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 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.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veith (DE 102016014729) in view of Herrmann et al. (US 2017/0001517).
With respect to claim 23, Veith discloses the claimed vehicle except for the inner sensor unit being arranged on an inner surface of the flap unit, and except for the drive end being closer than the closure end to the vehicle exterior and to the screen carrier in an open position. Veith discloses a vehicle having at least one vehicle exterior structure 100 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Veith) and a movable flap unit 1 for covering an opening (“fuel cap,” location, see middle of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Veith) in the at least one vehicle exterior structure 100,
wherein at least one multi-sensor module 14 is provided and the movable flap unit 1 comprises at least one movable screen 5 and at least one screen carrier 12, which is fixed to the at least one vehicle exterior structure 100 (as shown in Figs. 1a and 1b of Veith),
wherein the movable screen 5 is mounted movably on at least one of the vehicle exterior structure 100 (as shown in Figs. 1a and 1b of Veith) or the screen carrier,
wherein the movable screen 5 covers the opening in the vehicle exterior structure 100 in a closed position (as shown in Fig. 1a of Veith), and releases access to the opening in an open position (as shown in Fig. 1b of Veith),
wherein the multi-sensor module 14 is configured to detect a predetermined first actuation process and to trigger an opening process of the movable screen 5 when the movable screen 5 is closed (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Veith), and to detect a predetermined second actuation process and to trigger a closing operation of the movable screen when the movable screen 5 is open, (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Veith).
Veith further discloses that the movable screen 5 comprises a drive end (at 12 in Fig. 1a of Veith and a closure end (end opposite 12 in Fig. 1A of Veith), and wherein the drive end is closer than the closure end to the vehicle exterior structure and to the screen carrier in the open position (as shown in Fig. 1b of Veith).
Herrmann et al. teach a similar vehicle wherein a multi-sensor module S1A/S1B/S2A/S2B comprises an outer sensor unit S1A/S1B arranged on an outer surface of a movable flap unit 1 and an inner sensor unit S2A/S2B arranged on an inner surface of the movable flap unit 1 (as shown in Figs. 1A and 7A of Herrmann et al.).
Herrmann et al. further teach that the multi-sensor module S1A/S1B/S2A/S2B comprises a combination of at least one gesture sensor unit and at least one touch sensor unit (“In one design variant, the closure device can comprise at least one sensor device with at least one contact sensor, optionally also in addition to a proximity sensor which operates in a contactless manner,” Herrmann et al., paragraphs [0026]-[0027]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Herrmann et al. with the vehicle disclosed by Veith for the advantage of the improved field of vision of the multi-sensor module (see middle of pg. 4 of Veith) thereby allowing the flap 1 to completely open (i.e., wherein screen 5 points downward in Fib. 1b) and allow full access to the opening without reducing functionality of the multi-sensor module.
With respect to claim 24, Veith disclose that in the open position, the drive end and the closure end are planar within a plane, and wherein said plane is not parallel to the vehicle exterior 100 (as show in Fig. 1b of Veith).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-22 and 25-29 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from combining the teachings of Herrmann and Veith, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily combined Veith with the teaching of using an outer sensor unit arranged on an outer surface of a flap unit and inner sensor unit arranged on an inner surface of the flap unit (as taught by Herrmann et al.) without requiring the flaps to be of identical construction.
Applicant further argues that there is nothing IN herrmann to suggest that the alleged multi-sensor module of Herrmann also teaches a touch sensor. However, this is inaccurate since Herrmann explicitly discloses the use of a touch sensor in combination with a gesture/non-contact sensor as mentioned in paragraph [0026]-[0027] of Herrmann.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights