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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 13, “a monitoring device” is recited. The “a” should likely be a “the” because, on lines 9-10, “a monitoring device” was previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the monitoring device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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; the generic placeholder in the claims is the term “function” as used in control function and monitoring function) 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 word “means” (or “step”) 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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the generic placeholder “function” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: control function and monitoring function in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have 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 limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7 and 20, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are rejected because they pend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al., US 20240360706 A1 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a charging flap system (flap system 10) for a motor vehicle [0002], with a charging flap (flap 190) movable between a closed position closing a charging port on the vehicle side (Fig 3A; [0002]) and an opened position exposing the charging port (Fig 3B; [0002]); with an electric drive unit (actuation device 130) that moves the charging flap between the opened position and the closed position with an electronic control unit (controller 110) for controlling the drive unit [0047]; with an in particular (see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 1) electrically operable blocking device (locking driving mechanism 133 operates locking device 120) intended for locking or releasing the charging flap (3) in its closed position [0047]; and with a monitoring device (position detector 180) for detecting a locked or non-locked state of the charging flap in its closed position [0047-0048], characterized in that a monitoring system (power source 150; driving device 131; flap driving mechanism 132; 133; 180) is associated with the electronic control unit (Fig 1) as the monitoring device (see claim interpretation under claim 1 Claim Objection) comprising a control function ([0047-0048] discusses the control function to be the controlling of 150 to drive and move 132 and 133) of the control unit and a monitoring function ([0047-0048] discusses the monitoring function to be 180’s detection of apparatus component positioning) for the blocking device that interact with one another such that the control function moves the charging flap in the direction of the opened position when the charging flap is in the closed position ([0047-0048] discusses 132 moving 190 between open and closed positions), and in that the monitoring function records in time-dependent manner parameters, in particular (see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 1) electric parameters (180 is an electric/electronic component which operates to detect, read, and monitor the movement of apparatus components operating across a period of time, when positions are read or detected based on electrical parameters defining the open or closed, locked or unlocked positions, 180 signals and communicates with 110 to further operate the apparatus in a predetermined manner and timing thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1c(2) for record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term which is also not provided a special definition in the instant specification), which allow the locked or non-locked state of the charging flap in the closed position to be detected [0047-0048].
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches the charging flap system according to claim 1, characterized in that a sensor system (Hall sensor 181) is provided that detects a change in the position of the charging flap (190) after activation of the control function ([0047-0048] discusses the control function to be the controlling of 150 to drive and move 132 and 133) and is connected to the electronic control unit (110; [0065] discusses the Hall sensor system in the same manner as the instant invention does in instant specification [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches the charging flap system according to any of the preceding claims, characterized in that the electronic control unit (110) is designed as a data processing system (Fig 1 depicts and [0095-0096] discusses the structure of 110 and how it receives instructions and data and operates 10), and in that the control function ([0047-0048] discusses the control function to be the controlling of 150 to drive and move 132 and 133) and the monitoring function ([0047-0048] discusses the monitoring function to be 180’s detection of apparatus component positioning) are integrated into a data processing program stored in a memory of the electronic control unit ([0095-0096] discusses the programs stored in memory).
Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches the charging flap system according to any of the preceding claims, characterized in that the electronic control unit (110) is coupled to a drive control (131) of the motor vehicle such that starting of the drive is blocked when an unlocked charging flap (190) is detected in the closed position of said charging flap ([0048] discusses the 131 stopped at the point 190 is closed and unlocked and awaits a response from 180 verifying the closed position before restarting 131 to lock 120 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of block and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, US 20240360706 A1, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of LaCross et al., US 20240294077 A1 (hereinafter LaCross).
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches the charging flap system according to claim 2.
Sun does not teach characterized in that a force sensor is associated with the charging flap and is coupled to the monitoring function in order to transmit force values to said monitoring function in time-dependent manner.
LaCross teaches it is known in the art for charging flap systems characterized in that a force sensor ([0055] discusses measuring a force therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that a sensor is present because there was a device that responded to a physical stimulus and transmitted the resulting measurement thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of sensor and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term and the function described in LaCross) is associated with the charging flap (cover 116) and is coupled to the monitoring function ([0052] discusses the monitoring function to be performed by the electronic control unit of the change port or the central controller of the vehicle) in order to transmit force values to said monitoring function in time-dependent manner ([0055] discusses the time-dependent manner to be when the system determines that ice is present at the outer surface of 116).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Sun’s apparatus to have the force sensor of LaCross. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a force sensor in order to improve system performance in harsh environmental conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a charging flap system with multiple sensors, positional and force.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, US 20240360706 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cumbo, US 20210301562 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches the charging flap system according to claim 1.
Sun is silent on the whether his monitoring function is configured to record current change or voltage change parameters of the electric drive unit in time-dependent manner. Spurr et al., US 7170253 B2, teaches it is known in the art for control systems (latch control systems 500) are configurable with sensors (sensor 210) which can be adapted to measure either current or voltage (col 5, line 66-col 6, line 14).
Cumbo teaches it is known in the art for an automotive apparatus (latch 43) comprising a housing (housing 16) and latch elements (23) with an electric drive (power release motor 43b; cinch motor 43c) a movable between a closed and open positions [0036] controlled by an electronic control unit (latch control module 116) and a monitoring devices (latch sensor 148a; radar sensor 151a) with a monitoring system (power 17; ECU 144; auxiliary ECU 144a; 43b; 43c; 148a; 151a) with a control function ([0030] discusses the control function as the coordination of power/data/commend signals) and a monitoring function ([0030] discusses the monitoring function as the sensors sending signals which are acted upon by the controls), characterized in that the monitoring function is configured to record current change parameters of the electric drive unit in time-dependent manner ([0055] discusses 148a registering and reporting a significant change in current to 144 which renders control decisions to 23 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1c(2) for record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term and function of recording current change parameters in time-dependent manner which is also not provided a special definition in the instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify the control system of Sun to sense and measure with the current change sensing monitoring functionality of Cumbo. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to sense/measure/monitor/control the operation of electrical and electronic systems. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to sense/measure/monitor/control the operation of electrical and electronic systems (either the rate of current change over time [di/dt] or the rate of voltage change over time [dv/dt])). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to specify their sensing and measurement methodology in order to better define the functionality and capabilities of their control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Spurr et al., US 7170253 B2, and redesigned Sun in view of Cumbo with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of sense and measurement methodology to monitor electric drive current change in the operation of a charging flap system.
Regarding claim 5, Sun in view of Cumbo teaches the charging flap system according to claim 4, characterized in that a current level change is provided as a current change parameter and is evaluable by the control unit (Sun, 110) of the drive unit (Sun, 130; Cumbo [0055] discusses the output of current sensors 148a being used by the ECU 144 to determine the operation of motor 100).
Regarding claim 7, Sun in view of Cumbo teaches the charging flap system according to claim 4, characterized in that a change in a current ripple is provided as a current change parameter and is evaluable by the control unit (Sun, 110) of the drive unit (Sun, 130; Cumbo [0055] discusses the output of current sensors 148a measuring ripple being used by the ECU 144 to determine the operation of motor 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, while JP 4092811 B2 teaches it is known in the art that current phase change is an measurement parameter in the monitoring and control of motor drive units, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify Sun in view of Cumbo as claimed in the instant application wherein characterized in that a current phase change is provided as a current change parameter and is evaluable by the control unit of the drive unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for electrical motor driven flap and door systems.
Cretin, US 20240109409 A1, teaches a vehicular charge port or fuel fill closure system with actuator and integrated lock with electrically operable charging flap and blocking device.
Chevalier, US 20070274695 A1, teaches automotive universal latch control and implementation with controller, drive unit, and monitoring device.
Xiong et al., CN 110593678 A, teaches a new energy automobile charging cabin cover and closing control system and control method with controller, drive unit, and monitoring device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675