DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed 2/13/2024, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 12-20 being currently added.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11 and 20 begin with “The method”. Since these claims are dependent on claim 1 and no method has been claimed, claims 11 and 20 should begin with “A method”.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 appears to either combine two different claims that have no relationship to one another (i.e. differing embodiments) or just recites the same connection as a plurality. Although this is not explicitly prohibited, the claim language is very cumbersome and thus indefinite as it is not clear what is being claimed, particularly in the first part of the claim. For instance line 3 recites “wherein the anti-rotation element is designed as a recess or as a projection and the counterpart anti-rotation element is designed as a projection or rather as a recess”. It appears that a plain reading indicates that the anti-rotation element can be either a projection or recess while the counterpart is only a projection in which case makes it unclear how these parts interact.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 6 recites a connection between one or more projections and one or more complimentary recess (such an understanding seems to be supported by the drawings).
Claim 8 is unclear and therefore indefinite. The claim recitation ends with “is determined”. It is unclear what exactly this means. The entire claim recitation is grammatically cumbersome and makes it difficult to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. The examiner does not understand the limitation but as broadly recited, the figures of the cited art broadly discloses positional relationships which could meet the recitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the screw connection" in line 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the anti-rotation element" in line 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the form-fit connection" in line 2.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the sheet metal part " in line 2.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the sheet metal part " in line 1.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 522 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 1-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerken et al. (US 20200190887).
Regarding claim 1: Gerken discloses a drive arrangement for adjusting a flap 22 of a motor vehicle 10 (title; abstr.; [0003]). Gerken discloses that the flap 22 is mounted to a vehicle body 10, 12 such that the flap is pivotally movable in relation to the vehicle body between an open position and a closed position (Fig. 1; [0017]-[0019]). Gerken discloses that the drive arrangement comprises a drive unit 32, 70, 72 for moving the flap between the open position and the closed position ([0019], [0024]). Gerken discloses that the drive unit comprises an electric drive 120, a unit housing 32, 70, in which the electric drive is housed (Figs. 2, 5, 6; [0019], [0024], [0025]). Gerken discloses an output shaft 122, which is rotatable mounted in the unit housing, that the output shaft comprises a shaft interface 128 for connecting the output shaft to the vehicle body (Figs. 5, 6; [0027], [0029]).
Gerken discloses that the drive arrangement comprises a mounting adapter (mounting structure of 32 – Figs. 5, 6) for mounting of the drive unit to the flap and that the mounting adapter comprises an adapter interface (Figs. 5, 6 – bottom and backside of 32), with which the mounting adapter is attached to the drive unit and that the mounting adapter comprises a further adapter interface (Figs. 5, 6 – bottom, side, and backside of 32) for attachment of the mounting adapter to the flap (Figs. 2, 4-6; [0022], [0025]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 2: Gerken discloses that the mounting adapter is designed separately with respect to the drive unit (Figs. 2, 5, 6 – the parts are not integral and therefore require a separate design).
Regarding claim 3: Gerken discloses that the mounting adapter is detachably attached to the drive unit (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4: Gerken discloses that the screw connection 88 secures the mounting adapter in its relative axial position in relation to the drive unit (Fig. 2; [0025]).
Regarding claim 5: Gerken discloses that a relative rotational movement of the mounting adapter and the unit housing is prevented by an anti-rotation arrangement (Figs. 2, 4-6; [0027]).
Regarding claim 6: Gerken discloses that the anti-rotation element is designed as a recess or as a projection and that the counterpart anti-rotation element is designed as a projection or rather as a recess, that the projection engages with the recess, or, that the adapter interface comprises several anti-rotation elements and the unit housing comprises several counterpart anti-rotation elements and that the anti-rotation elements and the counterpart anti-rotation elements are designed such that a gear teeth connection is formed, which prevents the rotational movement of the mounting adapter relative to the unit housing (Figs. 2-6; [0029]).
Regarding claim 7: Gerken discloses that the mounting adapter is attached to the unit housing in a definite relative angular position, which is determined by an angle mounting aid (Figs. 2-6; [0022], [0025]-[0029] - Gerken discloses various connections that would meet this very broadly recited limitation).
Regarding claim 8: Gerken discloses that the adapter interface comprises a centering element and that the unit housing comprises a counterpart centering element and that the centering element and the counterpart centering element are in contact such that the relative position of the mounting adapter in relation to the unit housing in a plane, which is orthogonally orientated with regard to the axis of rotation of the output shaft is determined (Figs. 2-6; [0022], [0025]-[0029] - Gerken discloses various connections that would meet this very broadly recited limitation).
Regarding claim 9: Gerken discloses that the adapter interface and the further adapter interface are arranged to each other with an offset, that the offset particularly determines the relative attachment position, in which the drive unit can be attached to the flap (Figs. 2-6; Figs. - 5, 6 – bottom, side, and backside of 32; [0022], [0025]-[0029] - Gerken discloses various connections that would meet the very broadly recited term “offset”).
Regarding claim 10: Gerken discloses a motor vehicle 10 comprising a vehicle body 12, a flap 22 and a drive arrangement 32, 70, 72 (Figs. 2, 5, 6; [0019], [0024], [0025]).
Regarding claim 11: Gerken discloses a method for installing the drive arrangement 32, 70, 72 and that the method comprises selecting and/or constructing the mounting adapter under consideration of the structural circumstances (Figs. 2, 4-6; [0025]).
Regarding claim 13: Gerken discloses that the mounting adapter is attached to the unit housing by the adapter interface using a screw connection with at least one screw element, and/or, that the mounting adapter is attached to the unit housing by the adapter interface using a form-fit connection with at least one form-fit element (Figs. 2, 4-6).
Regarding claim 14: Gerken discloses that the screw element is installed in the axial direction of the output shaft, and/or, that the form-fit connection secures the mounting adapter in its relative axial position in relation to the drive unit (Figs. 2, 4-6).
Regarding claim 15: Gerken discloses that the adapter interface comprises at least one anti-rotation element and that the unit housing comprises at least one counterpart anti-rotation element and that the anti-rotation element and the counterpart anti-rotation element form the anti-rotation arrangement (Figs. 2, 4-6; [0027]).
Regarding claim 16: Gerken discloses that the anti-rotation element and the counterpart anti-rotation element are designed such that a further form-fit connection is formed (Figs. 2, 4-6; [0027]).
Regarding claim 17: Gerken discloses that the anti-rotation element or the anti-rotation elements and the counterpart anti-rotation element or rather the counterpart anti- rotation elements form the angle mounting aid (Figs. 2-6; [0022], [0025]-[0029] - Gerken discloses various connections that would meet this very broadly recited limitation).
Regarding claim 18: Gerken discloses that the centering element is designed as a centering recess of the sheet metal part and that the counterpart centering element is designed as a centering projection of the unit housing, or, that the centering element is formed by the anti- rotation elements and the counterpart centering element is formed by the counterpart anti-rotation elements (Figs. 2-6; [0022], [0025]-[0029] - Gerken discloses various connections that would meet this very broadly recited limitation).
Regarding claim 20: Gerken discloses a method for installing the drive arrangement according to claim 1 to a motor vehicle, that the method comprises selecting and/or constructing the mounting adapter under consideration of the structural circumstances regarding the assembly space inside the flap and/or the drive unit and/or the orientation of the flap in relation to the vehicle body (Figs. 2, 4-6; [0025]).
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 of this title, 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerken et al. (US 20200190887) in view of Daniels et al. (US 6711855).
Gerken discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: Gerken does not discuss material of manufacture and thus does not explicitly disclose that the mounting adapter comprises a sheet metal part, or, that the mounting adapter comprises a full metal part. Daniels discloses that a mounting adapter can comprise a sheet metal part, or, that a mounting adapter can comprise a full metal part (col. 3, lines 1-16). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Gerken so that the mounting adapter comprises a sheet metal part, or, that the mounting adapter comprises a full metal part as taught by Daniels. As both Gerken and Daniels are directed to power tailgates (flaps), as the use of metal in motor vehicles is very well known, as Gerken is silent regarding materials, and as Daniels explicitly discloses the use of metal in forming a mounting adapter, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired metal construction configuration from a finite selection of vehicle construction configurations. Such a simple substitution or addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerken et al. (US 20200190887) in view of McGlinn et al. (US 8403615).
Gerken discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19: Gerken discloses that part of the mounting adapter comprises a first section, a middle section and a second section and that the adapter interface is arranged on the first section and the further adapter interface is arranged on the second section and that the middle section connects the first section and the second section, and that the offset is at least partly determined by the length and/or orientation of the middle section (Figs. 2-6; Figs. - 5, 6 – bottom, side, and backside of 32; [0022], [0025]-[0029] - Gerken discloses various connections that would meet the very broadly recited claim).
Gerken does not explicitly disclose that a part of the mounting adapter is a sheet metal part. McGlinn discloses that a motor vehicle has sheet metal structure that can be a centering and support structure (abstr.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Gerken so that the mounting adapter comprises a sheet metal part as taught by McGlinn. As both Gerken and McGlinn are directed to motor vehicle support structures, as the use of sheet metal in motor vehicles is very well known, as Gerken is silent regarding materials, and as McGlinn explicitly discloses the use of sheet metal in forming a mounting structure, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired metal construction configuration from a finite selection of vehicle construction configurations. Such a simple substitution or addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1/10/2026