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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate both inventive drive assembly with movable motor assembly and prior art drive assembly. While the inventive drive assembly is mounted in a similar manner to the prior art the drive itself is different and thus the drive should have a different number, for example 100’ for the prior art drive.
The drawings are objected to because:
The lead lines in figure 3 cause confusion as to the structure indicated. While lead lines may be either straight or curved per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q), the curve of lines for reference numerals 162 and 164 in figure 3 overlaps heavily lined areas and thus the curve is not visible making it appear that there are two separate lead lines.
The lead line for reference numeral 220 for the gearbox in figure 3 appears to point to a plate.
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.
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 8-11 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.
Regarding claims 8-11, the phrases "more preferably" and “most preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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(s) 1-5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2014101169 to Burke (hereinafter Burke) in view of US patent 11548566 to Sagarsee (hereinafter Sagarsee).
Regarding claim 1, the drive assembly is shown in Burke in figures 1-9 with
a drive rack (13);
an idle gear (25) that is engaged with the drive rack (13);
a motor assembly including:
a drive gear (gear of 24, driving 25) that is engageable with the idle gear (25); and
a drive (24) for driving the drive gear, and
an actuator (22) for moving the motor assembly between a first position, wherein the idle gear (25) is not engaged with the rack (13), and a drive position, wherein the idle gear (25) is engaged with the rack (13),
wherein, when the motor assembly is in the drive position, the idle gear (25) is drivable by the drive (24) to move the idle gear (25) along the drive rack (13), and wherein the idle gear (25) is mountable on the curtain (3) so as to move the curtain between the first and the second position.
However, Burke moves the idle gear with the drive (i.e. the idle gear disengages from the rack rather than the motor assembly from the idle gear), is silent as to whether the drive is a motor, and does not teach a gear box.
A disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox is shown in Sagarsee in figures 14-24C with a motor assembly (222) including a drive gear (in 230) that is engageable with the idle gear (232); a gearbox (230) that is connected to the drive gear (drive gear is a gear in gearbox); and a motor (228) connected to the gearbox (230) for driving the drive gear, and an actuator (226) for moving the motor assembly (222) between an idle position, wherein the idle gear (232) is idle (i.e. motor assembly is disengaged from idle gear, further taught column 14 line 52-column 15 line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke with the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee because motors with gearboxes were known drives in the art and provided the benefit of being readily available, easy to use, and reduction of the motor by the gearbox and the disengagable motor assembly provides the benefit of being able to disengage the motor from the idle gear in case of issues with the motor while still allowing the gear drive (rack and gear in Burke) to remain engaged to facilitate curtain movement.
Regarding claim 2, the drive rack (13) is mounted to a body (with 1) of the vehicle in Burke.
Regarding claim 3, the drive assembly includes a base plate (21) and the idle gear (25) and actuator (2) are mounted to the base plate and the base plate (21) is mounted to the curtain (3) in Burke.
Regarding claim 4, when provided with the disengagable motor of Sagarsee, the assembly would include a motor plate (23, similar to 276 in Sagarsee) mounted on the base plate (21, similar to 220 in Sagarsee) so as to be movable on a motor axis (i.e. axis of movement of motor, axis of movement of 23), and wherein the motor assembly (as with 222 in Sagarsee) is mounted on the motor plate such that movement of the motor plate along the motor axis allows movement of the motor assembly between the idle position and the drive position in Burke. Examiner notes that the movement in Burke by actuator (2) is along the motor axis (i.e. engagement/disengagement axis) and such a linear configuration would remain when combined with Sagarsee.
Regarding claim 5, when provided with the disengagable motor of Sagarsee, the drive assembly would include an actuator link (similar to 274 in Sagarsee) that is pivotally connected at a first end to the actuator (2), and pivotally connected at a second end to the motor plate (23) in Burke.
Regarding claim 12, Burke does not teach a bias member biasing the idle gear into engagement.
A bias member biasing gear engagement is shown in Sagarsee in figures 14-24C where plate (276) is biased such that drive gear is biased into engagement with the idle gear (232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with the biased gear arrangement of Sagarsee because biasing provided the known benefit of a force urging engagement of gear and thus limiting unwanted disengagement.
Regarding claim 13, Burke does not teach a bias member biasing the actuator into a first/idle position.
A bias member is shown in Sagarsee in figures 14-24C where plate (276) is biased to a first position. Examiner notes Sagarsee is being used to teach the general concept of biasing. The selection of bias to an engaged or disengaged (drive vs idle) position would be a design choice based on which position is desired to be the default, i.e. biased, position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with the biasing of Sagarsee because biasing provided the known benefit of a force urging a member to a predetermined position and biasing to the first/idle position provides the benefit only allowing motor driving when wanted and limiting back-driving of the motor.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke and Sagarsee as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2-5, 12, and 13) above, and further in view of EP 0303163 to Koch (hereinafter Koch).
Regarding claim 6, Burke does not teach an adjustment plate for the idler gear.
An adjustment plate is shown in Koch in figures 1-4 where adjustment plate (18) adjusts the position of gear (7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with the adjustment plate of Koch because the adjustment plate provided the known benefit of adjustable mounting of the gear and thereby facilitating better engagement between gear and rack.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke and Sagarsee as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2-5, 12, and 13) above, and further in view of DE 102020003981 to Keim (hereinafter Keim).
Regarding claim 7, the motor is an electric motor in Sagarsee, however, it is unclear whether actuator (22) is powered and what the source of power is in Burke.
Examiner takes Official Notice that powered actuators (or linear actuators, were old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with the known powered actuator because powered actuators provided the benefit of reducing the force required by the user to move something ,e.g. the mounting plate in Burke moved by the actuator (see also MPEP 2144.04 III automating manual activity obvious).
A battery power supply is shown in Keim in figures 1 and 2 where curtain (1) includes motor (5) powered by battery (61, inside space 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with the battery power source of Keim because batteries were well-known, readily available, and easy to use power sources and provided the benefit of a separate power source from that of the vehicle itself.
Regarding claim 8, although Sagarsee does not disclose specific torque range of the motor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the motor to be useful- i.e. too low a torque would be insufficient to move heavier curtains and too high a torque would be unnecessarily overly powerful. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the torque range claimed as there are a finite number of ranges such a motor torque can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 9, although Keim does not disclose specific capacity range of the battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the battery to be useful- i.e. too low a capacity would require more frequent charging and too high a capacity would be unnecessarily expensive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the torque range claimed as there are a finite number of ranges such a battery capacity can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 10, although Burke, as modified by known powered actuator, does not disclose specific force range of the actuator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the actuator to be useful- i.e. too low a force would be insufficient to move the motor plate and too high a force would be unnecessarily overly powerful. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the force range claimed as there are a finite number of ranges such an actuator force can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 11, although Burke, as modified by known powered actuator, does not disclose specific speed range of the actuator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the actuator to be useful- i.e. too low a speed would cause unwanted delay in moving the motor plate and too high a speed would be unnecessarily abrupt movement with potential for damage due to excess speed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the speed range claimed as there are a finite number of ranges such an actuator speed can usefully be made in.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke and Sagarsee as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2-5, 12, and 13) above, and further in view of US patent 5594316 to Hayashida (hereinafter Hayashida).
Regarding claim 14, Burke is silent as to the power supply for the drive.
A charging assembly is shown in Hayashida in the embodiment of figure 4 (with generic details from figures 2-3) with a charging assembly (19,20) for charging a battery (18) for a sliding member (4, similar to curtain in Burke) from a main power source (further taught in column 3 lines 8-18, when provided to vehicle of Burke main power source would be vehicle power source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with charging assembly of Hayashida because charging assemblies provided the benefit of allowing direct battery power for members on sliding wings (such as drive on curtain in Burke) while allowing for easy charging of the battery from a main power source.
Regarding claim 15, the charging assembly (19,20) includes a pin 20) biased toward a charging plate (plate with 19) in Hayashida.
Regarding claim 14, Burke is silent as to the power supply for the drive.
A charging assembly is shown in Hayashida in the embodiment of figures 5A-B with a charging assembly (21,22) for charging a battery (18) for a sliding member (4, similar to curtain in Burke) from a main power source (23, main AC power, when provided to vehicle of Burke main power source would be vehicle power source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive assembly of Burke, having the disengagable motor assembly with motor and gearbox of Sagarsee, with charging assembly of Hayashida because charging assemblies provided the benefit of allowing direct battery power for members on sliding wings (such as drive on curtain in Burke) while allowing for easy charging of the battery from a main power source.
Regarding claim 16, the charging assembly (19,20) includes a wireless power receiver coil (22) adapted to engage a wireless power transmission coil (21) (when provided to Burke transmission coil would be on vehicle) in Hayashida.
Conclusion
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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights