DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on November 7, 2023.
Status of claims: claims 1-20 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I pertaining to FIGS. 1-6 in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11846132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11846132 claims a lid actuation system comprising: an actuation subsystem having a motor, a first linkage fixedly coupled with an output from the motor, and a second linkage coupled with the first linkage by a pin joint; wherein the actuation subsystem is configured to couple with a base; a lid subsystem having a lid bracket coupled with the second linkage by a second pin joint; wherein the lid bracket is configured to couple with a lid, and the lid is hingedly coupled with the base; wherein the lid comprises a surface that is sized and dimensioned to cover an opening in the base; wherein the lid bracket couples with an interior surface of the lid; and wherein an axis of rotation of the output from the motor is parallel to an axis of rotation of the lid, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: “first linkage” and “second linkage” recited in the claims are not identified in Species I pertaining to FIGS. 1-6.
Claim 1 – “wherein an axis of rotation of the output from the motor is parallel to an axis of rotation of the lid” is not illustrated in the figures. Perhaps illustrate an open position of the lid.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 3 – since “a second pin joint” is recited, shouldn’t “a pin joint” in line 3 be amended to “a first pin joint”
Claim 14, line 2 – shouldn’t “a bolt” be amended to “the bolt”
Claim 19, line 2 – shouldn’t “a bolt” be amended to “the bolt”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 15 lacks a period; thus the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
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 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 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5301390 to Cleal in view of US 10597228 to Yao.
Cleal discloses a lid actuation system comprising:
an actuation subsystem having a first linkage 8 fixedly coupled with an element 2, and a second linkage 6 coupled with the first linkage by a pin joint 10; (see FIG. 1b below)
wherein the actuation subsystem is configured to couple with a base 13;
a lid subsystem having a lid bracket coupled with the second linkage by a second pin joint 7; (see FIG. 1b below)
wherein the lid bracket is configured to couple with a lid, and the lid is hingedly coupled with the base;
wherein the lid comprises a surface that is sized and dimensioned to cover an opening in the base; (see FIG. 2)
wherein the lid bracket couples with an interior surface of the lid; (see FIG. 1b below) (note: the examiner has interpreted the lid to be positively recited) and
wherein an axis of rotation 9 at the element 2 is parallel to an axis of rotation 4 of the lid.
[AltContent: textbox (1st curved portion)][AltContent: textbox (2nd curved portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lid bracket)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
288
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cleal fails to disclose a motor and the first linkage coupled with an output of the motor.
Yao teaches of a motor 114, and a first linkage coupled with an output 118 of the motor. (see annotated FIG. 8 of Yao below)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cleal lid actuation system with the motor taught in Yao with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate movement of the lid as well as since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. (claim 1)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First linkage)]
PNG
media_image2.png
700
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cleal, as applied above, further discloses wherein the lid bracket comprises a portion on an exterior side of the lid, and a coupling component of the lid bracket passes through the lid to couple with the portion on the exterior side. (see FIG. 1b above) (claim 2)
Cleal, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first linkage and the second linkage are configured to enable the lid to open more than 180 degrees from its closed position. (see FIG. 1 c and col. 2, lines 50-55) (claim 4)
Cleal, as applied above, further discloses a torsion spring 11 coupled with the second linkage. (see FIG. 1b above) (claim 5)
Cleal, as applied above, further discloses wherein the lid bracket comprises an interior portion and an exterior portion, wherein the interior portion couples with an interior side of the lid and the exterior portion couples with an exterior side of the lid. (see FIG. 1b above) (claim 10)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleal in view of Yao, as applied to claim 1 above.
Cleal, as applied above, fails to disclose a sensor package coupled with an exterior surface of the lid.
Yao teaches of a sensor package coupled with an exterior surface of the lid. (see col. 1, lines 40-50 of Yao)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external surface of the lid disclosed in Cleal with the sensor taught in Yao with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for operation of the lid without having to touch the lid. (claim 3)
Claims 6-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleal in view of Yao, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 5031270 to Lee.
Cleal, as applied above, fails to disclose a first linkage comprises a tension hinge.
Lee teaches wherein a first linkage 2 comprises a tension hinge 3,4,6. (see FIG. 1 and col. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tension hinge with the Cleal first linkage, as taught by Sellman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with closing of the lid while providing arrest when closing of the lid to prevent slamming . (claim 6)
Cleal, as applied above, further discloses wherein the tension hinge comprises a tension hinge bolt 3 (see FIG. 1) (claim 7) and wherein the tension hinge bolt comprises a plurality of friction plates 64,65 placed over a bolt, wherein the friction plates are covered by a friction plate housing 61. (see FIG. 1) (claim 8)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleal in view of Yao, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 4663495 to Berman et al. (hereinafter “Berman”).
Cleal, as applied above, fails to disclose a solar panel coupled with an exterior side of the lid. Berman teaches of a solar panel 10 coupled with an exterior side of a boat lid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid disclosed in Cleal with the solar panel taught in Berman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the lid to convert light into electricity, which could be used to power devices near the lid. (claim 9)
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 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.
Claims 11,12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cleal.
Cleal discloses a lid actuation system comprising:
an actuation subsystem having a first linkage 8 and a second linkage 6, wherein the second linkage is coupled with the first linkage by a pin joint 10; (see Fig. 1b above)
wherein the actuation subsystem is configured to couple with a base 13; a lid subsystem having a lid bracket coupled with the second linkage by a second pin joint 7; (see FIG. 1b above)
wherein the lid bracket is configured to couple with a lid 3, and the lid is hingedly coupled with the base;
wherein the lid comprises a surface that is sized and dimensioned to cover an opening in the base; and
wherein the lid bracket couples with an interior surface of the lid. (see FIG. 1b above) (note: the examiner has interpreted the lid to be positively recited) (claim 11)
Cleal further discloses wherein the first linkage comprises a first curved portion and the second linkage comprises a second curved portion, wherein the first curved portion and the second curved portion enable the lid to open more than 180 degrees from its closed position. (see Fig. 1c and col. 2 lines 50-55 and FIG. 1b above) (claim 12)
Cleal further discloses wherein the first linkage comprises a first curved portion and the second linkage comprises a second curved portion such that the first curved portion of the first linkage and the second curved portion of the second linkage enable the lid to open more than 180 degrees from its closed position. (see Fig. 1c and col. 2 lines 50-55 and FIG. 1b above) (claim 15)
Cleal discloses a lid actuation system comprising:
a first linkage 8 and a second linkage 6, wherein the second linkage is coupled with the first linkage by a pin joint 10;
wherein the first linkage couples with a base 13;
wherein the second linkage couples to a lid bracket; (see FIG. 1b above)
wherein the lid bracket is configured to couple with a lid 3 that is hingedly coupled with the base;
wherein the lid is sized and dimensioned to cover an opening in the base;
wherein the lid creates an interior space when fit over the opening that is formed at least in part by the base; (see FIG. 4; note a space is formed at least between elements 19, 4 and base 13)
wherein the first linkage couples to the base in the interior space; and
wherein the lid bracket couples with an interior surface of the lid. (note: the examiner has interpreted the lid and base to be positively recited) (claim 16)
Cleal further discloses wherein the first linkage comprises a first curved portion and the second linkage comprises a second curved portion, wherein the first curved portion and the second curved portion enable the lid to open more than 180 degrees from its closed position. (see FIG. 1b above) (claim 17)
Claims 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleal, as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, in further view of Lee.
Cleal, as applied above, fails to disclose a first linkage comprises a tension hinge.
Lee teaches wherein a first linkage 2 comprises a tension hinge 3,4,6 having a tension hinge bolt 3. (see FIG. 1 and col. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tension hinge with the Cleal first linkage, as taught by Sellman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with closing of the lid while providing arrest when closing of the lid to prevent slamming . (claims 13 and 18)
Cleal, as applied above, further discloses wherein the tension hinge bolt comprises a plurality of friction plates 64,65 placed over a bolt, wherein the friction plates are covered by a friction plate housing 61. (see FIG. 1 of Lee) (claims 14 and 19)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleal, as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Yao.
Cleal, as applied above, fails to disclose a sensor package coupled with an exterior surface of the lid.
Yao teaches of a sensor package coupled with an exterior surface of the lid. (see col. 1, lines 40-50 of Yao)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external surface of the lid disclosed in Cleal with the sensor taught in Yao with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for operation of the lid without having to touch the lid. (claim 20)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634