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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, 박경순 teaches the running board according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection below.
However, 박경순 does not teach wherein the board is pretensioned. Upon additional searching, no running board was found that was taught as pretensioned. The closest identified prior art was Ford (DE 202015100022 U1), whose specification says “The footboard arrangement 105 may also have a triggering mechanism 160 having, which is designed, the second footboard 115 in the use position relative to the first footboard 110 pretension.” No other prior art was found using the word pretension near the word footboard. That being said, this sentence of Ford is unintelligible. It is particularly unclear whether one of the two footboards are pretensioned, or if the triggering mechanism is pretensioned. Thus, the examiner is not convinced that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Ford as teaching a pretensioned running board. With no superior reference being found, claim 2 is novel and nonobvious in view of all relevant prior art.
Regarding claim 7, 박경순 teaches the running board according to claim 6, as set forth in the anticipation rejection below.
However, 박경순 does not teach wherein the flap is driven via an additional drive as a function of the tilting. Many references were found that included a door being driven by a motor, and even a motor connected to a tilting running board (see for examples Okuyama US 10077002 B2, and Davis US 20260200405 A1). However, these references have the tilting driven as a function of the flap being driven, not the other way around.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8 is 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is a structure that can issue a warning, like the lamp described in paragraph 64 of the specification, “Warning 54 is issued visually, for which a lamp of flap system 11 is activated. The lamp has a signal color, such as red, so that the user becomes aware of the potential danger of pinching.” With the structural limitations currently in claim 8, it is not clear how a warning is being issued by the flap system.
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over 박경순 (KR 102597741 B1).
Regarding claim 1, 박경순 teaches a running board for a motor vehicle, the running board comprising:
a board arranged in a longitudinal direction (taught by figure 1);
a holder on which the board is mounted (taught by figure 1) so as to be tiltable about a pivot axis running substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction (taught by figure 1 and the specification “at least one DC motor 100 may be a motor for driving a side step”); and
a sensor for detecting the tilting (110 “encoder” taught by figure 2 and the specification “The encoder 110, which may also be called an encoder, is a type of sensor and can detect the rotation speed and speed of the DC motor 100, and detects the rotation direction of the DC motor 100, that is, forward or reverse direction. It is possible to check how many degrees the DC motor 100 has rotated”).
Regarding claim 5, 박경순 teaches the running board according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
박경순 also teaches wherein the holder is adjustably mounted and driven via a drive (taught by figure 1 and the specification “at least one DC motor 100 may be a motor for driving a side step”).
Regarding claim 6, 박경순 teaches the running board according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
박경순 also teaches a flap system for a motor vehicle, the flap system comprising a flap to which the running board is assigned (taught by figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 박경순 (KR 102597741 B1) in view of Lee (KR 101744279 B1).
Regarding claim 3 박경순 teaches the running board according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
박경순 does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a microswitch that is assigned to the board and the holder.
Lee teaches wherein the sensor comprises a microswitch (taught by the specification “When the sensor module 120 is a microswitch”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensor detecting the tilting of the running board relative to the holder of 박경순 to be a microswitch as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a microswitch has a high level of sensitivity allowing it to detect contact between the holder and running board quickly.
Regarding claim 4, 박경순 in view of Lee teaches the running board according to claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
박경순 does not teach two microswitches that are assigned to different ends of the board in the longitudinal direction.
Lee teaches wherein the sensor comprises a microswitch (taught by the specification “When the sensor module 120 is a microswitch”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated two microswitches as taught by Lee at different ends of the board in the longitudinal direction, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because microswitches at different longitudinal ends ensure that the board does not continue to tilt towards the holder after contact is made, even if the ends of the board are level with one another in reference to the holder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
