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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically Applicant argues that there is support for the newly amended limitations of claim 1 and therefore there is no issue of new matter, Examiner disagrees. The paragraphs in Applicant’s specification, specifically P0005, P0016, P0020, that Applicant refers to, do not provide enough support for the amended limitations. The paragraphs only imply a first and second operating mode, there is no positive recitation or support for the control unit having a distinct first and second operating mode and being able to switch between the two. Likewise the externally accessible power supply being deactivated during this first operating mode is also implied and not positively recited.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding Claim 1, “a first operating mode” and “a second operating mode” both lack antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has the limitation “wherein in a first operating mode, the externally-accessible power supply is deactivated and the electrical drive unit is actuated with power from an internal voltage supply,” which lacks support from Applicant’s specification. The deactivation of the externally-accessible power supply is only implied in paragraphs P0016, P0020, P0026-27, as deactivation requires that an action is taken to cause the externally-accessible power supply to be deactivated, which there is no support for in Applicant’s specification or drawings. Please note: amending deactivated to inactive will overcome the 112(a) rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Linden US 20180038146 A1, in view of Bendel DE 102018100551 A1 (Please see attached machine translation for paragraph reference numbers).
Regarding Claim 1, Linden teaches: An opening device (Fig 6, 106, 192, 116, 152) for a motor vehicle door element (Fig 3, 10) comprising: an electrically-actuatable door lock (Fig 3, 106) that holds the vehicle door element in a locking position (P0034) and releases the vehicle door element to an open position (P0035), an electrical drive unit (Fig 5, 192) that is actuated for setting the vehicle door element between the locking position and the open position (P0037), and a control unit (Fig 4, 116) that operates the electric drive unit (P0037), wherein an operating mode opening device is authenticated first before the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 is actuated, which then uses the emergency power supply if the main vehicle power supply is interrupted or lost), wherein in a first operating mode (this is the normal operating mode described in P0037-39), the externally-accessible power supply is deactivated (see 112a rejection above) and the electrical drive unit is actuated with power from an internal voltage supply (P0037-39, internal voltage supply is 148), and wherein when the control unit detects a voltage drop in the internal voltage supply (P0039, the main power supply failing or disconnecting results in a voltage drop), the control unit is configured to select a second operating mode (P0039, the control unit 116’s temporary operation of the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 via the electrical drive unit 192 with power from the emergency power supply 152 during the condition that the main power supply fails or is disconnected is the second operating mode) in which the control unit legitimizes and activates the emergency power supply to provide voltage for actuating the electrical drive unit (P0039, the control unit 116 temporarily operates the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 via the electrical drive unit 192 with power from the emergency power supply 152 during the condition that the main power supply fails or is disconnected, therefore it authorizes the emergency power supply to operate the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 of the opening device). Linden is silent on wherein the emergency power supply configured as an externally-accessible power supply that is connectable to the control unit. Bendel teaches that it is known in the art to have an external energy source (Bendel: Fig 1, 10) externally-accessible power supply (Bendel: Fig 1, 11) for a vehicle door (Bendel: Fig 1, 1) that is externally accessible (Bendel: P0016) that is connectable to a control unit (Bendel: Fig 1, 8, P0030 states that the externally-accessible power supply is connectable to the control unit 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Linden, to substitute the emergency power supply for the external energy source and externally-accessible power supply of Bendel, resulting in the emergency power supply being structurally independent of the motor vehicle and able to be connected to an externally-accessible power supply, thereby increasing reliability of the of the emergency backup system as it is less likely to be damaged in the event of an accident (Bendel: P008-9)
Regarding Claim 3, Linden, in view of Bendel, teaches: The opening device according to claim 1, further comprising an external access (Bendel: Fig 1, 11) for connecting the emergency power supply (Bendel: P0031) and a flap (Bendel: Fig 1, 14), wherein the external access is arranged in a region of the flap (Bendel: shown in Fig 1 as described in P0033), for connection of the emergency power supply (Bendel: P0033).
Regarding Claim 4, Linden, in view of Bendel, teaches: The opening device according to claim 1, wherein the emergency power supply is coupled to the opening device by the control unit (P0039, emergency power supply 152 is coupled to electrically-actuatable door lock 106 of the opening device via control unit 116 as the control unit 116 can pull power from the emergency power supply to actuate 192 of the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 of the opening device).
Regarding Claim 6, Linden, in view of Bendel, teaches: The opening device according to claim 1, wherein the legitimization is carried out in response to a voltage drop (P0039, the legitimization of the emergency energy supply 152 is carried out in response to the main power supply failing or disconnecting, and it is the position of the Examiner that this would present as a voltage drop).
Regarding Claim 7, Linden, in view of Bendel, teaches: The opening device according to claim 1, wherein the legitimization is carried out by the control unit (P0039, the control unit 116 temporarily operates the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 via the electrical drive unit 192 with power from the emergency power supply 152 during the condition that the main power supply fails or is disconnected, therefore it authorizes the emergency power supply to operate the electrically-actuatable door lock 106 of the opening device), the control unit being configured as an external control unit (Fig 6, control unit 116 is external to 140, it is therefore an external control unit).
Regarding Claim 8, Linden teaches: The opening device according to claim 1, wherein the legitimization is carried out in response to a crash signal (P0038, the control unit 116 is connected to 128 which can signal a crash event and send it to electrically-accessible door lock 106, therefore it is the position of the Examiner that the controller 116 would receive this signal).
Regarding Claim 11, Linden, in view of Bendel teaches: The opening device according to claim 3, wherein the flap is a fuel filler flap or a charging socket (Bendel: P0018, the energy interface has the possibility of being mounted to an opening fuel filler flap, in which case the flap would be the fuel filler flap).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden US 20180038146 A1, in view of Park KR 100844761 B1 (Please see attached machine translation for paragraph reference numbers).
Regarding Claim 9, Linden teaches: The opening device according to claim 1. Linden is silent on wherein the legitimization is carried out in response to activation of a circuit breaker. Park teaches that it is known in the art to use circuit breakers (Park: 30) to control the supply of power from a power source (P0004). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Linden to include the circuit breaker as taught by Park, resulting in a circuit breaker that can control the power supplied by the emergency power supply, as it performs the same function, thereby increasing safety of the emergency power supply.
Claim(s) 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden US 20180038146 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Linden does not explicitly teach a method for the operation of an opening device arrangement as claimed. However, regarding claim 10, The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art, Linden US 20180038146 A1, in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth (see rejection of claims 1 above). When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious (or anticipated) by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 13, Linden does not explicitly teach a method for the operation of an opening device arrangement as claimed. However, regarding claim 13, The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art, Linden US 20180038146 A1, in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth (see rejection of claims 8 above). When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious (or anticipated) by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 14, Linden does not explicitly teach a method for the operation of an opening device arrangement as claimed. However, regarding claim 13, The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art, Linden US 20180038146 A1 and Park KR 100844761 B1, in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth (see rejection of claims 9 above). When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious (or anticipated) by the prior art
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER F CALLAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon through Thur 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights