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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 16, “and i the sliding block” should read “and the sliding block”.
In claim 8 line 2, “branchwhich” should read “branch, which”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/605124 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the reference application anticipates claim 1 of the instant application as outlined below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The following outlines the comparison of the reference claim with the instant claim, with the bold sections referring to the reference application.
Regarding claim 1, claim 6 (including parent claim 1) of the reference application (18/6051524) also claims a drive unit for a kinematic system in a motor vehicle (Claim 1 line 1 “a drive unit for a kinematic system in a motor vehicle”), comprising
a cam control unit for moving a first movable output element and for, independently thereof, moving a second movable output element ( Claim 1 line 2-3 “a cam control unit for moving a first movable output element and for moving a second movable output element independently thereof”),
the cam control unit comprising a radial cam and a sliding block, which, during a movement of the radial cam relative to the sliding block, moves along the radial cam and, in the process, is moved by the radial cam, and which, during the movement thereof, moves the first and second movable output elements (Claim 1 line 4-8 “the cam control unit comprising a radial cam and a sliding block, which is movable along the radial cam during a movement of the radial cam relative to the sliding block and which is hereby movable by the radial cam, and which can move the first and second movable output elements during its movement”),
the radial cam having at least one ramification into at least two cam branches and a shifting gate, which, during a back and forth movement of the radial cam relative to the sliding block, moves the sliding block consecutively from a first cam branch to a last cam branch, the sliding block in the first cam branch, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, moving the first movable output element, and in a second cam branch of the radial cam, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, moving the second movable output element (Claim 1 line 8 -19 ”the radial cam having a shifting gate and at least one first ramification into at least two cam branches, which can move the sliding block consecutively from a first cam branch to a last cam branch during a back and forth movement of the radial cam relative to the sliding block, whereby the first cam branch can move the first movable output element, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, and a second cam branch of the radial cam, which can move the second movable output element during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block”), and
the radial cam comprising a return cam, which returns the sliding block to the first cam branch after exiting a last cam branch (Claim 1 line 19-21 “whereby the radial cam comprises an at least second ramification into a return cam, which can return the sliding block to the first cam branch after exiting a last cam branch”),
wherein the drive unit comprises a non-movement block, which is actuated by the sliding block (claim 6 line 1-2 “wherein the sliding block, in the referencing section, actuates a non-movement block”);
the radial cam comprises a blocking section (claim 1 line 21-24 ”wherein the radial cam comprises, additionally to said shifting gate with the first and second ramifications, additionally to said first and second cam branches, and additionally to said return cam, and at least third ramification of the shifting gate into a referencing section”); and
the sliding block moves the non-movement block into a blocking position when the sliding block reaches the blocking section of the radial cam, the non-movement block in the blocking position blocking at least one output element to prevent a movement (claim 6 line 1-3 “wherein the sliding block, in the referencing section, actuates a non-movement block, which blocks the movable output element or elements to prevent a movement“).
Although the reference claim uses the term “reference section” rather than “blocking section,” it is clear from claim 6 of the reference application that the “reference section” is used in performing a blocking function in the same way as in the instant application and, thus, the difference is only a difference in terminology. Therefore, the “reference section” of the reference claim anticipates the “blocking section” of the instant application.
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 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 8 recites the limitation “the radial cam comprises a second counter cam branch”. Claim 8 appears to require a second counter cam branch in addition to those cam branches already recited, including the first cam branch and last cam branch and return cam of claim 1 and the first counter cam branch in claim 8. According to applicant’s specification, this second counter cam branch is the same as the last cam branch (page 7 first full paragraph, also Fig 2 showing second counter cam branch 12 as the last cam branch before the return cam). Therefore, it is not clear if the second counter cam branch being claimed is the same as the previously claimed “last cam branch” or a new element. For the purposes of this Office Action and in light of Applicant’s specification, the “second counter cam branch” is interpreted as being the same element as the previously recited “last cam branch”.
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 (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 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 1-2, 6-8, 10, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102021106582 by Hasch (hereinafter “Hasch).
Regarding claim 1, Hasch discloses a drive unit for a kinematic system in a motor vehicle (Fig 1a; paragraph [0042]), comprising
a cam control unit for moving a first movable output element (Fig 1a, first output 800) and for, independently thereof (paragraph [0076]), moving a second movable output element (Fig 1a, second output 700),
the cam control unit comprising a radial cam (Fig 4a cam disk 510 with shift cam 512) and a sliding block (Fig 4a, control pin 400), which, during a movement of the radial cam relative to the sliding block, moves along the radial cam and, in the process, is moved by the radial cam, and which, during the movement thereof, moves the first and second movable output elements (paragraph [0056]),
the radial cam having at least one ramification into at least two cam branches (Fig 7b, guide tracks 520, 522) and a shifting gate (Fig 7b), which, during a back and forth movement of the radial cam relative to the sliding block (paragraph [0056]), moves the sliding block consecutively from a first cam branch (Fig 7b outermost branch 522) to a last cam branch (Fig 7b innermost branch 520), the sliding block in the first cam branch, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, moving the first movable output element (Fig 4a, sliding block 400 contacts pin 850 to move output element 800; paragraph [0055]), and in a second cam branch of the radial cam, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, moving the second movable output element (Fig 4a, sliding block 400 contacts pin 750 to move output element 700; paragraph [0055]), and
the radial cam comprising a return cam, which returns the sliding block to the first cam branch after exiting a last cam branch (Fig 4a, return section 528),
wherein the drive unit comprises a non-movement block, which is actuated by the sliding block (Fig 4a, lever 600 which is moved or actuated by the sliding block 400);
the radial cam comprises a blocking section (Fig 4a, branch 513); and
the sliding block moves the non-movement block into a blocking position when the sliding block reaches the blocking section of the radial cam, the non-movement block in the blocking position blocking at least one output element to prevent a movement (when the non-movement block 600 is in the blocking position in blocking section 513, movement of pin 900 by spring 910 back towards the default position is prevented by sliding block 400 pushing against pin 900, thereby preventing a movement of an output element in that direction; paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Hasch discloses that the blocking section of the radial cam, after the last cam branch, branches off the shifting gate or off the return cam, and is reached by the sliding block from the shifting gate or from the return cam, after the last cam branch, when returning from the last cam branch to the first cam branch (Fig 4a blocking section 513 branches off the return cam 528 and is reached by sliding block from the return cam).
Regarding claim 6, Hasch discloses that the blocking section of the radial cam is located outside an outline defined by the cam branches (Fig 4a blocking section 513 is outside of the area of cam branches 520/522).
Regarding claim 7, Hasch discloses that the blocking section is located outside an outline of all other sections of the radial cam (Fig 4a, an outline can be drawn surrounding cam branches 520/522 and return cam 528 and where blocking section 513 is outside of the outline).
Regarding claim 8, Hasch discloses that the radial cam comprises a first counter cam branch which, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, moves the first movable output element in a direction opposite that of the first cam branch; and the radial cam comprises a second counter cam branch which, during the relative movement of the radial cam with respect to the sliding block, moves the second movable output element in a direction opposite that of the second cam branch (see Examiner Annotated Figure A below; paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 7b of Hasch, showing the first and second cam branches and the first and second counter cam branches
Regarding claim 10, Hasch discloses that the shifting gate connects the cam branches in a zigzag-shaped manner (Fig 7b).
Regarding claim 11, Hasch discloses that the sliding block moves the output elements via a transfer element, which distributes the movement of the sliding block among the output elements (Fig 4a lever 600; paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Hasch discloses that the transfer element comprises the non-movement block (Fig 4a transfer element comprises non-movement element 600).
Regarding claim 13, Hasch discloses that the drive unit is configured to pivot two air guide elements of an air vent (paragraph [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a drive unit with all of the limitations of claim 3, particularly the limitation directed to “the first output element has inner teeth, which extend in a circular arc-shaped manner concentrically around the axis of rotation and in which the non-movement block, in the blocking position, engages so as to block the first output element to prevent a rotation about the axis of rotation, and/or in that the second output element has outer teeth concentric with respect to the axis of rotation, in which the non-movement block, in the blocking position, engages so as to block the second output element to prevent a rotation about the axis of rotation.” Therefore, this limitation, along with every other limitation of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Hasch discloses the drive unit of claim 1, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Hasch also discloses that the first output element and the second output element can be rotated about an axis of rotation (Fig 1a output elements 700 and 800 rotate around the central axis of rotation). But Hasch does not disclose that the first output has inner teeth, which extend in a circular arc-shaped manner concentrically around the axis of rotation and in which the non-movement block, in the blocking position, engages so as to block the first output element to prevent a rotation about the axis of rotation, and/or in that the second output element has outer teeth concentric with respect to the axis of rotation, in which the non-movement block, in the blocking position, engages so as to block the second output element to prevent a rotation about the axis of rotation.”
None of the other prior art of record teaches such inner or outer teeth on the output elements which would engage with a non-movement block when the non-movement block is in the blocking position to block the output element and prevent rotation.
Claims 4-5, 9, and 14 are allowable at least because they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0232756 by Matsuda teaches a link mechanism used in a vehicle air conditioner with a radial cam and sliding block.
EP 3628891 by Schneider, cited in Applicant’s IDS, teaches a drive device for driving two devices, which may be for air vents in a motor vehicle, the drive device using guide tracks and a guide pin.
DE 102015101101 by Schneider, cited in Applicant’s IDS, teaches a guide arrangement with guide tracks similar to that of the instant application, which may be used to independently move two output elements and is used with air vents in a motor vehicle.
US 2012/0318079 by Weber teaches a cam mechanism for use of ventilation valves in a vehicle with guides in a cam disk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights