DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Objection - Abstract
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See 37 CFR 1.72 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. Claims 12-17, 19, 20, and 24 contain one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The “device” of claim 12, and all successive modules listed in said claim and all claims dependent therefrom will be treated as a generic placeholders, as they are all described in terms of their function and not their mechanical structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
4. 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.
4a. Claims 12-17, 19, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Independent claim 12 is drawn towards a “device” comprising a plurality of modules. Terms such as “device” and “module” are considered to be generic placeholders, equivalent to a means-plus-function limitation. Thus, said component is treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the claimed limitations are described in terms of their function and not their mechanical structure.
While said components are supported throughout the specification, the specification fails to set forth the adequate structure, or equivalent thereof, that corresponds to the claimed function of the device and modules embodied in claim 12.
Conversely, the following claimed generic placeholders have adequate structural support in the published specification:
“optical ranging module” introduced at claim 13 has adequate structural support in the published specification at paragraph 0126.
“charging cover status detection module” introduced at claim 14 has adequate structural support in the published specification at paragraph 0131.
“message prompting module” introduced at claim 17 has adequate structural support in the published specification at paragraph 0050.
All other modules and device mentioned in claims 13-17, 19, 20, and 24 lack adequate structural support.
"If the specification is not clear as to the structure that the patentee intends to correspond to the claimed function, then the patentee has not paid the price for use of the convenience of broad claiming afforded by 112, sixth paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) but is rather attempting to claim in functional terms unbounded by any reference to structure in the specification. If one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112 (now 35 U.S.C. 112(b))." See Biomedino, LLC v Waters technologies Corporation (Fed Cir, 2006-1350, 6/18/2007).
Therefore, the claims 12-17, 19, 20, and 24 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
4b. Claim 24 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 24 attempts to incorporate independent claim 12. Since many of the features listed in claim 24 are recited in claim 12, insufficient antecedence issues are created.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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, 10, 11, 12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss (US 2016/0186480), and further in view of Ren (US 2019/0128043).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 24, as best understood, Krauss discloses a method and associated device for vehicle panel control of a motor vehicle (Krauss at title, abstract), comprising:
Detecting a biological signal in the vicinity of a vehicle panel (detecting a proximate person via infrared detector; Krauss at abstract, 0029).
Collecting an image of the front of the vehicle panel when the biological signal is detected (optical detector located on vehicle panel to be actuated captures images; Krauss at 0052, 0092, 0093).
Matching collected image with a pre-stored set gesture image (user gesture captured and recognized (Krauss at 0074).
Switching a status of the vehicle panel when the collected image is successfully matched with the pre-stored set gesture image (closed panel will be opened; Krauss at abstract, 0074)
Wherein the status of the vehicle panel comprises an open status and a closed status (moveable panel can be in the open or closed position, Krauss at abstract, 0002).
While Krauss provides for a moveable panel to be opened via recognized gesture, Krauss is silent as to the panel being a charging cover on an electric vehicle.
Ren teaches how a charging port lid in an electric can be actuated via motorized means (Ren at 0108-0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to combine the automated panel opening of Krauss with the charging port panel actuation as taught by Ren. Doing so would provide a further level of convenience via automation in response to a user request.
Regarding claim 10, Krauss discloses wherein there are a plurality of the pre-stored set gesture images, and the matching the collected image with the pre-stored set gesture images comprises: matching the collected image with each of the set gesture images; determining that gesture matching is successful when a similarity between the collected image and at least one of the set gesture images is greater than or equal to a preset threshold; and determining that gesture matching is failed when a similarity between the collected image and each of the set gesture images is less than the preset threshold (determining if gesture command is made in accordance with pre-stored gestures and actuating panel if gesture is matched; Krauss at 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 11, Krauss discloses wherein the biological signal comprises an infrared signal (person in vicinity detected via infrared detectors; Krauss at 0029).
Claim Objections
6a. Claim 2 is 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.
Subsequently, claims 3-9 are objected to due to dependency on claim 2.
6b. Upon resolution of the above issues, claim 13 will be 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.
Subsequently, claims 14-17, 19, and 20 will be objected to due to dependency on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 23 February 2026