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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 8/26/26.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
478
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite.
The claim is drawn to a system that will open, close and lock a lid. The claim just mentions that the opening and closing drive device is configured to open and close the lid and that the control device will just control the opening and closing drive device to pull-in the lid in a closing direction while operating the lock device from the locked state to the half-locked state.
The clam fails to actually mention how the opening and closing drive device will do the open and closing, since it will not by itself.
Here is the invention:
The control device 40, when an opening command is provided, will operate both, the lock device and the opening and closing drive device (S100), until a predetermined state is reached, indicating that the half-release state is reached (S110).
However, at that time, the control device shut down operation of the opening and closing drive device (S120) and the drive of the lock drive will return to an initial position (S170, S180).
After that, in order to continue to the lock released position, the control device operates the lock drive in order to move the latch to the latch released position.
When in the latch release position, the control device will then operate the opening and closing drive device to open the lid.
So as described, the control device is actually controlling the lock device to transition from the locked state to the half-locked state while at the same time controlling the opening and closing drive device from the locked state to the half-locked state, until certain predetermined state is presented.
Then, the control device will control the lock device to transition from the half-locked state to the lock release state, and when the lock release state is reached, the control device will transition the opening and closing drive device to open the lid.
Therefore, the examiner is suggesting the following amendment:
“…a control device configured to:
Control the lock device to transition the lid from the locked state to the half-locked state, and control the opening and closing drive to pull-in the lid in a closing direction while the lock device operates to transition the lid from the locked state to the half-locked state until a predetermined status is reached.
The control device configured to control the lock device to transition from the half-locked state to the lock release state; and when the lock release state is reached, the control device will transition the opening and closing drive device to open the lid.”. Correction is required.
Claim 4 requires the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
601
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite.
First, as in claim 1 above, the invention is drawn to open the lid, and as claimed it is unclear how in view of the control device/opening and closing drive device interaction.
Second, as claimed, the claim requires that the control device transition the lock device from locked state to release state via the half-locked state in response to an opening command, then the same thing responsive to a control signal indicating the lid returns the lid to the locked state due to an external force and then the opening and closing drive device will move the lid in an opening direction.
That is not what is described and illustrated (fig 8).
First, there is no support for moving the lock device once and again without the opening and closing drive device also moving (as in claim 1).
Second, the control device 40, when an opening command is provided, will operate both, the lock device and the opening and closing drive device (S100), until a predetermined state is reached, indicating that the half-release state is reached (S110).
The control device is then configured to control the lock device and the open and closing drive device to stop.
Then the control device will detect if there is an external force acting on the lid (S140), and if yes, return to the locked state.
After that, in response to a control signal indicating the return to the locked state, the control will perform the movement from locked to half-locked state. And as mentioned above with regards to claim 1, the control device shut down operation of the opening and closing drive device (S120) and the drive of the lock drive will return to an initial position (S170, S180).
After that, in order to continue to the lock released position, the control device operates the lock drive in order to move the latch to the latch released position.
When in the latch release position, the control device will then operate the opening and closing drive device to open the lid.
Therefore, the examiner is suggesting the following amendment:
“…a control device configured to:
Control the lock device to transition the lid from the locked state to the half-locked state, and control the opening and closing drive to pull-in the lid in a closing direction while the lock device operates to transition the lid from the locked state to the half-locked state until a predetermined status is reached;
The control device configured to determine if an external force is acting on the lid, returning the lid to the locked state;
The control device configured, in response to a control signal indicating the return to the locked state, transition again the lid from the locked state to the half-locked state;
The control device configured to control the lock device to transition from the half-locked state to the lock release state; and when the lock release state is reached, the control device will transition the opening and closing drive device to open the lid.”. Correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4, as interpreted above, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
The previous 112 2nd paragraph rejection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of the arguments presented by the applicant and amendment.
As to the prior art rejection, in view of the amendment, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, in view of the amendment and arguments to clarify the previous 112 rejection, a new rejection has been made on the record.
However, in order to expedite prosecution, the examiner proposed language to overcome the issues and put the application in allowance condition.
However, since part of this new issue could have been made in the last action, examiner has then reopened prosecution. This action is a non-final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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 at (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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
September 29, 2026
