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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 31 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the operating element is designed to close a circuit for [[the]] a power supply of the lock in reaction to an actuation of the operating element.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 33 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the vehicle comprises an apparatus for controlling [[a]] the lock of [[a]] the vehicle flap of [[a]] the vehicle, the apparatus including: [[an]] the operating element configured to be actuated by a user to close [[a]] the circuit and to cause the lock of the vehicle flap to be opened”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillis (US-11801900-B2) in view of Clark (US-6904717-B2). All citations refer to the Gillis reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 15, Gillis discloses an apparatus (36 Figure 2) for controlling a lock (20 Figure 1) of a vehicle flap (14 Figure 1) of a vehicle (10 Figure 1), the apparatus comprising:
an operating element (26 Figure 1) configured to be actuated by a user to close a circuit (of actuator 62, Figure 2) and to cause the lock of the vehicle flap to be opened (Col. 5 Lines 55-61); and
a disconnecting switch (of controller 50, Figure 2) configured to prevent closing of the circuit by the operating element (when the vehicle is above a threshold speed, Col. 5 Lines 62-65); and
enable closing of the circuit by the operating element (when the vehicle is above a threshold speed, Col. 6 Lines 4-8).
Gillis does not teach a disconnecting switch monitoring a vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1) position.
However, Clark discloses a vehicle control system (Figure 25) comprising a control unit (510 Figure 25) having at least a door contact sensor (536 Figure 25) for selectively and electronically controlling operations of a vehicle lock (528 Figure 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Clark’s door contact sensor to Gillis’s apparatus such that the disconnecting switch configured to prevent closing of the circuit by the operating element when a vehicle door of the vehicle is closed and enable closing of the circuit by the operating element when the vehicle door of the vehicle is open, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add a door contact sensor to further improve safety by preventing undesired operation of the vehicle flap.
With regards to claim 16, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the disconnecting switch (of controller 50, Figure 2) is configured to be opened and closed by the vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1) such that:
the disconnecting switch is open, and thus prevents the closing of the circuit (of actuator 62, Figure 2), when the vehicle door is closed (as determined by Clark’s door contact sensor 536, Figure 25); and
the disconnecting switch is closed, and thus prevents the closing of the circuit, when the vehicle door is open (as determined by Clark’s door contact sensor 536, Figure 25).
With regards to claim 17, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising a control module (50 Figure 2) configured to open the disconnecting switch depending on sensor data of a door contact sensor (536 Figure 25 – Clark) of the vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1) to prevent the closing of the circuit (of actuator 62, Figure 2) or to close the disconnecting switch to enable the closing of the circuit (in the manner taught by Gillis, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 18, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising a control module (50 Figure 2) configured to open the disconnecting switch depending on sensor data of a door contact sensor (536 Figure 25 – Clark) of the vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1) to prevent the closing of the circuit (of actuator 62, Figure 2) or to close the disconnecting switch to enable the closing of the circuit (in the manner taught by Gillis, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 19, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising a control module (50 Figure 2) configured to:
determine whether the circuit is closed or is interrupted (by means of door contact sensor 536, Figure 25 – Clark); and
prompt at least one actuator (62 Figure 2) to open the lock (20 Figure 1) of the vehicle flap only in a case in which the circuit is determined to be closed (in the manner taught by Gillis, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 20, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising a control module (50 Figure 2) configured to:
determine whether the circuit is closed or is interrupted (by means of door contact sensor 536, Figure 25 – Clark); and
prompt at least one actuator (62 Figure 2) to open the lock (20 Figure 1) of the vehicle flap only in a case in which the circuit is determined to be closed (in the manner taught by Gillis, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 21, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the control module (50 Figure 2) is configured to:
determine, based on a speed sensor of the vehicle, speed information with respect to a travel speed of the vehicle (312 Figure 10); and
prompt the at least one actuator (62 Figure 2) depending on the speed information to open the lock (20 Figure 1) of the vehicle flap (Figure 10, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 22, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the control module (50 Figure 2) is configured to:
determine, based on the speed information, whether the travel speed of the vehicle is less than or equal to a speed threshold value (Figure 10); and
prompt the at least one actuator (62 Figure 2) to open the lock (20 Figure 1) of the vehicle flap only in a case in which the travel speed of the vehicle is determined to be less than or equal to the speed threshold value (Figure 10, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 23, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the lock (20 Figure 1) comprises a catch hook actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for a catch hook (24 Figure 2) of the lock for holding back the vehicle flap and a pre-engagement actuator (second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for disengaging a locking bolt (22 Figure 2); and
the control module (50 Figure 2) is designed to (interpreted as a statement of intended use akin to ‘configured to’) actuate precisely one actuator from an actuator set that comprises the catch hook actuator and the pre-engagement actuator in a case in which the circuit is closed (Figure 10, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 24, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the lock (20 Figure 1) comprises a catch hook actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for a catch hook (24 Figure 2) of the lock for holding back the vehicle flap and a pre-engagement actuator (second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for disengaging a locking bolt (22 Figure 2); and
the control module (50 Figure 2) is designed to (interpreted as a statement of intended use akin to ‘configured to’) actuate precisely one actuator from an actuator set that comprises the catch hook actuator and the pre-engagement actuator in a case in which the circuit is closed (Figure 10, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 25, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the lock (20 Figure 1) comprises a catch hook actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for a catch hook (24 Figure 2) of the lock for holding back the vehicle flap and a pre-engagement actuator (second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for disengaging a locking bolt (22 Figure 2); and
the control module (50 Figure 2) is designed to (interpreted as a statement of intended use akin to ‘configured to’) actuate precisely one actuator from an actuator set that comprises the catch hook actuator and the pre-engagement actuator in a case in which the circuit is closed (Figure 10, Col. 5 Line 62 – Col. 6 Line 8).
With regards to claim 26, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the control module (50 Figure 2) is configured to (interpreted as a statement of intended use, the device taught by Gillis in view of Clark is capable of performing the claimed functions):
determine sensor data of a door contact sensor (536 Figure 25 – Clark) of the vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1);
determine, based on the sensor data, whether the vehicle door is open or closed; and
actuate in a complementary manner a second actuator from the actuator set, which comprises the catch hook actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) and the pre-engagement actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4), in a case in which the vehicle door is open.
With regards to claim 27, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the apparatus comprises a catch hook control module (internal to release assembly 42, Figure 4, and controlling second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for controlling the catch hook actuator (second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) and a separate pre-engagement control module (internal to release assembly 42, Figure 4, and controlling first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for controlling the pre-engagement actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4).
With regards to claim 28, Gillis in view of Clark teaches the apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the apparatus comprises a catch hook control module (internal to release assembly 42, Figure 4, and controlling second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for controlling the catch hook actuator (second Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) and a separate pre-engagement control module (internal to release assembly 42, Figure 4, and controlling first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4) for controlling the pre-engagement actuator (first Bowden cable of lock 20, Figure 4).
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillis in view of Law (US-11702871-B2). All citations refer to the Gillis reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 29, Gillis discloses a vehicle (10 Figure 1) comprising:
a vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1), which is arranged in a door frame of the vehicle and is configured to be transferred from a closed state into an open state in order to enable access to a passenger compartment of the vehicle for a user of the vehicle (Figure 1);
a vehicle flap (14 Figure 1) having an electrically actuatable lock (20 Figure 1); and
an operating element (26 Figure 1), which is configured to be actuated by the user to cause the lock of the vehicle flap to be automatically opened (Col. 5 Lines 55-61);
Gillis does not disclose wherein the operating element is arranged on the door frame of the vehicle such that the operating element is actuatable by the user when the vehicle door is in the open state; and the operating element cannot be actuated by the user when the vehicle door is in the closed state.
However, Law discloses a similar lock (2 Figure 1) for a vehicle flap (1 Figure 1) wherein an operating element (8 Figure 1) is arranged on the door frame of the vehicle such that the operating element is actuatable by the user when the vehicle door (7 Figure 1) is in the open state (Figure 2B); and the operating element cannot be actuated by the user when the vehicle door is in the closed state (Figure 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Law’s operating element arrangement in place of Gillis’s, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use such an operating element to further prevent undesired actuation of the lock.
With regards to claim 30, Gillis in view of Law teaches the vehicle according to claim 29, wherein the vehicle flap (14 Figure 1) is a front flap of the vehicle (10 Figure 1), which is arranged in front of the passenger compartment of the vehicle (28 Figure 1).
With regards to claim 31, Gillis in view of Law teaches the vehicle according to claim 29, wherein the operating element (8 Figure 1 – Law) is designed to close a circuit (of actuator 62, Figure 2) for the power supply (34 Figure 1) of the lock (20 Figure 1) in reaction to an actuation of the operating element (Col. 5 Lines 55-61).
With regards to claim 32, Gillis in view of Law teaches the vehicle according to claim 29, wherein the door frame has an inner surface (as shown Figure 2B – Law) facing toward the vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1); and
the operating element (8 Figure 1 – Law) is arranged on the inner surface (as shown Figure 2B – Law).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillis in view of Law in further view of Clark. All citations refer to the Gillis reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 33, Gillis in view of Law teaches the vehicle according to claim 29, wherein the vehicle (10 Figure 1) comprises an apparatus (36 Figure 2) for controlling a lock (20 Figure 1) of a vehicle flap (14 Figure 1) of a vehicle (10 Figure 1), the apparatus including:
an operating element (8 Figure 1 – Law) configured to be actuated by a user to close a circuit (of actuator 62, Figure 2) and to cause the lock of the vehicle flap to be opened (Col. 5 Lines 55-61); and
a disconnecting switch (of controller 50, Figure 2A) configured to prevent closing of the circuit by the operating element (when the vehicle is above a threshold speed, Col. 5 Lines 62-65); and
enable closing of the circuit by the operating element (when the vehicle is above a threshold speed, Col. 6 Lines 4-8).
Gillis does not teach a disconnecting switch monitoring a vehicle door (driver’s door, Figure 1) position.
However, Clark discloses a vehicle control system (Figure 25) comprising a control unit (510 Figure 25) having at least a door contact sensor (536 Figure 25) for selectively and electronically controlling operations of a vehicle lock (528 Figure 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Clark’s door contact sensor to Gillis’s apparatus such that the disconnecting switch configured to prevent closing of the circuit by the operating element when a vehicle door of the vehicle is closed and enable closing of the circuit by the operating element when the vehicle door of the vehicle is open, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add a door contact sensor to further improve safety by preventing undesired operation of the vehicle flap.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20190211590-A1: A related vehicle lock arrangement.
DE-102019209798-A1: A related vehicle lock arrangement.
WO-2025045599-A1: A related vehicle lock arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights