DETAILED ACTION
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, the claim recites “method when executed”. It should recite “method that when executed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that Claims 1 – 11 are directed towards a method. The “while …” limitations of the claims appear to be contingent limitations, in particular as presently claimed/constructed. Per MPEP 2111.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner has rejected all of the limitations below under prior art regardless of whether they appear to be a contingent limitation. However, Applicant is requested to carefully review the noted claims and limitations in light of the above.
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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:
Data processing hardware first recited in Claim 1
Memory hardware first recited in Claim 12
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7 and 12 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Virdie et al. (US 20180354567 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Virdie teaches:
A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (See at least [0003] “Embodiments of the invention may provide an apparatus, vehicle, controller, method, carrier medium, computer program product, computer readable medium or processor which addresses the above problems”) comprising:
while a vehicle travels in a forward direction, adjusting an airfoil (See at least expandable wing assembly 120) of the vehicle to move between:
a retracted position, where at least a portion of the airfoil is recessed (See at least tray 50T and Figure 3) into a rear portion of the vehicle (See at least boot lid 50L and Figure 3); and
a first extended position, where the airfoil is extended away from the rear portion of the vehicle (See at least [0037] “The controller may be configured to receive a vehicle speed signal indicative of vehicle speed over ground, the controller being configured to cause the apparatus to assume the deployed condition if when apparatus is in the retracted condition and vehicle speed exceeds a first deployment speed value, and to assume the retracted condition if the apparatus is in the deployed condition and vehicle speed falls below a first retraction speed value”).
Regarding Claim 2, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, while the vehicle travels in the forward direction and the airfoil is in the first extended position (See at least Figure 4), adjusting the airfoil to move between the first extended position and a second extended position (See at least Figure 2), wherein, when the airfoil is in the second extended position, at least a portion of the airfoil (See at least secondary wing portions 127L, 127R) is extended away from the rear portion of the vehicle and wing portions of the airfoil are extended laterally from respective sides of a central portion of the airfoil (See at least [0086] “the secondary wing portions 127L, 127R move from respective retracted positions in which they sit substantially wholly within the primary wing portion 126 to extended (deployed) positions in which they project from the primary wing portion 126 in a laterally outboard direction, increasing the overall wing span of the wing assembly 120”. [0087] further discloses various deployment states).
Regarding Claim 3, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise adjusting a pitch of the airfoil when the airfoil is in the first extended position (See at least [0058] “The method may comprise automatically causing adjustment of the pitch angle of the wing assembly by means of pitch adjustment means” and [0095] “The rear wing apparatus 100 is also configured to allow a pitch angle of the wing assembly 120 to be adjusted whilst the wing assembly 120 is in the deployed position”).
Regarding Claim 4, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein adjusting the pitch of the airfoil is based on a speed of the vehicle (See at least [0113] “Whilst the apparatus 100 is in the deployed condition, the controller 15 monitors … the signal indicative of lateral acceleration (‘lateral acceleration signal’) in order to determine the required pitch angle P of the wing assembly 120”. Examiner notes that “acceleration” and “speed” are dependent.
Alternatively, the phrasing of Claim 3 of “when” is broad and inclusive of the time of deployment which is already speed dependent. The deployment includes a “baseline pitch angle” (See at least [0114])) or operation of a brake system of the vehicle (See at least [0113] “Whilst the apparatus 100 is in the deployed condition, the controller 15 monitors the signal indicative of brake pressure (‘brake pressure signal’) … in order to determine the required pitch angle P of the wing assembly 120”).
Regarding Claim 5, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, when the airfoil is in the retracted position:
receiving a speed of the vehicle while the vehicle travels in the forward direction;
determining the speed of the vehicle satisfies a threshold speed; and
based on determining the speed of the vehicle satisfies the threshold speed, adjusting the airfoil to move from the retracted position to the first extended position (See again at least [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise, after adjusting the airfoil to move from the retracted position to the first extended position:
determining the speed of the vehicle dissatisfies the threshold speed; and
based on determining that the speed of the vehicle dissatisfies the threshold speed, adjusting the airfoil to move from the first extended position to the retracted position (See again at least [0037]).
Regarding Claim 7, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a user input,
wherein adjusting the airfoil to move between the retracted position and the first extended position is based on the user input (See again at least [0037] and at least [0126] “In some embodiments, the wing apparatus 100 may be configured to assume the deployed condition when vehicle speed exceeds a predetermined value and, once deployed, remain deployed until the vehicle 1 remains stationary for more than a predetermined time period, or the vehicle is placed in a parked condition. The controller 15 may determine that the vehicle 1 is in a parked condition by one or more of a variety of means, for example by determining that a driver has placed a transmission of the vehicle in a ‘park’ or similar mode, where the transmission has such a mode, that the driver has switched off an engine of the vehicle, and/or any other suitable means”
Examiner notes that the nature of “user input” and “based on” are not claimed with any particularity. Therefore, any adjustment between retracted and extended, either direction of transition, are based on received user inputs).
Regarding Claims 12 – 18, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 7 with respect to the application of prior art, except for the recitation of generic structures and components. The new subject matter of “memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware” and “instructions” stored thereon are both common knowledge and still disclosed by Virdie. See at least [0066] of Virdie. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 – 11 and 19 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virdie et al. in view of Zerbe et al. (US 20240246409 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Virdie teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, while the vehicle is stationary and the airfoil is in the retracted position (See again at least [0037], the airfoil is retracted while stationary):
Virdie furthermore teaches the following limitations, just not under the condition of “while the vehicle is stationary”
adjusting the airfoil of the vehicle to move from the retracted position into a charging position,
wherein, when the airfoil is in the charging position, the airfoil is:
extended away from the rear portion of the vehicle; and
pitched upward (See again at least Figures 2 – 4)
…
The following limitation is not presently positively recited:
to allow access to a charge port (Examiner notes that due to the use of “to” the following appears to merely be the intended purpose or result. Furthermore, there is no indication of non-allowance without pitching. Therefore, this is clearly not a positively recited limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by any reference)
Virdie does not disclose, but Zerbe discloses:
… a charge port of the vehicle (See at least charge port 12), the charge port disposed in a recess at the rear portion of the vehicle (See at least [0061] “Optionally, the base portion of the charge port system may be at least partially recessed from the outer body panel of the vehicle” and [0049] “The charge port 12 may be disposed at any suitable position at the exterior of the vehicle. For example, the charge port 12 may be disposed at the front or rear fender or bumper of the vehicle”).
As noted above, Virdie also does not disclose deploying the airfoil while stationary, however in combination with Zerbe this limitation and feature is likewise disclosed. Furthermore, the feature indicated in the above non-positively recited limitation is also disclosed.
Zerbe further discloses:
“A vehicular closure system for a charge port cover panel includes a cover panel … The cover panel is movable between (i) a closed position, where the cover panel conceals a charge port of the vehicle, and (ii) an opened position, where the cover panel is moved away from the charge port to allow access to a charging connector of the charge port. An actuator is electrically operable to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position” ([0004]), wherein the cover is inclusive of a “cover panel or flap 14 (such as a panel that is pivotably mounted” ([0048]), wherein the cover panel or flap may swing out and away and furthermore resemble an airfoil (See at least Figures 2 – 9), and finally wherein “the charge port 12 may be concealed behind an exterior feature of the vehicle 10, such as a manufacturers emblem, a portion of a headlight or taillight, a license plate bracket, or the like, where the closure system enables movement of the exterior feature between the closed position and the opened position” ([0049]).
In summary, Zerbe discloses utilizing a pre-existing exterior vehicle feature having a separate purpose including components that normally do not already actuate or otherwise move like a flap, cover, or similar to conceal a charging port under/behind/etc., as well as flap covers and shapes roughly of the structure of a basic airfoil, and wherein the opening and closing is functions in the manner claimed (extending away, pitched upwards, and facilitating access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the airfoil of Virdie in the manner disclosed for exterior features taught by Zerbe with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would integrate two features such that another actuated component is not required and the charging port is concealed. In other words, with respect to Zerbe, the existing articulated and actuated airfoil would be able to be used without need for further actuators and related components being required for a concealed charging port cover, and with respect to Virdie an existing concealed location and cover is provided for which to place a charging port to maintain the security and aesthetics of the vehicle of.
With respect to the electrical port, the location is inherent to the cover, and Virdie does not limit itself to a particular energy source for operation of the vehicle itself. Consequently, it would similarly be obvious for the vehicle to be electrically powered, have an electrical port, and for the location of said port to be under the associated flap/cover as disclosed by Zerbe.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that due to the broad nature of the language and terms provided, many other references would still read on at least this claim. For example, a reference disclosing a recessed charging port located anywhere around the rear of the vehicle, and a reference disclosing further control means of an airfoil or similar such that it might be controlled while a vehicle is stationary. The term “charging position” only being defined by the position of the airfoil which appears to merely be a standard deployment already disclosed by Virdie and the location of the charging point being unrelated to the charging position.
In the interest of compact prosecution, see also Flynn et al. (US 20200324663 A1) recited in the Conclusion section below which explicitly discloses placing a charging port below an exterior aerodynamic feature of a vehicle (spoiler) which while not presently relied upon, may be relied upon if Applicant believes the particular exterior feature and/or location combination of Virdie and Zerbe non-obvious.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Virdie and Zerbe teaches:
The method of claim 8,
Furthermore, the below limitations have already been shown to be taught by the combination above with respect to Claim 8 above.
wherein, when the airfoil is in the retracted position, the airfoil extends over and along the recess to (Examiner notes that due to the use of “to” the following appears to merely be the intended purpose or result. Therefore, this is clearly not a positively recited limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by any reference) conceal the charge port from an exterior of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Virdie and Zerbe teaches:
The method of claim 8,
Virdie does not teach, but in combination with Zerbe teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise, while the vehicle is stationary and the airfoil is in the retracted position:
receiving a user input indicating selection of an actuatable input, the actuatable input accessible exterior the vehicle and disposed at or near the rear portion of the vehicle,
wherein adjusting the airfoil of the vehicle to move into the charging position is based on the received user input indicating selection of the actuatable input (See at least [0057] “The charge port 12 may actuate in response to a user input such as the user pushing a button, the user making direct contact with the cover panel 14, sensing of presence or movement of the user or user's hand at or near the charge port 12, or a user application communicating with the vehicle and/or charge port system via a wireless technology such as BLUETOOTH™, near-field communications (NFC), Wi-Fi™ and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for user actuation of the charging port cover as disclosed by Zerbe in the system and method of Virdie with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well understood for a user to access a charging port, gas port, or other energy providing port on a vehicle and Zerbe discloses various convenient means by which a user might do so.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Virdie and Zerbe teaches:
The method of claim 10,
Furthermore, the below limitations have already been shown to be taught by the combination above with respect to Claim 10 above.
wherein the actuatable input is disposed at an exterior side of a rear window of the vehicle, at a body panel of the vehicle at or near the rear portion of the vehicle, or at an exterior surface of the airfoil.
Regarding Claims 19 – 22, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 8 – 11 with respect to the application of prior art, except for the recitation of generic structures and components. The new subject matter of “memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware” and “instructions” stored thereon are both common knowledge and still disclosed by Virdie. See at least [0066] of Virdie. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 8 – 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flynn et al. (US 20200324663 A1) which discloses “the charging port is mounted below a spoiler of the electric vehicle” ([0006]). See Figure 5 for illustration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657