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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Trescases WO 2020232543 A1 have been introduced to teach the claim amendments to which the arguments are directed.
Specification
The previous specification objections have been overcome by the present specification amendments.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been overcome by the present amendments however new objections have arisen.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “the downstream relay” should just be “the relay” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Some of the present previous 112 rejections have been overcome however the amendments have failed to clarify the issue with claim 8.
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 8 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.
In regards to claim 8, “wherein the application-specific integrated circuit includes a relay downstream of the application-specific integrated circuit” It’s unclear how the relay could be both included in and downstream of the application-specific integrated circuit and from the claim language, and original disclosure, it’s unclear if the limitation is attempting to claim the relay connected with and downstream of the ASIC or integrated in the ASIC, for the purpose of examination the former is assumed.
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) 1-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekky et al. US 20070145821 A1 (hereinafter Mekky) in view of Zhang US 20070071448 A1 (hereinafter Zhang) Trescases WO 2020232543 A1 (hereinafter Trescases).
In regards to claim 1, Mekky teaches a motor vehicle locking device, comprising: a locking mechanism having a catch (20) and a pawl (24), an electric motor drive (26) for opening the locking mechanism (para 11) powered by an on-board power supply (16), and an emergency opening device (at least 38) for at least one of manual emergency opening of the locking mechanism and motorized emergency opening of the locking mechanism (para 11), wherein the emergency opening device is equipped with at least one electronic control unit (38) for evaluating at least one emergency opening signal (such as from the crash sensor 48; see para 28), wherein the at least one electronic control unit of the emergency opening device is a microcontroller (see fig 2) and wherein the emergency opening device includes an energy supply (Mekky: 28 and/or 90) that is configured to power the application-specific integrated circuit (Mekky: para 19 and 27).
However, Mekky is silent on if the microcontroller is an application-specific integrated circuit.
Zhang teaches the use of an ASIC as opposed to a general purpose circuit, provides improved performance, reduced power consumption, increased safety, and reduced costs (para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Mekky’s microcontroller be an ASIC in order to improve performance, reduce power consumption, increased safety, and reduce costs (Zhang: para 25).
Additionally, Mekky does not teach the energy supply is electrically separated from the on-board power supply.
Trescases teaches an energy supply (26) is electrically separated from an on-board power supply (4; see para 63; as when disconnected from 24 26 would also be disconnected from 4 see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Mekky with an energy supply is electrically separated from the on-board power supply, such as in Trescases, in order to conserve energy stored and prevent leakage current (see Trescases para 83).
In regards to claim 3, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 1, wherein the energy supply is an energy store (Trescases: para 63 describe energy stores).
In regards to claim 4, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 3 wherein the energy store includes at least one of an accumulator, a battery (Trescases: para 63), and high-performance capacitor.
In regards to claim 13, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 1, further comprising a crash sensor (Mekky: 48) configured to generate the least one emergency opening signal and send the generated emergency opening signal to the emergency opening device (Mekky: para 28).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Van Wiemeersch et al. US 20150330113 A1 (hereinafter Van Wiemeersch).
In regards to claim 5, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 1.
However, Mekky is silent on further comprising an external control unit positioned on a vehicle side of the motor vehicle locking device. The examiner would like to note that Mekky teaches a communication line 56 and a transmission line 58 but does not specify what the lines lead to.
Van Wiemeersch teaches an external control unit (40) positioned on a vehicle side of the motor vehicle locking device (as it a body control module) in communication with a latch controller (38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Mekky with an external control unit positioned on a vehicle side of the motor vehicle locking device in order to provide a well-known and conventional way of indicating to the user a need to service (para 21).
In regards to claim 11, Mekky in view of Zhang, Trescases and Van Wiemeersch teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 5, wherein the application-specific integrated circuit is configured to transmit a faulty signal (Mekky para 23) to the external control unit when there is any fault in the emergency opening device (as Van Wiemeersch teaches using the external control unit to signal the user of faults).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Murata US 20090183116 A1 (hereinafter Murata).
In regards to claim 6, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 1.
However, Mekky does not teach wherein the application-specific integrated circuit comprises at least one sensor. The examiner would like to note it appears a capacitive sensor is used in the signaling of the outside handle (46, see fig 2).
Murata teaches an ASIC (26) comprising a touch sensor (29; see para 49 and fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an application-specific integrated circuit comprises at least one sensor in order to improve the efficiency of connection with a sensor and reduce size.
In regards to claim 12, Mekky in view of Zhang, Trescases and Murata teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one sensor integrated in the application-specific integrated circuit is a touch sensor (Murata para 49).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Rathmann US 6416092 B1 (hereinafter Rathmann).
In regards to claim 8, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 1, wherein the application-specific integrated circuit includes a relay downstream of the application-specific integrated circuit (Mekky: 98; see fig 3 and para 20).
However, Mekky does not teach the switch a relay, he teaches a transistor.
Rathmann teaches a similar switch (power switch, see abstract) for operating an actuator, these switches may be a relay or a transistor (Col 4 lines 59-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the downstream switch of Mekky be a relay as doing so would be a simple substitution of one known element (transistor) for another (relay) to obtain predictable results (controlling power supply to an actuator) and involve only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2141 III B).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekky in view of Zhang, Trescases, and Rathmann as applied to claims 8 above, and further in view of Deeg et al. DE 102013020423 A1 (hereinafter Deeg).
In regards to claim 9, Mekky in view of Zhang, Trescases and Rathmann teaches a motor vehicle locking device according to claim 8.
However, Mekky does not teach further comprising a motor, wherein the downstream relay is configured to control the motor for the emergency opening. This is since Mekky only teaches one motor.
Deeg teaches a motor (7) usable during normal operation and a replacement motor (13) used with an emergency power supply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Mekky with a second, replacement motor, such as in Deeg, in order to allow more desirable design of the backup battery in terms of size and weight (Deeg paras 5 and 7).
With the modifications above Mekky in view of Zhang, Trescases, Rathmann, and Deeg teach a motor (Deeg 13), wherein the downstream relay is configured to control the motor for the emergency opening (as it logically follows with a relay configured to power Mekky’s 26 one would be implemented for the replacement motor as well).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekky in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Krishnan US 20160340940 A1 (hereinafter Krishnan).
In regards to claim 10, Mekky in view of Zhang and Trescases teaches the motor vehicle locking device according to claim 1.
However, Mekky is silent on wherein the emergency opening device includes a sender and/or receiver unit for authentication checking. The examiner would like to note Mekky teaches a lock switch (54) and a key fob (para 28) but is silent on if any authentication is taking place. This is extremely common however.
Krishnan teaches a similar emergency opening device which includes a sender and/or receiver unit (at least 105) for authentication checking (para 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the emergency opening device includes a sender and/or receiver unit for authentication checking in order to provide a well-known and conventional way of selectively allowing access to an interior of a vehicle.
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights