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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 3/12/26.
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 1-19 are 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.
Claims 1 and 13 now requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
284
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim now requires that the supply circuit provides the emergency supply voltage to a drive controller in response to receiving the trigger signal.
However, the claim previously required that in response to the trigger signal, the emergency supply voltage is provided to the drive. This raises the question that is this new drive controller is part of the drive already claimed or is a different element; and if that is the case how the voltage is supplied to two different elements. Also, if they are different elements, is this new drive controller connected to the drive, as an intermediate member between the drive and the voltage supply? Also, how it works, since the specification does not clearly explain the function and performance of this element. This is what the specification discloses and what is illustrated in the drawings:
PNG
media_image2.png
661
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the instant, no one having ordinary skill in the art will look at the specification and, in the drawings, and come up with an explanation of what is claimed here and how it works.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same element. Correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103924851 to Arabia et al (Arabia) in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025).
PNG
media_image3.png
666
789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Arabia discloses a control arrangement for operating a motor vehicle locking system that comprises a drive with an electric drive motor (21).
The control arrangement actuates the drive in response to a trigger signal transmitted by an operating element (38, 40) in order to provide a motorized locking function for an adjustable closure element of the motor vehicle.
The control arrangement comprises an electrical energy store (37) and a supply circuit associated with the energy store.
The supply circuit, during emergency operation in response to the trigger signal being received by the supply circuit, provides an emergency supply voltage to the drive via the energy store.
Arabia fails to disclose that the control arrangement has a limiting member for the forwarding of the trigger signal from the operating element to the supply circuit, and wherein the limiting member is designed to suppress the forwarding of the trigger signal after a maximum actuation time has elapsed following beginning of the trigger signal.
Arabia just discloses that the control arrangement is configured to suppress forwarding of the trigger signal after a time period elapsed (fig 3).
KR 025 teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a control arrangement with a limiting member (MV 12, 110) that is configured to control the supply, by blocking it, after time elapses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the control arrangement described by Arabia, with a limiting member, as taught by KR 025, in order to provide a corresponding member or mechanism for performing the blocking of the signal.
As to claim 2, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the limiting member has at least one filter circuit for suppressing the trigger signal (for making the decision).
As to claim 3, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the control arrangement comprises a “pull-up” resistor (KR 205, R6-R9) which provides a high logic level for the supply circuit, and wherein the supply circuit receives a low logic level with forwarding of the trigger signal.
As to claim 4, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the limiting member comprises a monostable multivibrator (KR 025, MV 12 or 110) which is designed to be moved to an unstable state, in which the forwarding of the trigger signal is allowed by the limiting member, when the trigger signal is received, and to fall back to a stable state, in which the forwarding of the trigger signal is suppressed by the limiting member, after the maximum actuation time has elapsed.
As to claim 5, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the limiting member is capable of comprising a switching element (KR 205, SW0, SW1 OR SW2) which allows the forwarding of the trigger signal in a first switching state and suppresses the forwarding of the trigger signal in a second switching state, and wherein a time controller is provided for actuating the switching element, the time controller moving the switching element to the second switching state after the maximum actuation time has elapsed.
As to claim 6, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the switching element comprises a logic member which receives the trigger signal at an input and is interconnected with the time controller at a further input for actuation, and wherein the output of the logic member is provided for forwarding the trigger signal (allowing the change depending on the time elapsed).
As to claim 7, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the time controller has a delay circuit (KR 205, 112), and wherein the delay circuit contains at least one logic circuit, which has a propagation time configured for providing the maximum actuation time, and/or a delay member.
As to claim 8, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the switching element is configured as a multiplexer (KR 205, multiple elements, SW0, SW1, SW2).
As to claim 9, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the control arrangement has a processor, and the processor provides or actuates the limiting member (the control unit).
As to claim 10, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the time controller comprises a storage member (memory), which maintains the actuation of the switching element for suppressing the trigger signal.
As to claim 14, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the at least one filter circuit comprises a “high-pass” filter.
As to claim 15, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the “pull-up” resistor is part of the filter circuit.
As to claim 16, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the processor at least partially provides the time controller for the switching element.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103924851 to Arabia et al (Arabia) in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025) and further in view of WO 2010106092 to Mueller et al (Mueller).
As to claim 11, Arabia, as modified by KR 025, fails to disclose that the supply circuit comprises a boost converter which can be activated by the trigger signal.
Mueller teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a boost converter (11) in order to provide a higher voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the circuit described by Arabia, as modified by KR 025, with a boost converter, as taught by Mueller, in order to increase the voltage.
As to claim 18, Arabia discloses that the energy store has at least one storage capacitor (par 36).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103924851 to Arabia et al (Arabia) in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025) and further in view of GB 2116329 to Spaude.
Arabia, as modified by KR 025, fails to disclose that storage member comprises an RC flip-flop.
Spaude teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an RC flip flop (page 7 line 45) for creating a desired situation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage member described by Arabia, as modified by KR 025, with an RC flip flop, as taught by Spaude, in order to maintain a desired situation.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103924851 to Arabia et al (Arabia) in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025), WO 2010106092 to Mueller et al (Mueller) and further in view of DE 102014105873 to Dremel et al (Dremel).
Arabia, as modified by KR 025 and Mueller, fails to disclose that the at least one storage capacitor comprises at least one double-layer capacitor.
Dremel teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a storage capacitor (12a) as a double layer capacitor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage capacitor described by Arabia, as modified by KR 025 and Mueller, as a double layer capacitor, as taught by Dremel, in order to use the fast characteristics.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202013103042 to Gottschald in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025).
PNG
media_image4.png
731
1156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Gottschald discloses a control arrangement for operating a motor vehicle locking system (2, 4) that comprises a drive with an electric drive motor (7).
The control arrangement actuates the drive in response to a trigger signal transmitted by an operating element (1a) in order to provide a motorized locking function for an adjustable closure element of the motor vehicle.
The control arrangement comprises an electrical energy store (8) and a supply circuit (9) associated with the energy store.
The supply circuit, during emergency operation in response to the trigger signal being received by the supply circuit, provides an emergency supply voltage to the drive via the energy store.
Gottschald fails to disclose that the control arrangement has a limiting member for the forwarding of the trigger signal from the operating element to the supply circuit, and wherein the limiting member is designed to suppress the forwarding of the trigger signal after a maximum actuation time has elapsed following beginning of the trigger signal.
KR 025 teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a control arrangement with a limiting member (MV 12, 110) that is configured to control the supply, by blocking it, after time elapses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the control arrangement described by Gottschald, with a limiting member, as taught by KR 025, in order to stop the use of the electrical energy store.
As to claim 2, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the limiting member has at least one filter circuit for suppressing the trigger signal (for making the decision).
As to claim 3, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the control arrangement comprises a “pull-up” resistor (KR 205, R6-R9) which provides a high logic level for the supply circuit, and wherein the supply circuit receives a low logic level with forwarding of the trigger signal.
As to claim 4, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the limiting member comprises a monostable multivibrator (KR 025, MV 12 or 110) which is designed to be moved to an unstable state, in which the forwarding of the trigger signal is allowed by the limiting member, when the trigger signal is received, and to fall back to a stable state, in which the forwarding of the trigger signal is suppressed by the limiting member, after the maximum actuation time has elapsed.
As to claim 5, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the limiting member is capable of comprising a switching element (KR 205, SW0, SW1 OR SW2) which allows the forwarding of the trigger signal in a first switching state and suppresses the forwarding of the trigger signal in a second switching state, and wherein a time controller is provided for actuating the switching element, the time controller moving the switching element to the second switching state after the maximum actuation time has elapsed.
As to claim 6, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the switching element comprises a logic member which receives the trigger signal at an input and is interconnected with the time controller at a further input for actuation, and wherein the output of the logic member is provided for forwarding the trigger signal (allowing the change depending on the time elapsed).
As to claim 7, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the time controller has a delay circuit (KR 205, 112), and wherein the delay circuit contains at least one logic circuit, which has a propagation time configured for providing the maximum actuation time, and/or a delay member.
As to claim 8, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the switching element is configured as a multiplexer (KR 205, multiple elements, SW0, SW1, SW2).
As to claim 9, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the control arrangement has a processor, and the processor provides or actuates the limiting member (the control unit).
As to claim 10, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the time controller comprises a storage member (memory), which maintains the actuation of the switching element for suppressing the trigger signal.
As to claim 14, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the at least one filter circuit comprises a “high-pass” filter.
As to claim 15, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the “pull-up” resistor is part of the filter circuit.
As to claim 16, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, teaches that the processor at least partially provides the time controller for the switching element.
Claim(s) 11, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202013103042 to Gottschald in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025) and further in view of WO 2010106092 to Mueller et al (Mueller).
As to claim 11, Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, fails to disclose that the supply circuit comprises a boost converter which can be activated by the trigger signal.
Mueller teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a boost converter (11) in order to provide a higher voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the circuit described by Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, with a boost converter, as taught by Mueller, in order to increase the voltage.
As to claim 18, Gottschald discloses that the energy store has at least one storage capacitor (12a).
As to claim 19, Gottschald discloses that the at least one storage capacitor comprises at least one double-layer capacitor.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202013103042 to Gottschald in view of KR 20080005025 (KR 025) and further in view of GB 2116329 to Spaude.
Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, fails to disclose that storage member comprises an RC flip-flop.
Spaude teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an RC flip flop (page 7 line 45) for creating a desired situation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage member described by Gottschald, as modified by KR 025, with an RC flip flop, as taught by Spaude, in order to maintain a desired situation.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous claim objection, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the previous 112 2nd paragraph rejections, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
However, a new rejection has been made on the record in view of the current amendment. A broad interpretation was given.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the argument is irrelevant since is not claimed. So, until all that is claimed, the argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Arabia, the applicant argues that Arabia fails to disclose that the provision of the emergency supply voltage to the controller is not dependent on receiving the trigger signal; that is always supplied when the other power supply fails.
The examiner disagree since the provision is in response to the trigger signal. As clearly shown in fig 3, a trigger signal is received (at 52). Then, the signal is sent to the controller, which then interact with the supply circuit. Then, is determined or analyzed the power sources, and in view of that, if the main power source is not in condition, the emergency supply voltage is used.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Gottschald, the applicant argues that the drive controller is part of the supply controller and is always active, in contract to what is claimed.
As mentioned above in the new 112 2nd paragraph rejection, it is unclear what is this “drive controller” is and how works as claimed. As mentioned above, the element is considered as the same element previously presented in the claim.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Prosecution has been closed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights