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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsius (US 11,253,733) in view of Stork (NL 2004482).
Hirsius discloses in figures 1 – 13 a vehicle door window glass breaking system (10) comprising: a vehicle door; a vehicle door window; an actuator (11); a coupling mechanism (22); a cable (18); a vehicle door handle (12); and a pin (14, 35); wherein said pin having an aperture (figure 5) disposed therein; wherein said pin having a first end affixed to an edge of said vehicle window; wherein said aperture (figure 5) disposed proximal to an opposing second end of said pin; wherein said actuator is manually actuated; wherein said actuator including said coupling mechanism (figure 5) for linking said cable to said vehicle door handle; wherein said cable passes through said aperture; wherein said cable connects said pin to a glass base (22, 23); wherein said glass base is the edge of said vehicle door window inside said vehicle door; and further wherein said actuator (32) engaging said vehicle door handle for pulling said cable and for rotating said pin to break said vehicle door window when said vehicle door handle is pulled (claims 1, 8, 14). The cable having a cable jacket (19) encasing at least a portion of said cable for providing a controlled pathway for said cable (claims 2, 9). Hirsius does not disclose a sensor or automatically actuating. However, Stork discloses in figures 2A – 5 a vehicle door window glass breaking system with a sensor that is manually or automatically actuated (disclosure) (claims 1, 8, 14, 15). actuator including a push button (902, 904) (claims 3, 16). The sensor autonomously actuates said actuator when said sensor detects water buoyancy when the vehicle is submerged in water (claims 4, 10, 17). the sensor autonomously actuates said actuator when said sensor detects impact when the vehicle is in a collision (hits the water) (claims 5, 11, 18). Further an electromagnetic actuator embedded sensor is not explicitly disclosed, however the device sensor include magnet type of sensors because these two sensors were art recognized equivalents at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute (claims 6-7, 12-13, 19-20). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine with predictable results the teachings of Hirsius with Stork. The motivation would have been providing detection means, it is achieved that the window breaker system can be activated automatically, for example when a fire, a collision or a water hit is detected. This has the advantage that the window breaker system is quickly activated in the event of an emergency, even when it is not possible for the occupants to activate the system, for example because they are in a panic, are stuck or are unconscious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peng (CN 206950472), Hollo et al (WO 2007/103214).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole Verley whose telephone number is (571)270-3542. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/NICOLE T VERLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614