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 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 30-33 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 30, applicant disclose “each actuation region” after only disclosing a first actuation region. It is unclear how many actuation regions there should be. Claim 30 is amended to reflect Examiner’s interpretation (only one actuation region).
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the..fourth directions.. the..third directions.." in lines 1-2 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 30 or 32 disclose a third and a fourth direction.
Claims 31-32 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 30.
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.
Claim 17 states the base body has “means on the foot region for fastening”. There is no corresponding structure in the claim. Based on the specifications, the means for fastening is the flange 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 11-12,14-20,22,24-25,27-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mensch et al. US 12241291 (hereinafter referred to as Mensch).
Claim 11. Mensch discloses the vehicle door, comprising:
an electrically switchable lock (lock of vehicle door) and an actuating device (9, 27) for generating a switching signal (via engaging 25) for opening the lock,
wherein the actuating device has a first actuation region (annotated figure) and a sensor region (annotated figure) spaced from the first actuation region, and a second actuation region (annotated figure) which is spaced from the first actuation region and from the sensor region,
wherein a measuring device (25+29+30+31) is arranged in the sensor region, a portion or element (intervening space between 30,31) of which measuring device undergoes a deformation (see col7 lines 33-39) in a second direction (annotated figure)) when the first actuation region is subjected to force in a first direction (annotated figure), and the measuring device emits the switching signal due to the deformation in the second direction, the switching signal being of a first type (lock signal),
wherein the vehicle door further has a window (window pane) and an associated window shaft (8), wherein each actuation region is provided on (see fig2) a window shaft strip (10) closing off the window shaft or as a window shaft strip closing off the window shaft, and
wherein the portion or element or another portion or element of the measuring device undergoes a deformation in a fourth direction (annotated figure) which is different from the second direction when the second actuation region is subjected to force in a third direction (annotated figure), and
wherein the measuring device emits the switching signal due to the deformation in the fourth direction, the switching signal being of a second type (unlock signal).
Claim 12. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 11, wherein the second direction is different from the first direction (annotated figure).
Claim 14. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 11,wherein the first and fourth directions are identical and/or the second and third directions are identical. (annotated figure)
Claim 15. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 11, wherein the measuring device comprises a strain gauge, an inductive sensor and/or a capacitive sensor. (sensor can be a capacitive proximity sensor)
Claim 16. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 11, further comprising a base body (9+16+17+18), of which a handle portion (annotated figure) provides the first actuation region and/or the second actuation region and a foot portion (annotated figure) provides the sensor region.
Claim 17. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 16, wherein the base body has means (17) on the foot region for fastening the actuating device to an external object (surface of 6), in particular to a vehicle door (6). (fig3)
Claim 18. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 16, wherein the handle portion is C- shaped or L-shaped in cross section. (L-shaped, fig3)
Claim 19. Mensch discloses a motor vehicle (abstract) having the vehicle door according to claim 11. (fig1)
Claim 20. Mensch discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 19, wherein each actuation region is formed flush (fig1) with a window shaft strip (10, fig1) on another vehicle door following the vehicle door. (NOTE: each device is capable of being on every door)
Claim 22. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 12, wherein the measuring device comprises a strain gauge, an inductive sensor and/or a capacitive sensor (Capacitive proximity sensor). (fig1-4)
Claim 24. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 14, wherein the measuring device comprises a strain gauge, an inductive sensor and/or a capacitive sensor (Capacitive proximity sensor). (fig1-4)
Claim 25. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 12, further comprising a base body (9+16+17+18), of which a handle portion (annotated figure) provides the first actuation region and/or
Claim 27. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 12, further comprising a base body (9+16+17+18), of which a handle portion (annotated figure) provides the first actuation region and/or the second actuation region and a foot portion (annotated figure) provides the sensor region.
Claim 28. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 15, further comprising a base body (16), of which a handle portion (annotated figure) provides the first actuation region and/or the second actuation region and a foot portion (annotated figure) provides the sensor region.
Claim 29. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 17, wherein the handle portion is C-shaped or L-shaped in cross section (L-shaped, fig3)
Claim 30, Mensch discloses vehicle door (6), comprising:
an electrically switchable lock (lock of vehicle door) and an actuating device (9, 27) for generating a switching signal (via engaging 25) for opening the lock,
wherein the actuating device has a first actuation region (annotated figure) and a sensor region (annotated figure) spaced from the first actuation region,
wherein a measuring device (25+29+30+31) is arranged in the sensor region, a portion or element (intervening space between 30,31) of which measuring device undergoes a deformation (see col7 lines 33-39) in a second direction (annotated figure) when the first actuation region is subjected to force in a first direction (annotated figure), and the measuring device emits the switching signal due to the deformation in the second direction, the switching signal being of a first type (lock signal),
wherein the vehicle door further has a window (window pane) and an associated window shaft (8), wherein the first actuation region is provided on (see fig2) a window shaft strip (10) closing off the window shaft or as a window shaft strip closing off the window shaft, and
wherein the second direction is opposite to the first direction.
Claim 31. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 30, further comprising:
a second actuating region (annotated figure) which is spaced from the first actuation region and from the sensor region, wherein the portion or element or another portion or element of the measuring device undergoes a deformation in a fourth direction (annotated figure) which is different from the second direction when the second actuation region is subjected to force in a third direction (annotated figure), and
wherein the measuring device emits the switching signal due to the deformation in the fourth direction, the switching signal being of a second type (unlock signal).
Claim 32, Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 30, wherein the measuring device comprises a strain gauge, an inductive sensor and/or a capacitive sensor (can be a capacitive proximity switch, abstract).
Claim 33. Mensch discloses the vehicle door according to claim 32, wherein the first and a fourth directiona third direction
Annotated Figure (Mensch)
PNG
media_image1.png
1096
1158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1096
1158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-12,14-20,22,24,25,27-33 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. A new prior art rejection has been applied in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 11 which has changed the scope of the claim disclosure. New claims 30-33 are rejected as well. Claim 17 is still subject to a 112(f) rejection in light of “means” language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to vehicle doors.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 12573569, US 12546150 US 12241291.
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 FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights