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 .
Arguments, filed 27 February 2026 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 11-20 are currently pending.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duerhagen (DE102011107215).
Regarding claim 11, Duerhagen teaches an automatic door opener for use in a motor vehicle, comprising: a housing (1); a plunger (3) mounted to be longitudinally movable (see figs 2-3) in the housing (1);
an electric plunger drive (10) configured to move the plunger (3) forward and back between a resting position (fig 5), in which the plunger (3) is withdrawn into the housing (1), and an actuation position (as seen in fig 2 of the actuation positions fig 2-4), in which the plunger (3) protrudes out of the housing (1);and an auxiliary drive (4) having an energy store (4 is a spring, which stores energy) provided in addition to the electric plunger drive (10), which auxiliary drive (4) is pretensioned into the actuation position (as seen in fig 2), wherein the auxiliary drive (4), which is provided separately from the electric plunger drive (10), is configured to be activated independently of the electric plunger drive (4 and 10 are not activated at the same time, but in succession with each other) and, when activated via energy stored in the energy store (spring 4), is configured to be able to move the plunger (3) from the resting position (fig 5) to the actuation position (figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, Duerhagen teaches the automatic door opener of claim 11. Duerhagen further teaches wherein the electric plunger drive (10) has an electrical or electromagnetic drive device (10 is described as an electric drive motor in [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, Duerhagen teaches the automatic door opener of claim 11. Duerhagen further teaches wherein the auxiliary drive (4) has a spring or is formed by a spring (4 is a spring), which spring acts between the housing (1) and the plunger (3) and which, in a standby position (as seen in fig 2), assumes a state pretensioned in a direction of the actuation position of the plunger (see fig 2) and is maintained in said pretensioned state by a restraining device (2 restrains the spring in the pretensioned state).
Regarding claim 14, Duerhagen teaches the automatic door opener of claim 13. Duerhagen further teaches wherein the spring (4) is a compression spring (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 15, Duerhagen teaches the automatic door opener of claim 13. Duerhagen further teaches wherein the restraining device (2) is triggered electrically ([0008] states the flap is opened by remote control) to release the spring (4).
Regarding claim 16, Duerhagen teaches the automatic door opener of claim 13. Duerhagen further teaches wherein the electric plunger drive (10) is configured to move the plunger (3) from the actuation position (figs 2-4) to the resting position (fig 5) counter to a force of the spring (4) when the auxiliary drive is triggered (such as in fig 3), and to secure the spring (4) in the pretensioned state via the restraining device (2).
Regarding claim 17, Duerhagen teaches the automatic door opener of claim 11. Duerhagen further teaches comprising: a lock (as described in [0062] “When the flap is unlocked, the actuator 3 moves the flap away from the opening into a partially open position with at least partial relaxation of the spring 4 generating the pretensioning force while maintaining the support on the counter bearing 2 and holds it in this position, as illustrated in FIG. 3.”) provided to lock the plunger (3) moved into the actuation position (as seen in fig 3) by the triggered auxiliary drive (4) in the actuation position (as seen in fig 3).
Regarding claim 18, Duerhagen teaches a motor vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body having a doorframe ([0001] describes a motor vehicle body, which is known to have a door frame); at least one vehicle door (flap described in [0001]) with an electrically operable door lock ([0008] states the flap is opened by remote control); and at least one automatic door opener according to claim 11, wherein the at least one automatic door opener is provided to exert a force between the at least one vehicle door and the doorframe of the body side or another component fixed to the body ([0012] states the door opener is arranged either on the flap or body of the vehicle, and exerts a force on the other, counter bearing 2, described in [0011]).
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerhagen (DE102011107215) in view of Bendel (U.S. 12,173,534).
Regarding claim 19, Duerhagen teaches the motor vehicle of claim 18. Duerhagen further teaches comprising: an electric control device (electrical switch described in [0023]) configured to supply the electrically operable door lock (described in [0008]) and the electric plunger drive (10) with electrical energy when an electric contactor is actuated (remote control described in [0008]).
Duerhagen is silent as to how the electric control device functions in the event of an overload of the electric plunger drive of following receipt of a crash signal representing a vehicle accident.
Bendel teaches a similar motor vehicle that includes an energy accumulator unit 3. As taught in column 5, lines 37-51, 3 is connected to a drive for a door leaf via connection 9, and provides energy to the door leaf drive in the event of a vehicle accident. Column 2 lines 63-67 further teaches the energy accumulator unit 3 powers the locking element as well. The combination of Duerhagen and Bendel would utilize the energy accumulator unit 3 of Bendel in the motor vehicle of Duerhagen to provide power the door in the event of a vehicle accident, to trigger a restraining device (2 Duerhagen) to activate the auxiliary drive (4 Duerhagen).
Duerhagen and Bendel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motor vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duerhagen to incorporate the teachings of Bendel and provide an energy accumulator unit to provide power to the vehicle in the event of a vehicle accident. Doing so would allow the powered door and locking assembly to remain functional after a vehicle accident may have otherwise rendered the powered functions of the vehicle inoperable.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Duerhagen and Bendel teaches the motor vehicle of claim 19. Bendel further teaches further comprising: an emergency power supply (energy accumulator unit 3) which, in an event of an accident-based disconnection of a vehicle electrical system of the motor vehicle or a failure of the vehicle electrical system in the motor vehicle, supplies at least the electric control device, the electrically operable door lock, and the restraining device with electrical energy (as described in column 5, lines 43-51 and column 2 lines 63-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Duerhagen does not disclose an electric plunger drive configured to move the plunger forward and back between a resting position, in which the plunger is withdrawn into the housing, and an actuation position in which the plunger protrudes out of the housing.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assessment that the drive motor 10 is only operable to retract the actuator. Applicant argues that the drive motor 10 only moves the actuator 3 back into the resting position with the actuator 3 withdrawn. However, the resting position has been defined by the examiner as the state of the apparatus in fig 5 of Duerhagen. Duerhagen, describes in [0063] that “when the flap is in the closed position the actuating drive is activated and the actuating element 3 is adjusted by prestressing the spring 4 into the position which is shown in FIG 2, so that the actuating element is supported on the counter bearing 2 under spring preload.” It is the drive 10 that rotates the threaded spindle 8 to put spindle nut 7 into the activated position as seen in fig 2. Therefore, the electric plunger drive is configured to move the plunger both forward and back between a resting position and an actuation position.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights