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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics. See annotated figure 1 below for examples.
Figure 2 is objected to because the lead line for reference character “30a” fails to accurately identify the outer contour.
Figure 6 is objected to because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to illustrate. Does figure 6 comprise two figures, figure 6A and figure 6B? If not, it is unclear what element(s) of the invention the reference characters “A” and “B” are intended to identify.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “b” on line 23 of page 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “R” in figure 6, “L” in figure 6 and “B” in figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
1258
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the applicant has improperly used the same language to refer to different elements of the invention. For example, the applicant improperly used “first roller” to refer to element 4a on line 3 of page 11 and to refer to element 4b on line 13 of page 11.
On lines 11-12 of page 11, “distance A results” is confusing since it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. It is unclear what the distance A comprises and what elements of the invention define the distance A.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he present invention relates” on line 1 can be easily implied and therefore should be deleted. Additionally, the abstract is objected to because it is too long and “(Fig.1)” on the last line of the abstract should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “arranged fixed on” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they are grammatically awkward and confusing. Is the swivel arm arranged on the frame or is the swivel arm fixed on the frame?
Claim 1 is objected to because “the free end” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is objected to because “of which” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention to which the applicant is referring. It is suggested the applicant change “of which” to the name of the element to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “into an opening direction” on lines 5-6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the free end can be guided into an opening direction. Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the free end can be guided in an opening direction?
Claim 1 is objected to because “which is” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the swivel arm or to the guide rail.
Claim 1 is objected to because “aligned” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the swivel arm of the guide rail is aligned with.
Claim 1 is objected to because “in longitudinal direction” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they are grammatically incorrect. Note that the “in longitudinal direction” is missing a customary article such as “a” or “the”.
Claim 1 is objected to because “in a second position” on line 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention is in a second position.
Pronouns such as “it” on line 11 bring the clarity of claim 1 into question because it is not entirely clear what element of the invention the pronoun is referring to. It is, therefore, suggested the applicant replace pronouns such as “it” on line 11 of claim 1 with the name of the element of the invention to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion. Also see “its” on line 12 and line 20.
Claim 1 is objected to because “transverse direction” on line 13 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the transverse direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another transverse direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 1 is objected to because “an open position” on line 14 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the open position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another open position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 1 is objected to because “brings about swivelling of the swivel arm” on line 19 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention brings about the swivelling of the swivel arm.
Claim 1 is objected to because “transverse direction” on line 21 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the transverse direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another transverse direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 2 is objected to because “each rotate about vertical axis” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how both the first roller and the second roller can rotate about a single vertical axis.
Claim 2 is objected to because “the main extension of the leaf” on lines 5-6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is objected to because “longitudinal direction” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the longitudinal direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another longitudinal direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 2 is objected to because reference characters such as “X-X” on line 6 should be enclosed by parentheses to avoid confusion.
Claim 2 is objected to because “the opening direction of the leaf” on lines 7-8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is objected to because “as a deflection element” on line 9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant setting forth that the starting wedge is a deflection element?
Claim 2 is objected to because “the opening direction of the leaf” on line 10 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is objected to because “the rear side” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Pronouns such as “it” on line 14 bring the clarity of claim 2 into question because it is not entirely clear what element of the invention the pronoun is referring to. It is, therefore, suggested the applicant replace pronouns such as “it” on line 14 of claim 2 with the name of the element of the invention to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion.
Claim 3 is objected to because “the starting wedge” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because “a deflection element” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the deflection element set forth above or is attempting to set forth another deflection element in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 4 is objected to because “the first position of the swivel arm the two rollers” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they are grammatically incorrect and confusing.
Claim 4 is objected to because “in respect of longitudinal direction” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they are grammatically incorrect and confusing.
Claim 4 is objected to because reference characters such as “X-X” on line 3 should be enclosed by parentheses to avoid confusion.
Claim 4 is objected to because “obliquely to transverse direction” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what elements of the invention define the angle to which the applicant is referring and if the applicant is referring to the transverse direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another transverse direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 4 is objected to because reference characters such as “Y-Y” on line 5 should be enclosed by parentheses to avoid confusion.
Claim 5 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 4 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the inner side” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is objected to because “the outer contour” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is objected to because pronouns such as “it” on line 3 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 6 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 3 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 6 is objected to because “swivel arm” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the swivel arm set forth above or is attempting to set forth another swivel arm in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 7 is objected to because “designed as an angled element” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the swivel arm is an angled element or merely designed as an angled element.
Claim 7 is objected to because “the first position” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the first position to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 7 is objected to because “longitudinal direction” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the longitudinal direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another longitudinal direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 7 is objected to because reference characters such as “X-X” on line 4 should be enclosed by parentheses to avoid confusion.
Claim 7 is objected to because “transforms into” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How does an arm transform?
Claim 7 is objected to because “transverse direction” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the transverse direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another transverse direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 7 is objected to because reference characters such as “Y-Y” on line 5 should be enclosed by parentheses to avoid confusion.
Claim 7 is objected to because “angled off” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they are grammatically awkward and confusing.
Claim 7 is objected to because “section” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to one of the sections set forth above or is attempting to set forth another section in addition to the ones set forth above.
Claim 8 is objected to because “the opening by a door opening” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the opening comprises a door opening of the vehicle?
Claim 9 is objected to because “the direction” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is objected to because “an open position” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the open position to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a longitudinal direction” on lines 5-6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the longitudinal direction to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 9 is objected to because “extending along the longitudinal direction into an opening direction” on lines 6-7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because how one direction can extend into another direction. Are the longitudinal direction and the opening direction the same direction?
Claim 9 is objected to because “with a deflection element” on lines 7-8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element as the deflection element to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the front end” on line 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is objected to because “arranged fixed on the frame” on line 10 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the swivel arm is fixed on the frame or if the swivel arm is arranged on the frame.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the latter” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the applicant is referring to.
Claim 9 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 12 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the transverse direction” on line 13 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 16 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 9 is objected to because “open position” on line 16 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the open position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another open position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “brings about swivelling” on line 21 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear as to what element of the invention brings about the swiveling.
Claim 9 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 22 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the direction of the opening” on lines 23-24 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 25 should be replaced with the name of the element of the invention to which the applicant is referring to avoid confusion.
Claim 9 is objected to because “closed position” on line 25 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the closed position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another closed position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 10 is objected to because “the opening by a door opening” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the opening comprises a door opening of the vehicle?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarolim (US 2009/0007491).
With respect to claim 1, Jarolim discloses a system with a leaf 3 for closing an opening (labeled below), which is arranged in a frame (labeled below), the system comprising:
a swivel arm 1, 5 arranged fixed on the frame and swivellable about a vertical
axis M2, the free end of which is guided on the leaf 3 in a guide rail 4
extending along a longitudinal direction into an opening direction and
which is aligned in a closed position of the leaf, as shown in figure 4, in a
first position roughly in longitudinal direction and in an open position of the
leaf, as shown in figure 1, in a second position roughly in a transverse
direction;
a deflection element (labeled below) on the guide rail 4, which is designed and
arranged such that it brings about a swivelling of the swivel arm 1, 5 from
its first position into its second position and a movement of the leaf 3 in
transverse direction, when the leaf 3 is moved out of the closed position
into an open position and the free end of the swivel arm 1, 5 contacts the
deflection element; and
a stop face (labeled below) in the guide rail 4, which is designed and arranged such that the free end of the swivel arm 1, 5 comes to bear on the stop face when the leaf 3 moves out of the open position in the closing direction (see figure 2) and brings about swivelling of the swivel arm 1, 5 from its second position into its first position and a movement of the leaf 3 in transverse direction.
With respect to claim 2, Jarolim discloses that the swivel arm 1, 5 comprises a first roller 8 and a second roller 2, which also each rotate about vertical axis (labeled below),
the guide rail comprises a roll-off wall (labeled below) extending parallel to the main extension of the leaf 3 along longitudinal direction and a stop face (labeled below) arranged at a front end of the guide rail 4 in the opening direction of the leaf 3,
a starting wedge (labeled below) pointing in the opening direction as a deflection element is arranged in the opening direction of the leaf at the front end of the guide rail 4 and at the rear side of the stop face (labeled below), wherein
the first roller 8 is arranged outside the guide rail 4, such that in the closed position of the leaf 3 it is arranged in front of the starting wedge in the opening direction as shown in figure 4,
the second roller 2 is arranged inside the guide rail 4 behind the roll off wall and rolls off on the roll-off wall,
the components of the system are arranged and aligned with one another such that, when there is a movement of the leaf
a. out of the closed position in the opening direction, the first roller 8 rolls off onto the starting wedge and brings about swivelling of the swivel arm 1, 5 from the first position into the second position,
b. out of the open position in the closing direction, the second roller 2 comes to bear on the stop face, as shown in figure 2, and brings about swivelling of the swivel arm 1, 5 from the second position into the first position.
With respect to claim 3, Jarolim discloses that the starting wedge is formed by a deflection element (labeled below) with a convex outer contour (labeled below).
With respect to claim 4, Jarolim discloses that in the first position of the swivel arm 1, 5, as shown in figure 4, the two rollers 8, 2 are arranged beside one another in respect of longitudinal direction and in the second position, as shown in figure 1, are arranged beside one another obliquely to transverse direction.
With respect to claim 5, Jarolim discloses that the guide rail 4 forms a guide track (labeled below), in which the second roller 2 is guided, wherein the guide track comprises a groove, which is limited on its side facing the opening by the roll-off wall (labeled below) and wherein the second roller 2 is guided in the groove and rolls off on the inner side of the roll-off wall.
With respect to claim 6, Jarolim discloses that the deflection element (labeled below) forms the outer contour on it outer side and the stop face (labeled below) on its inner side, wherein in the first position of swivel arm, as shown in figure 1, the deflection element is arranged between the two rollers 2, 8.
With respect to claim 7, Jarolim discloses that the swivel arm 1, 5 is designed as an angled element with a first section 5, which in the first position runs roughly parallel to longitudinal direction, as shown in figure 4, and transforms into a second section 1, which runs roughly in transverse direction angled off roughly 45 degrees to section as shown in figure 4.
With respect to claim 8, Jarolim discloses that the leaf 3 is formed by a door leaf of a vehicle as set forth in paragraph 2 and the opening by a door opening of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 9, Jarolim discloses a method for opening and closing an opening (labeled below) which is arranged in a frame (labeled below), the method including the following steps:
a) opening procedure
moving a leaf 3, which closes the opening, out of a closed position, as shown in figure 4, in the direction of an open position, as shown in figure 1, along a longitudinal direction, so that a guide rail 4 extending along the longitudinal direction into an opening direction with a deflection element (labeled below) arranged at the front end of the guide rail 4 in the opening direction comes to bear on a free end of a swivel arm 1, 5 arranged fixed on the frame and swivellable about a vertical access M2 and thus, with further movement of the latter from its first position into its second position, brings about a movement of the leaf in the transverse direction out of the opening as shown in figure 3, and
further movement of the leaf in the longitudinal direction until in its final open position as shown in figure 1,
b) closing procedure
moving the leaf out of the open position in the direction of the closed position along the longitudinal axis until a stop face (labeled below) in the guide rail 4 comes to bear on the free end of the swivel arm 1, 5 and brings about swivelling of the swivel arm from its second position, as shown in figure 1, into its first position, as shown in figure 4, and a movement of the leaf 3 in the transverse direction in the direction of the opening as shown in figures 2 and 3, and
further movement of the leaf until in its final closed position as shown in figure 4.
With respect to claim 10, Jarolim discloses that the leaf 3 is formed by a door leaf of a vehicle (see paragraph 2) and the opening by a door opening of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image2.png
1642
1110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634