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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 11/27/2024 and 12/16/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the generic placeholder word “mechanism” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “a kinematic adjusting mechanism … for transmitting an adjusting force” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “for transmitting”; without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1- 20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure of the limitations:
“a kinematic adjusting mechanism”: block (4) depicted in figure 2 comprising “two components” (Spec. ¶. [0061]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re. claim 1, the claim element "a kinematic adjusting mechanism" is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Examiner is unable to find the corresponding structure in the Specification because the sections of Applicant's Specification that discuss these elements do not include the corresponding structure (block (4) depicted in figure 2 comprising “two components;” see ¶. [0061]) of the Applicant's Specification.) Therefore, claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
6. 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- 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As the instant specification fails to disclose the necessary structure of the “kinematic adjusting mechanism” for performing the claimed function, the claim is rejected as indefinite, as per Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86USPQ2d at 1242. Mere reference to a general box without providing an explanation of the appropriate structure necessary to perform the claimed function is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC l 12(b ). Accordingly, the claim limitation is considered indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained due to the lack of a disclosed structure for performing the function of the mechanism claimed in means plus function form. This rejection also holds for claims 2- 20 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a drive device for adjusting an interior assembly of a vehicle, at least comprising.” The transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Therefore, the phrase “at least” is been unnecessarily added rendering the claim indefinite, because the claims includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “at least”), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the adjusting motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase " in particular " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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- 10 and 14- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golly et al. (US 20210362625 A1).
Re. claim 1, Golly discloses a drive device for adjusting an interior assembly of a vehicle (Figs 1- 3), at least comprising:
a motor-type adjusting drive (8) for generating an adjusting force (¶. [0039]),
a kinematic adjusting mechanism to be driven by the adjusting drive for transmitting an adjusting force generated by the adjusting drive to the interior assembly (¶. [0023]- [0024]),
a control device for controlling the adjusting drive (control element performing the control algorithm 400), and
an electronic detection device for detecting an adjustment event (sensor 9), in which at least one external force acts on at least one of the drive device and the interior assembly (¶. [0040]),
wherein the control device is configured to generate an opposing force via the motor-type adjusting drive in response to the detection of the adjustment event (¶. [0040]), which counteracts an adjustment of the interior assembly due to the external force (Fig. 4 and its associated text).
Re. claim 2, Golly discloses wherein the control device is configured to cause a reset of at least one of at least one component of the adjusting drive and at least one component of the kinematic adjusting mechanism (¶. [0012]) into a target position in response to the detection of the adjustment event via the motor-type adjusting drive and the opposing force generated therewith, and to keep the at least one component at the target position with the external force still applied via the generated opposing force (¶. [0017]- [0019] and ¶. [0038]- [0042]).
Re. claim 3, Golly discloses wherein the target position is specified as a position within a target range (¶. [0017]- [0019] and ¶. [0038]- [0042]).
Re. claim 4, Golly discloses wherein the control device comprises a memory and is configured to store the target position after an adjustment of the interior assembly has been completed under the action of an adjusting force generated by the adjusting drive (¶. [0038]- [0039]).
Re. claim 5, Golly discloses wherein the adjusting drive comprises a non-self-locking transmission (¶. [0023] and [0039]).
Re. claim 6, Golly discloses wherein for generating the opposing force or for increasing the opposing force the adjusting drive can be operated as a short-circuit brake (¶. [0019] and [0044]).
Re. claim 7, Golly discloses wherein the detection device is provided for monitoring at least one of at least one component of the adjusting drive and the kinematic adjusting mechanism (¶. [0015], [0020] and ¶. [0038] and [0041])
Re. claim 8, Golly discloses wherein the detection device is provided to monitor an adjustment position of a rotor of the adjusting motor (sensor 9 is Hall sensor sensing the motor shaft/rotor position ¶. [0022] and [0037]).
Re. claim 9, Golly discloses wherein a monitoring sensor system which is provided to detect the occurrence of an adjustment event via an adjustment of a component of the adjusting motor of the adjusting drive caused by the external force (¶. [0015], [0020] and ¶. [0038] and [0041]).
Re. claims 10 and 18, Golly discloses wherein the monitoring sensor system for monitoring the rotor comprises at least one Hall sensor or at least one analog, magnetic rotor position sensor (sensor 9 is Hall sensor sensing the motor shaft/rotor position ¶. [0037]).
Re. claim 14, Golly discloses wherein the detection device is configured to detect an adjustment event by an on-board sensor signal (see sensor 9).
Re. claim 15, Golly discloses wherein cyclically carry out a check for a possible change in an adjustment position (see control algorithm of Fig. 4).
Re. claim 16, Golly discloses wherein detect a change in an adjustment position in dependence on an operating mode of the drive device and in response thereto newly initialize a reference position for the at least one component, which is relevant for the detection of an adjustment event (see control algorithm of Fig. 4).
Re. claim 17, Golly, ¶. [0015], [0020] and ¶. [0038] and [0041].
Re. claim 19, Golly teaches a vehicle seat depicted in Figs. 1- 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golly et al. (US 20210362625 A1) in view of Samain et al. (US 20200369188 A1).
Re. claims 11- 12 and 20, Golly discloses wherein an adjusting motor of the adjusting drive is the adjustment motor 8 which “uses a pulse-width-modulated voltage and causes the adjustment motor 8 to perform a rotary movement” (¶. [0042]); however, it’s silence with regard to the motor been a DC motor, in particular a brushless DC motor. Samain a DC brushless motor electronically controlled to adjust the vehicle seat 10. Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Golly with the teaching of Samain to implement BLDC motor as seat adjusting drive. Therefore, “implementing the motor 150 as a brushless motor may help to reduce noise and/or improve durability and reliability. Since motor 150 is used for driving both screw shafts 111, 112 and usage of multiple motors is therefore not necessary, excessive costs for using a brushless motor can be avoided.” (Samain, ¶. [0048])
Re. claim 13, the combination of Golly and Samain discloses wherein the detection device is provided to measure a motor impedance for monitoring an adjustment position of the rotor of the DC motor (using Ohm’s law, the impedance is proportionally related to motor current/voltage; hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to measure impedance of the motor for ease of calculation.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights