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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In all Figs. the reference numerals are smaller than 1/8”. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Section identifiers in Fig. 1 should be changed to Roman or Arabic numerals per 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). “A-A” should be changed to “III-III” and “B-B” should be changed to “V-V.”
Section views in Figs. 3 and 5 lack cross-hatching, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). Note that each element “cut” by the plane of view should be cross-hatched in a manner corresponding to the material that element is made of, per the guidelines in MPEP 608.02 IX.
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.
Specification
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 in length. 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. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The Abstract uses the implied phrase “an embodiment” in line 1. It is suggested that “An embodiment” be changed to --A--.
The Abstract is not in narrative form, but is constructed as a run-on sentence, like a claim.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2025/0076922, hereinafter Lee).
With regard to claim 1, Lee discloses a sliding transfer device for a vehicle (Lee states that the device can be “mounted on a roof panel of a vehicle” (paragraph 0006), the device comprising:
a first rail part (110, 120, 310, 360, R1, R2) fixable to a vehicle body (via brackets 130—“the mounting brackets 130 may be fixed to an inner surface of the outer peripheral plate of the vehicle” per paragraph 0065);
a second rail part (350) coupled to the first rail part and slidably movable in a forward-and-rearward direction of the first rail part (“the rotary shaft 330 may convert a rotational motion of the drive motor 340 to a rectilinear reciprocating motion of the carrier 350” per paragraph 0087);
a plurality of sensors (“S,” see especially Fig. 7) comprising a first sensor mounted at a front side of the first rail part and a second sensor mounted at a rear side of the first rail part (sensors S are shown at the front and rear of rails R1 in Fig. 7), wherein each of the sensors is configured to generate a sensing signal in a case in which the second rail part reaches a set limit position thereof (“The pair of position sensors S may each be provided in the form of a limit sensor that detects the positions of the first LM blocks LM1 to restrict the movement of the carrier 350” per paragraph 0097); and
a controller (i.e. “power generation part” mentioned in paragraph 0098) configured to selectively control, based on the sensing signal, an operation of a drive motor for sliding movement of the second rail part (Paragraph 0098: “The power generation part may control (turn on or off) an operation of the drive motor 340 in response to the received position signal related to the first LM blocks LM1. The power generation part may perform control to allow the drive motor 340 to rotate the rotary shaft 330 in response to the received position signal related to the first LM blocks LM1. That is, the drive motor 340 can be turned off when one of the first LM blocks LM1 reaches a predetermined position next to one of the position sensors S.”).
With regard to claim 2, Lee teaches that the first rail part comprises stoppers (320) mounted spaced apart from the sensors and configured to limit a position of the second rail part moving beyond the set limit position (Paragraph 0087: “The rotary shaft 330 may be rotated by the drive motor 340 and rectilinearly move the carrier 350 to one side or the other side toward one side support block 320 or the other side support block 320”).
With regard to claim 6, Lee teaches that the second rail part (350) is configured to be slidably moved in a state of being coupled to a movement guide (R1, R2) protruding from the first rail part.
With regard to claim 7, Lee teaches that the movement guide (R1, R2) extends upwards with an inclination (note the inclined surfaces on the lateral grooves of elements R1 and R2) on an upper surface of the first rail part (the surfaces of supports 360 on which rails R1 and R2 are attached are considered “upper” surfaces of the first rail part—note that “upper” and “lower” are merely relative terms depending on the mounting orientation of Lee’s apparatus) and is inserted into a mounting hole of the second rail part (i.e. the female grooves on elements LM1 and LM2 are considered the “mounting holes”).
With regard to claim 9, Lee teaches that in response to receiving the sensing signal indicating that the second rail part reached the set limit position, the controller is configured to perform a control operation of releasing the operation of the drive motor (paragraph 0098, “the drive motor 340 can be turned off when one of the first LM blocks LM1 reaches a predetermined position next to one of the position sensors S”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ito et al. (JP H09164864 A, hereinafter Ito).
With regard to claim 3, Lee teaches that each of the stoppers (320) stands upright from a corresponding one of the front side of the first rail part and the rear side of the first rail part (see especially Fig. 8).
Lee fails to teach that the stoppers comprise an elastic material.
Ito discloses an electrically slidable car seat having stoppers (65) comprising an elastic material (65).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lee’s stoppers to have elastic material as taught by Ito, in order to provide impact cushioning and noise reduction at the extreme ends of travel of the carrier element (350).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Heeg et al. (US 2013/0305857, hereinafter Heeg).
With regard to claim 8, Lee fails to teach that in response to receiving the sensing signal indicating that the second rail part reached the set limit position, the controller is configured to perform a control operation of changing a rotation direction of the drive motor.
Heeg discloses a vehicle seat movement control system, in which a controller reverses direction of a motor upon encountering a motion stop (paragraph 0019).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lee by reversing the motor upon encountering the stopper, as Heeg teaches that such reversal provides “overload protection” (Heeg, paragraph 0019).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
With regard to claim 10, Lee implies that the sensors could be contactless electronic sensors, by stating that “the drive motor 340 can be turned off when one of the first LM blocks LM1 reaches a predetermined position next to one of the position sensors S” (paragraph 0098, emphasis added). However, Lee does not explicitly teach contactless sensors.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lee by providing contactless sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, as examiner hereby takes Official Notice that contactless limit sensors were commonly known in the art of electrically slidable vehicle elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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.
With regard to claim 4, Lee fails to teach or suggest a guidance rail part shielding an upper part of the first rail part, wherein the guidance rail part comprises a pair of sliding slots extending in a longitudinal direction and configured to allow the second rail part to be slidably moved along the pair of sliding slots. The second rail part (350) is directly connected to rails (R1, R2) on the second rail part, and thus there are no “slots” in a “guidance rail part” that “allow” the second rail part to slide.
With regard to claim 11, Lee teaches many of the limitations of this claim as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Lee also teaches a cable part (460) that moves along with the second rail part (350). However, Lee fails to teach or suggest at least a cable body part, wherein, in a state in which the second rail part is slidably moved in the forward-and-rearward direction of the first rail part, the cable body part is configured to allow the cable part to be selectively withdrawn therefrom or stored therein. Instead, the cable part (460) “slides along” support plate 520, but is not “selectively withdrawn or stored therein.” At all times, the same quantity of the length of cable 460 remains within the support plate 520.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of the state of the art of movable center consoles at the time of filing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights