wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate a detection signal for detecting a predetermined gesture and, when the predetermined gesture is detected, conclude an adjustment request (Figs. 19-21, paragraphs [0037], [0128], examples in Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 11, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 10, and discloses wherein the controller is further configured to activate an adjustment mode to adjust the interior assembly in servo operation as a function of at least one trigger criterion (step 1012 of Fig. 6, paragraph [0055], controller (24) operating the slide mover (110) in a servo operation based on the manual forces indicating the adjustment request).
Regarding claim 12, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 11, and discloses wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate as a trigger criterion an occupancy state of the interior assembly (step 1012 of Fig. 6), an opening state of a vehicle door (through vehicle status indicator (1664), detection of door status (1670), Fig. 21), or a driving state of the vehicle (through (1664), (1672), Fig. 21).
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.
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089) in view of Feineis et al. (US 2020/0039400).
Regarding claim 13, Frye et al. discloses the drive device of claim 12. However, Frye et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to drive the adjustment drive with a pulse-width modulated current signal upon or after activation of the adjustment mode.
Feineis et al., like Frye et al., teaches a drive device for adjusting an interior assembly, and teaches wherein the controller is further configured to drive the adjustment drive with a pulse-width modulated current signal upon or after activation of the adjustment mode (paragraphs [0019]-[0020] teach the benefits of using a pulse-width modulated current signal when adjusting a variable on an interior assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive device of Frye et al. to include a pulse-width modulated current signal as taught by Feineis et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the number of potential electric lines used to reduce costs (Feineis et al.: paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. teaches the drive device of claim 13, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to adapt to control the adjustment device in the adjustment mode for providing a supporting force in a manual adjustment of the interior assembly by a user (Figs. 13A-14C, paragraphs [0004] and [0046]), in response to an adjustment request of a user is detected after activating the adjustment mode (Fig. 6, in response to an adjustment request by the user detected/confirmed).
Regarding claim 15, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. teaches the drive device of claim 14, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to generate an indication signal as an indication of the adjustment mode for output to a user after activation of the adjustment mode (dash display (64) provides an indication signal).
Claims 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089) in view of Feineis et al. (US 2020/0039400) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Holt et al. (US 2018/0328097).
Regarding claim 16, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. teaches the drive device of claim 15. However, does not explicitly teach wherein the controller includes a servo controller configured to determine a setpoint in dependence on a load acting on the interior assembly.
Holt et al., like Frye et al., teaches a drive device for adjusting an interior assembly in a vehicle, and teaches wherein the controller includes a servo controller configured to determine a setpoint in dependence on a load acting on the interior assembly (paragraphs [0056], [0090]-[0091], [0106], equations 1 and 6, setpoint dependent upon loads acting on the interior assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive device of Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. to include a servo controller determining a setpoint as taught by Holt et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a consistent feel for the driver in the movement for comfort and reliability (Holt et al.: paragraph [0091], Fig. 3). Please note in the combination, the interior assembly is the vehicle seat taught by Frye et al.
Regarding claim 17, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 16, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the controller includes a current controller configured to control a current of the adjustment drive (see paragraph [0015]), wherein the current controller is further configured to adapt to control the current of the adjustment drive based on the setpoint supplied by the servo controller (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 16, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the controller includes a load calculation controller configured to calculate a load acting on the interior assembly as a function of an angle of inclination of the vehicle measured about a vehicle longitudinal axis, an angle of inclination of a pivot axis of the interior assembly measured about the vehicle longitudinal axis, an angle of inclination of the vehicle measured about a vehicle transverse axis, an angle of inclination of the pivot axis of the interior assembly measured about the vehicle transverse axis, or a position of the interior assembly (paragraphs [0069]-[0077], [0091], and [0097] position).
Regarding claim 19, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 18, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the servo controller is further configured to determine a target force to be provided by the adjustment drive on the basis of a load acting on the interior assembly and a target force value to be applied by a user (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0056], [0090]-[0091], [0106], equations 1 and 6, setpoint dependent upon loads acting on the interior assembly).
Regarding claim 20, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 19, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the load acting on the interior assembly is determined by utilizing a static load force acting on the interior assembly and a dynamic load force acting on the interior assembly (paragraph [0091], gravity is being interpreted as a static load force and the wind is being interpreted as a dynamic load force).
Regarding claim 21, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 20, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the target force is determined by a force balance of the static load force, the dynamic load force and a user force resulting from the target force value to Fset = Fstat + Fdyn – Fuser, where Fset is the nominal force, Fstat is the static load force, Fdyn is the dynamic load force, and Fuser is the user force (paragraphs [0056], [0090]-[0091], [0106], equations 1 and 6, setpoint dependent upon loads acting on the interior assembly include static, dynamic, and user load forces).
Regarding claim 22, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 21, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the servo-controller is configured to determine the setpoint value on the basis of the setpoint force to be provided by the adjustment drive (paragraphs [0056], [0090]-[0091], [0106], equations 1 and 6, setpoint value based on the setpoint force for the adjustment drive).
Regarding claim 23, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 22, and teaches (references to Feineis et al.) wherein the current controller is configured to adjust the current of the adjustment drive using pulse width modulation (paragraphs [0019]-[0020], using PWM turns the current on and off rapidly, thereby adjusting the current).
Regarding claim 24, Frye et al. as modified by Feineis et al. and Holt et al. teaches the drive device of claim 23, and teaches (references to Holt et al.) wherein the current control module is designed to control the current of the adjustment drive on the basis of the supplied setpoint value and the resulting actual motor current (paragraphs [0015], [0053], and [0055], setpoint and resulting motor current in feedback loop).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Meister et al. (DE 19831931) teaches a current controller with setpoint and actual motor current controlled. Fischer et al. (DE 19900820), Budweg et al. (WO 2004/098945), and Rietdijk (US 2018/0216392) teach a servo controller for a drive device of an interior assembly of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate 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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643