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 .
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.
Claim 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 depends from claim 8, which has been canceled. This renders the claim indefinite, Additionally, claim 11 recites “wherein the gear mechanism is a reduction gear mechanism”. This further renders the claim indefinite, since the term “the gear mechanism” lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear what exactly is being referred to by the term “the gear mechanism” (i.e. a singular “gear wheel” is previously recited in the claims, but it is unclear how a “gear wheel” would be “a reduction gear mechanism”, so the claim is unclear). 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 1-5, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE102020122254 (See US 2023/0272659 for US equivalent and translation) (hereinafter Reddmann).
Regarding claim 1, Reddmann discloses a setting-open device for a motor vehicle door including a door leaf (element 6), the setting-open device comprising: an electric-motor drive (considered combination of at least elements 7, 8, 9, and 12), a lever mechanism (element 9) including a short lever (considered portion of element 9 indicated with R1, See Figure 1) and a long lever (considered portion of element 9 indicated with R2, See Figure 2), and an actuating element (considered combination of elements 4 and 10), [wherein the actuating element is configured to act on the door leaf, wherein the actuating element acts on the door leaf with a travel-dependent force along an actuation travel of the actuating element (See at least paragraphs [0016-0018] and [0033-0034]]*, wherein the electric-motor drive acts on the actuating element by interposition of the lever mechanism (See Figures 1-3), and wherein the lever mechanism acts on the actuating element by way of at least the short lever and the long lever (See Figures 1-3, Examiner notes that portions R1 and R2 of element 9 are both considered to “act” on elements 4 and 10), wherein the electric-motor drive includes an electric motor (element 7, See paragraph [0012], “The electric drive unit comprises an electric motor, preferably a DC motor, which acts on the actuating means with at least one gear stage”) and a gear wheel (considered circular portion of element 9 fixed to element 12) rotated by the electric motor, wherein the gear wheel includes an axle (element 12), and wherein the short lever and the long lever are mounted on the axle of the gear wheel of the electric-motor drive (See Figures 1-3, Examiner notes that both of the first and second levers are part of element 9, which is “mounted on the axle of the gear wheel” (i.e. element 19 is mounted on element 12), and therefore both of the first and second levers are also considered to be “mounted on the axle of the gear wheel”).
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a setting-open device for a motor vehicle door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the setting-open device disclosed by Reddmann is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Reddmann discloses wherein the actuating element includes an end pin (See Figures 1-3, considered element 11), and wherein the short lever acts on the end pin of the actuating element (Examiner notes that the short lever of Reddmann indirectly “acts on” element 11).
Regarding claim 3, Reddmann discloses wherein the actuating element includes a cantilever (element 4 is considered to be a “cantilever”, See Figure 3. Examiner notes that element 9 “interacts” with element 4 via at least element 10), and wherein the long lever interacts with the cantilever of the actuating element.
Regarding claim 4, Reddmann discloses wherein the short lever and the long lever act on the actuating element successively (See Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Reddmann discloses wherein starting from an end position, the actuating element is [configured to be first acted on by the short lever and then by the long lever (See Figures 1-3)]*.
Regarding claim 9, Reddmann discloses wherein the actuating element is designed as a linearly movable actuating slide (See Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Reddmann discloses wherein the short lever includes a first stop edge (area of element 13) and the long lever includes a second edge (area of element 14), and wherein the linearly movable actuating slide is equipped with a first stop contours [configured to interact with the first stop edge and a second stop contour configured to interact with the second stop edge]*.
Regarding claim 12, Reddmann discloses wherein the first and second stop contours are spaced apart such that the first stop edge of the short lever acts on the first stop contour before the second stop edge of the long lever acts on the second stop contour (See Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Reddmann discloses wherein at least one of the actuating element, the short lever, and the long lever is plastic (See paragraphs [0019-0020] and [0037-0038], “the actuating element can have a plastic region 23 that connects and/or stabilizes the metal cores 19, 22”).
Regarding claim 14, Reddmann discloses further comprising a housing (considered structural area surrounding and supporting at least elements 3 and 4) including a linear guide (element 24) configured to support the linearly movable actuating slide.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DE102020122254 (See US 2023/0272659 for US equivalent and translation) (hereinafter Reddmann).
Regarding claim 7, Reddmann discloses wherein the short lever and the long lever form an angular distance. Examiner notes that the end portions of the short lever and long lever that engage with elements 13 and 14, respectively (See Figures 1-3), include angular surfaces that form an angular distance with respect to each other. Although the angular distance between these portions of the levers is not explicitly disclosed, Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular distance between the angular end portions of the long and short levers such that the angular distance is 20⁰ to 40⁰, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular distance between the angular end portions of the long and short levers such that the angular distance is 20⁰ to 40⁰, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DE102020122254 (See US 2023/0272659 for US equivalent and translation) (hereinafter Reddmann) in view of Cumbo (US 2020/0270928).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Reddmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the gear mechanism is a reduction gear mechanism. Reddmann does, however, recite “The electric drive unit comprises an electric motor, preferably a DC motor, which acts on the actuating means with at least one gear stage” (paragraph [0012]), and “The force is transmitted from a gearing via the drive lever to the partially opening region” (paragraph [0017]). Additionally, Cumbo teaches that it is known in the art to configure a setting-open device for a motor vehicle door including a door leaf, the setting-open device comprising: an electric-motor drive (at least element 652), and an actuating element (at least element 623), wherein the actuating element is configured to act on the door leaf, wherein the electric-motor drive acts on the actuating element, wherein the electric-motor drive further includes a gear mechanism having a gearwheel (element 654) and an electric motor (element 652), and wherein the electric motor is configured to act on the gear mechanism, and wherein the gear mechanism is a reduction gear mechanism (See at least paragraph [0086], “the motor 652 may be parallel to the lead screw 628 and two gears may be meshed side by side. In another aspect, additional intermediate gears may be included for gear reduction”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gear mechanism of Reddmann such that it includes reduction gearing, since reduction gearing is well known in the art for providing increased torque output from electric motors, which would be desirable for the vehicle door opener of Reddmann, specifically for applications of vehicles with heavy doors, or environments where higher opening torque could be needed (i.e. ice buildup, etc.). Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. See MPEP 2143
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020122254 (See US 2023/0272659 for US equivalent) (hereinafter Reddmann) in view of WO2022/149673 (See US 12,116,821 for US equivalent and English translation) (hereinafter Yong)
Regarding claim 15, although detail with regard to the housing of Reddmann is not described at length, Yong teaches that it is known in the art to configure a motorized vehicle door opener that includes a housing (element 110) wherein the housing is sealed (See column 4, lines 40-44, “The drive motor 120 and various electronic components are provided in the receiving space of the housing 110, and a seal is provided between the main body 111 and the front cover 112 to prevent water from penetrating from the out”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle door opening device of Reddmann such that it was arranged in a sealed housing, as taught by Yong, as this would help to protect the numerous mechanical and electrical components from water and debris, which would be desirable for the longevity of the assembly, Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Because the asserted short and long levers of Reddmann (portion of element 9 indicated with R1 and portion of element indicated with R2) are integral with the asserted gear wheel (circular portion of element 9 fixed to element 12), Reddmann does not disclose or suggest the amended claim feature of wherein the electric-motor drive includes an electric motor and a gear wheel rotated by the electric motor, wherein the pear wheel includes an axle, and wherein the short lever and the long lever are mounted on the axle of the pear wheel of the electric-motor drive”. Examiner disagrees, and notes that both of the first and second levers are part of element 9, which is “mounted on the axle of the gear wheel” (i.e. element 9 is mounted on element 12), and therefore both of the first and second levers are also considered to be “mounted on the axle of the gear wheel”). See rejection for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634