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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 30 October 2024. Claims 1-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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) 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first control module” in claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18;
The structure of the first control module is not disclosed in the specification.
“second control module” in claims 2, 9, 15, 19;
The structure of the second control module is not disclosed in the specification.
“third control module” in claims 3, 4, 16, 17, 20, 21;
The structure of the third control module is not disclosed in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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
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 1-21 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 claim(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18 recite “first control module…receiving input power…sending a switch operable signal…/sends an inoperable signal…/sends a signal to…”. The “first control module” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the first control module to perform the function of receiving input power…sending a switch operable signal…/sending an inoperable signal…/sending a signal to…. The specification lacks detailed description of the first control module. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the first control module is, what the advantages of using a first control module are and how the function recited above is performed by the first control module, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a first control module.
Claims 2, 9, 15 and 19 recite “second control module…receiving…sending… /sends…”. The “second control module” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the second control module to perform the functions cited above. The specification lacks detailed description of the second control module. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the second control module is, what the advantages of using a second control module are and how the function cited above is performed by the second control module, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a second control module.
Claims 3, 4, 16, 17, 20 and 21 recite “third control module…receiving…sends…”. The “third control module” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the third control module to perform the functions cited above. The specification lacks detailed description of the third control module. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the third control module is, what the advantages of using a third control module are and how the function cited above is performed by the third control module, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a third control module.
Claim 2 recites “…wherein the second control module sends a signal to a second latch for opening a second cap door or window or tonneau cover upon activation of the second switch by the vehicle operator” which is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently disclosed in the specification. Paragraph 0010 of the specification repeats claim 2. There are no paragraphs in the specification disclosing the second control module sending a signal to a second latch for opening a second cap door or…, i.e., the specification lacks written description regarding the second latch and second cap door or…, where the second latch and second cap door… locate, how the second latch and second cap door relate to the first latch and first cap door or… The claim 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. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the third control module sends a signal to a third latch for opening a third cap door or window upon activation of the third switch by the vehicle operator” which is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently disclosed in the specification. Paragraph 0011 of the specification repeats claim 3. There are no paragraphs in the specification disclosing the third control module sending a signal to a third latch for opening a third cap door or…, i.e., the specification lacks written description regarding the third latch and third cap door or…, where the third latch and third cap door or… locate, how the third latch and third cap door or… relate to the first latch and first cap door or… The claim 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. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 4 recites “…wherein the third control module sends a signal to a third latch for opening a third cap door or window upon activation of the third switch by the vehicle operator” which is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently disclosed in the specification. Paragraph 0012 of the specification repeats claim 4. There are no paragraphs in the specification disclosing the third control module sending a signal to a third latch for opening a third cap door or…, i.e., the specification lacks written description regarding the third latch and third cap door or…, where the third latch and third cap door or… locate, how the third latch and third cap door or… relate to the first latch and first cap door or… The claim 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. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 15- 17 and 19-21 recite similar language as claims 2-4 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1-21 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.
Claim limitation “first control module” in claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 18 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 or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “first control module” is recited in the claim as having the function of receiving input power…sending a switch operable signal…/sending an inoperable signal…/sending a signal to…. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “second control module” in claims 2, 9, 15, 19 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 or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “second control module” is recited in the claim as having the function of …receiving…sending… /sending… However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “third control module” in claims 3, 4, 16, 17, 20 and 21 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 or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “third control module” is recited in the claim as having the function of …receiving…sending… However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “a door or window on a vehicle accessory cap, or a tonneau cover” and further recites “the cap door or window or tonneau cover” which is ambiguous. It is not clear if “the cap door or window” is the same as “a door or window on a vehicle accessory cap”. Further, it is not clear if “…or tonneau cover” is the same tonneau cover as “or a tonneau cover”. In addition, it is not clear in “the cap door or window”, whether both the door and the window belong to the cap OR the door belongs to the cap, and the window is a separate component not belonging to the cap. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 11-14 and 18 recite similar language as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 2 recites “…wherein the second control module sends a signal to a second latch for opening a second cap door or window or tonneau cover…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “a second cap door or window or tonneau cover” means “a second cap door, a second window or a second tonneau cover” OR “a second cap door, window or tonneau cover”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…a second cap door, window or tonneau cover…” for the purpose of examination.
Claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 recite similar language as claim 2 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on previously rejected claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1, 6-8, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US20210129646).
As to claims 1, 14 and 18, McDonald teaches a system, a method and a system for unlocking and opening a door or window on a vehicle accessory cap, or a tonneau cover, with the vehicle having an operator, a battery for providing electric power and a vehicle door unlock signal, comprising (McDonald para 0004: … a truck cap or a tonneau cover that includes a latch system to secure the movable panel or door to the truck; also see abstract, claim 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4):
a first control module receiving input power and receiving the vehicle door unlock signal from the vehicle (McDonald para 0035-0038: A rear view of truck 2 and cap 8 is shown in FIG. 2. This view also shows latch assembly 14 located on lift door 12…When the operator engages the lock button, the circuit for the controller is electrically disconnected and will not operate. Conversely, when the vehicle is unlocked, the controller circuit is electrically powered and will operate to unlatch the door; also see para 0041-0044, Fig. 3, Fig. 4);
upon receiving the vehicle door unlock signal from the vehicle, the first control module sending a switch operable signal to a first switch (McDonald para 0038: … Controller 50 is configured so when button 32 is depressed, it sends a signal to both actuators 22 and 24 to pull rotary latch catches 36 and 38 illustratively in directions 48 and 46, respectively, to create an unlatched condition the same as the mechanical system did through rods 18 and 20. When the controller is in the locked condition, it cannot be used and the doors will not open… when the vehicle is unlocked, the controller circuit is electrically powered and will operate to unlatch the door; also see para 0041-0044, Fig. 3, Fig. 4); and,
upon activation of the first switch by the vehicle operator, the first control module sending a signal to a first latch associated with the cap door or window or tonneau cover to open the cap door or window or tonneau cover (McDonald para 0038: …actuator controller 50 that includes button 32 wired to electrical connectors 52 and 54 on electronic actuators 22 and 24, respectively… Controller 50 is configured so when button 32 is depressed, it sends a signal to both actuators 22 and 24 to pull rotary latch catches 36 and 38 illustratively in directions 48 and 46, respectively, to create an unlatched condition the same as the mechanical system did through rods 18 and 20…when the vehicle is unlocked, the controller circuit is electrically powered and will operate to unlatch the door, also see para 0004-0005, para 0041-0044, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, claim 1).
Yet, McDonald does not explicitly disclose the first control module receiving input power from the battery.
However, McDonald does teach… actuator controller 50 that includes button 32 wired to electrical connectors 52 and 54 on electronic actuators 22 and 24, respectively… Controller 50 is configured so when button 32 is depressed, it sends a signal to both actuators 22 and 24…the controller circuit is electrically powered and will operate to unlatch the door (McDonald para 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the controller receiving input power from a battery of the vehicle for the benefit of providing a stable and regulated power supply to the controller.
As to claim 6, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1 wherein the battery is a battery associated with the vehicle for supplying power to other vehicle operations along with the system (McDonald para 0035-0038).
As to claim 7, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1 wherein the battery is a battery incorporated into the system and added to the vehicle with the system (McDonald para 0035-0038).
As to claim 8, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1 wherein the vehicle also sends a vehicle door lock signal to the first control module and the first control module sends an inoperable signal to the first switch to deactivate the first switch (McDonald para 0035-0038: …electrically disconnected and will not operate…).
As to claim 11, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1 with the first latch located adjacent the left side of the cap door or window or tonneau cover and also having a second latch adjacent the right side of the cap door or window or tonneau cover, and upon activation of the switch by the vehicle operator, the first control module also sending a signal to the second latch to open the cap door or window or tonneau cover (McDonald Fig. 4, Fig. 6 and related text).
As to claim 12, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 11 also having a handle on the outside of the cap door or window or tonneau cover with the handle located between the first and second latches, the handle having a front side and a back side and the first switch is located on the backside of the handle (McDonald Fig. 6, Fig. 16 and related text).
As to claim 13, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 12 also having a cylindrical keyway in the handle and an appropriate key for unlocking and rotating the keyway, the keyway having a key insertion end located on the outside of the cap door or window or tonneau cover and an actuator end located on the inside of the cap door or window or tonneau cover with the actuator end connected to a first end of a pair of wires with the second end of each of the pair of wires connected to a lever associated with the one of the first and second latches wherein when the appropriate key rotates the keyway, the first and second latches open the cap door or window or tonneau cover (McDonald Fig. 11, Fig.16 and related text).
Claims 2-5, 9-10, 15- 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald in view of Berner (US5004961).
As to claims 2, 15 and 19, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1, the method of claim 14 and the system of claim 18.
McDonald does not teach a second control module, with the second control module receiving its input power and vehicle door unlock signal from the first control module and sending a switch operable signal to a second switch, wherein the second control module sends a signal to a second latch for opening a second cap door or window or tonneau cover upon activation of the second switch by the vehicle operator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Berner teaches Each of the slave controllers 26 is coupled to one another via signal lines 32, described in greater detail below, and to a master controller 34. The signal lines 32 include first and second lines 32-1 and 32-2 for transmitting a bidirectional actuator command, and a third line 32-3 for transmitting feedback information. Particularly, the actuator command is generated by the master controller 34 to cause each of the slave controller 26 to energize its respective associated motor 28 (see at least Berner col 3 line 61-col 4 line 31, 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 modified McDonald so as to include the above limitations in view of Berner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine McDonald and Berner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 3, 16 and 20, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 2, the method of claim 15 and the system of claim 19.
McDonald does not teach a third control module, with the third control module receiving its input power and vehicle door unlock signal from the first control module and sending a switch operable signal to a third switch, wherein the third control module sends a signal to a third latch for opening a third cap door or window upon activation of the third switch by the vehicle operator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Berner teaches Each of the slave controllers 26 is coupled to one another via signal lines 32, described in greater detail below, and to a master controller 34. The signal lines 32 include first and second lines 32-1 and 32-2 for transmitting a bidirectional actuator command, and a third line 32-3 for transmitting feedback information. Particularly, the actuator command is generated by the master controller 34 to cause each of the slave controller 26 to energize its respective associated motor 28 (see at least Berner col 3 line 61-col 4 line 31, 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 modified McDonald so as to include the above limitations in view of Berner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine McDonald and Berner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 4, 17 and 21, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1, the method of claim 14 and the system of claim 18.
McDonald does not teach a third control module, with the third control module receiving its input power and vehicle door unlock signal from the second control module and sending a switch operable signal to a third switch, wherein the third control module sends a signal to a third latch for opening a third cap door or window upon activation of the third switch by the vehicle operator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Berner teaches Each of the slave controllers 26 is coupled to one another via signal lines 32, described in greater detail below, and to a master controller 34. The signal lines 32 include first and second lines 32-1 and 32-2 for transmitting a bidirectional actuator command, and a third line 32-3 for transmitting feedback information. Particularly, the actuator command is generated by the master controller 34 to cause each of the slave controller 26 to energize its respective associated motor 28 (see at least Berner col 3 line 61-col 4 line 31, 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 modified McDonald so as to include the above limitations in view of Berner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine McDonald and Berner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 5, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 1.
Berner further teaches an LED light associated with the first switch and wherein the LED light is turned on when the switch operable signal is sent to the first switch (Berner col 5, lines 47-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald so as to include the above limitations in view of Berner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine McDonald and Berner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 9, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 2 wherein the vehicle also sends a vehicle door lock signal to the first control module and the first control module sends an inoperable signal to the first switch which deactivates the first switch and the first control module also sends an inoperable signal to a control module, and the control module sends an inoperable signal to a switch to deactivate the switch (McDonald para 0035-0038: …electrically disconnected and will not operate…).
Berner further teaches the second control module (Berner col 3 line 61-col 4 line 31, 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 modified McDonald so as to include the above limitations in view of Berner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine McDonald and Berner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 10, McDonald teaches the system of Claim 5.
Berner further teaches wherein the LED light is turned off when the vehicle sends a vehicle door lock signal to the first control module (Berner col 5, lines 47-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald so as to include the above limitations in view of Berner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine McDonald and Berner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Comstock, US20030141740(A1): …when the truck locks are electrically unlocked the actuators retract the sliding locks and permit the bed cover to be opened…
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights