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 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 11 and 15 are 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.
Regarding Claim 11, lines 1-2, “engaging a biasing element of the biased cam mechanism” is unclear. It is not understood if this is a new biasing element or the biasing element first positively recited in claim 9. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “engaging the biasing element of the biased cam mechanism”.
Regarding Claim 15, lines 1-2, “further comprising a lifting latch for coupling the control cam to the cam spring element” is unclear. It is not understood if this claim is supposed to depend from claim 13, where the control cam is first positively recited, or if this is a simple antecedent basis issue. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as depending from claim 13.
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, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khulman US 4968073 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Khulman teaches: A spring driven system (Fig 1) for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel (Fig 1: 10) of a vehicle (Col 2 L49-50), the system comprising: a pop up mechanism (Fig 2: 50, 54, 56, 61) mounted adjacent to the closure panel for moving the closure panel from a fully closed position (Fig 1) to a partially open position (Fig 2), the pop up mechanism having a plunger (Fig 2: 54, 56, 61); and a biased cam mechanism (Figs 3 and 4, 26, 70, 74, 76) coupled to the pop up mechanism by a coupling (Figs 4-6, 78, the figs show how 78 couples 74 and 76 to 54 of the pop up mechanism via contact with 61), the biased cam mechanism having a biasing element (Col 3 L4-5, the spring that biases 26 of the biased cam mechanism to the position shown in Fig 1, which is clockwise) for moderating a deployment rate of the plunger (Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 of the plunger engages with 78 of the biasing cam mechanism and drives it counterclockwise as the plunger is extended, it pushes the biasing cam mechanism against the force of the biasing element, which is the spring that biases 26 clockwise in Fig 1, via driving 26 to pivot counterclockwise, thereby moderating the deployment rate of the plunger 54 as the plunger has to work against the force of the biasing element, which slows the plunger down).
Regarding Claim 9, Khulman teaches: A biased cam mechanism (Figs 3 and 4: 26, 70, 74) for coupling by a coupling (Figs 4-6: 78, the figs show how 78 couples 74 and 76 to 54 of the pop up mechanism via contact with 61) to a pop up mechanism (Fig 2: 50, 54, 56, 61) used by a closure panel (Fig 1: 10) of a vehicle (Col 2 L49-50), the biased cam mechanism having a biasing element (Fig 1, Col 3 L4-5, the biasing element is 26) for moderating a deployment rate of a plunger (Fig 2: the plunger is 54, 56, 61) of the pop up mechanism by engaging with a cam spring element (The cam spring element is the spring that biases the biasing element 26, which is described in Col 3 L4-5. In Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 engages with 78 of the biasing cam mechanism and drives it counterclockwise as the plunger 54 is extended, it pushes the biased cam mechanism against the force of the biasing element 26 from the cam spring element that biases 26 clockwise in Fig 1, thereby moderating the deployment rate of the plunger 54 as the plunger has to work against the force of the biasing element 26 provided by the cam spring element, which slows the plunger down).
Regarding Claim 11, Khulman teaches: The mechanism of claim 9, engaging a biasing element of the biased cam mechanism to the movement of the coupling in order to moderate a deployment rate of the plunger (In Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 engages with coupling 78 of the biasing cam mechanism and drives coupling 78 counterclockwise as the plunger 54 is extended, it pushes the biased cam mechanism against the force of the biasing element 26 from the cam spring element that biases 26 clockwise in Fig 1, thereby moderating the deployment rate of the plunger 54); wherein the biased cam mechanism further comprising the cam spring element coupled to the biasing element (Col 3 L4-5, it is the position of the Examiner that the spring that is the cam spring element which biases the biasing element 26, is mechanically coupled to it similarly to how torsion spring 88 is located on the pivot axis of 76 and 74 of the biasing cam mechanism) and a release lever (Fig 4: 76, 82, 100) coupled to the pop up mechanism by the coupling (Fig 4 shows how the coupling 78 couples release lever 76 to pop up mechanism 54 via 78 contacting 61 of the pop up mechanism and 74, to which 78 is attached, contacting 100 of release lever 76), such movement of the cam spring element is coupled via the release lever to the deployment rate of the plunger (In Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 of the plunger engages with 78 of the biasing cam mechanism and drives it counterclockwise as 54 of the plunger is extended, it pushes 74 of the biasing cam mechanism against release lever 76, release lever 76 then pushing biasing element 26 via 82 of the release lever pressing against 40 of biasing element 26 to pivot it counterclockwise against force from the spring that biases biasing element 26 clockwise, this being the cam spring element. The force of the biasing element 26 pushing back on release lever 76 which is applied via the spring that biases the biasing element clockwise that is the cam spring element, slows the deployment rate of the plunger as it has to work against this force by driving biased cam mechanism 74 to rotate clockwise. Therefore the movement of the cam spring element is coupled to the via the release lever to the deployment rate of the plunger).
Regarding Claim 18, Khulman teaches: A spring driven system (Fig 1) for opening a closure panel (Fig 1: 10) of a vehicle (Col 2 L49-50), the system comprising: a pop up mechanism (Fig 2: 50, 54, 56, 61) mounted adjacent to the closure panel (shown in Fig 1) for moving the closure panel from a closed position (Fig 1) to a partially open position (Fig 2), the pop up mechanism comprising a spring (Fig 1: 60 of the pop up mechanism is a spring) for biasing the closure panel towards a partially open position (Col 3 L53-56, spring 60 biases plunger 54 to the extended position, which results in the closure panel being biased to the partially open position); and an actuator (Fig 5: 74, 76, 78, 26) coupled to the popup mechanism (Fig 4 shows how 78 couples the actuator to pop up mechanism 54 via 78 contacting 61 of the pop up mechanism) for controlling the bias as the closure panel moves towards the partially open position (Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 of the pop up mechanism engages with 78 of the actuator and drives it counterclockwise as the plunger 54 is extended, 74 is rotated and rotates 76 via contacting 100 of 76. 76 in turn contacts 40 of 26 to pivot 26 counterclockwise against the biasing force of its spring which biases 26 clockwise. This force from the spring which biases 26 works against the biasing force of the spring 60 that biases the pop up mechanism as the closure panel moves towards the partially open position, thereby controlling the bias. This is also shown in the Figures when going from Fig 1 to Fig 2 and when going from Figs 4-6).
Regarding Claim 19, Khulman teaches: A system (Fig 1) for opening a closure panel (Fig 1, 10) of a vehicle (Col 2 L49-50), the system comprising: a latch (Fig 1, 16, 32) for retaining the closure panel in a closed position (shown in Fig 1) and for releasing the closure panel to allow the closure panel to move towards an open position (Col 4 L59-Col 5 L2); a spring (Fig 1: 60) for storing energy in a compressed state (shown in Fig 1 and described in Col 3 L53-56) and for releasing the stored energy during a decompression state (shown in Fig 2 and described in Col 3 L53-56), wherein during the decompression state the spring cause the closure panel to move towards a partially open position (shown in Fig 2) from the closed position (Col 4 L40-68); and an actuator (Fig 5: 74, 76, 78, 26) operably coupled to the spring (Fig 4 shows how 78 couples the actuator to spring 60 via 78 contacting 61 which is connected to spring 60) for reducing the rate of release of the stored energy during the decompression state of the spring subsequent to the latch releasing the closure panel (Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 engages with 78 of the actuator and drives it counterclockwise as the plunger 54 is extended, 74 is rotated and rotates 76 via contacting 100 of 76. 76 in turn contacts 40 of 26 to pivot 26 counterclockwise against the biasing force of its spring which biases 26 clockwise. This force from the spring which biases 26 works against the biasing force of the spring 60 that biases the plunger 54 as the closure panel moves towards the partially open position, thereby reducing the rate of release of the stored energy of spring 60 during the decompression state. This is also shown in the Figures when going from Fig 1 to Fig 2 and when going from Figs 4-6).
Regarding Claim 20, Khulman teaches: A biasing arrangement for a hood (Fig 1, 10) of a vehicle (Col 2 L49-50), the system comprising: a spring (Fig 1: 60) positioned between a body of the vehicle (Fig 1: 11) and the hood (shown in Fig 1), the spring having a loaded position (Fig 1) corresponding to the hood in a closed position (Fig 1) and an unloaded position (Fig 2) corresponding to the hood in a partially opened position (Fig 2), wherein the spring moving from the loaded position to the unloaded position causes the hood to move from the closed position to the partially opened position (Col 3 L53-56); and an actuator (Fig 5: 74, 76, 78, 26) operably coupled to the spring (Fig 4 shows how 78 couples the actuator to spring 60 via 78 contacting 61 which is connected to spring 60) for reducing the rate motion of the spring moving from the loaded position to the unloaded position to control the rate of motion of the hood moving from the closed position to the partially opened position (Col 4 L40-Col 5 L2, when 61 engages with 78 of the actuator and drives it counterclockwise as the plunger 54 is extended, 74 is rotated and rotates 76 via contacting 100 of 76. 76 in turn contacts 40 of 26 to pivot 26 counterclockwise against the biasing force of its spring which biases 26 clockwise. This force from the spring which biases 26 works against the biasing force of the spring 60 that biases the plunger 54 as the closure panel moves towards the partially open position, thereby reducing the rate motion of the spring 60 as it moves from the loaded position to the unloaded position. This in turn controls the rate of motion of the hood 10 moving from the closed position to the partially opened position. This is also shown in the Figures when going from Fig 1 to Fig 2 and when going from Figs 4-6).
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khulman US 4968073 A.
Regarding Claim 10, Khulman does not explicitly teach: A method for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle employing a pop up mechanism, the method comprising the steps of: coupling an actuator coupled to the pop up mechanism by a coupling; and operating the actuator in order to moderate a deployment rate of the pop up mechanism. However, regarding claim 10, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art, over Khulman US 4968073 A, in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth (see rejections 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khulman US 4968073 A, in view of Krajenke US 8608221 B1.
Regarding Claim 8, Khulman teaches: The system of claim 1. Khulman does not teach: wherein the coupling is a cable. Krajenke teaches that it is known in the art to have a pop up mechanism (Krajenke: 46) coupled to a biased cam mechanism (Krajenke: 26 is the biased cam mechanism. Col 2 L66-Col 3 L12, states that 26 is biased and is any hinge system, which includes cam lift hinges. It is therefore the position of the examiner that this is therefore a biased cam mechanism.) via a cable (Krajenke: 62. Col 4 L23-26 states that cable 26 is used to couple pop up mechanism 46 and biased cam mechanism 26). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed mechanism to couple the biased cam mechanism and pop up mechanism of Khulman, with a cable as taught by Krajenke, resulting in a more durable connection between the two systems and thereby increasing reliability.
Regarding Claim 17, Khulman teaches: The mechanism of claim 9. Khulman does not teach: wherein the coupling is a cable. Krajenke teaches that it is known in the art to have a pop up mechanism (Krajenke: 46) coupled to a biased cam mechanism (Krajenke: 26 is the biased cam mechanism. Col 2 L66-Col 3 L12, states that 26 is biased and is any hinge system, which includes cam lift hinges. It is therefore the position of the examiner that this is therefore a biased cam mechanism.) via a cable (Krajenke: 62. Col 4 L23-26 states that cable 26 is used to couple pop up mechanism 46 and biased cam mechanism 26). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed mechanism to couple the biased cam mechanism and pop up mechanism of Khulman, with a cable as taught by Krajenke, resulting in a more durable connection between the two systems and thereby increasing reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, and 12-16 are 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.
Regarding Claim 2, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a spring driven system for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle having the combination of features recited in claim 2. The closest prior art of record, Khulman US 4968073 A, teaches a spring driven system for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: wherein the biased cam mechanism further comprising a cam spring element coupled to the biasing element and a release lever coupled to the pop up mechanism by the coupling, such movement of the cam spring element is coupled via the release lever to the deployment rate of the plunger.
Claims 3-7 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a spring driven system for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle having the combination of features recited in claim 12. The closest prior art of record, Khulman US 4968073 A, teaches a spring driven system for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: the cam spring element having a cam surface in contact with an abutment portion of the release lever.
Regarding Claim 13, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a spring driven system for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle having the combination of features recited in claim 13. The closest prior art of record, Khulman US 4968073 A, teaches a spring driven system for moderating an opening speed of a closure panel of a vehicle having much of the claimed structure but fails to teach: a drive pulley with a control cam such that movement of the control cam in a second direction causes conjoint movement of the cam spring element against the biasing element.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, these claims are objected to due to their dependency on claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, this claim is currently objected due to the interpretation of the claim (see 112b rejection above), the claim being interpreted to depend from claim 13.
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