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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the coupling lever being joined to a base-side end region of the drive lever at a distance to a base-side rotary axis of the drive lever in order to transmit rotary movements of the crank rocker to the drive lever" in the last 5 lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 does not previously mention “a coupling lever” or “a crack rocker” thereby lacking antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winter (US 20240034146 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Winter teaches “A tank flap system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a base fixed to the motor vehicle in a state assembled ready for operation (base component, see paragraph 0069);
a tank flap (flap, see Abstract);
a four-joint mechanism, the tank flap being mounted on the base by the four-joint mechanism-so as to be movable between a closed position closing a tank recess and an open position exposing the tank recess (trapezoidal linkage, see paragraph 0070);
a drive motor coupled to the four-joint mechanism in order to move the tank flap between the closed position and the open position (electric motor is coupled to flap to actuate position, see paragraph 0012), the drive motor having a drive shaft (actuating drive has an output shaft, see paragraph 0070);
a crank rocker (first leg in toggle joint, see paragraph 0070);
and a coupling lever the crank rocker (curved pivot arm, see paragraph 0072), co-rotating with the drive shaft of the drive motor, to the four-joint mechanism in a movement-transmitting manner (first leg in toggle joint, 183, rotatably connects to curved pivot arms, 157, which are rotatably connected to output shaft, 147, via first pivot arm, 145, see paragraph 0071, paragraph 0072 and Winter, Figure 5), in order to move the four-joint mechanism between the closed position and the open position of the tank flap when the drive motor is activated (electric motor is coupled to flap to actuate position, see paragraph 0012), the crank rocker and the coupling lever being, in the closed position of the four-joint mechanism, movable into an over-dead center position which blocks an opening movement of the four-joint mechanism (toggle joint exerts force returning flap to closed position, see paragraph 0074, first and second legs of toggle joint pass through dead-center position (depicted in Figure 9c) during locking process, see Winter, Figures 9a-9e).”
PNG
media_image1.png
409
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Winter, Figure 5
PNG
media_image2.png
793
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Winter, Figures 9a-9e
Regarding claim 2, Winter teaches “The tank flap system according to claim 1, further including an emergency unlocking lever co-rotatingly arranged on the drive shaft or on the crank rocker and being manually operable, directly or indirectly, to move the crank rocker and the coupling lever out of the over-dead center position in the direction of the open position (flap may be actuated manually by user, thus curved pivot arms, 157, act as unlocking levers, forcing toggle joint back out of its locked configuration, see paragraph 0022).”
Regarding claim 3, Winter teaches “The tank flap system according to claim 1, further including a drive lever rotatably joined to the base on a base side and to the tank flap on a flap side (first pivot arm, 145, is coupled to base at output shaft, 147, and flap at bearings, 143, see paragraph 0070), and the coupling lever is joined to a base-side end region of the drive lever at a distance to a base-side rotary axis of the drive lever in order to transmit rotary movements of the crank rocker to the drive lever (first toggle joint leg, 183, is coupled to base, but offset from drive lever axis/output shaft, 147, see Winter, Figure 5).”
Regarding claim 4, Winter teaches “The tank flap system according to claim 3, further including a braking member acting on the base-side end region of the drive lever and stabilizing at least one position of the drive lever against relative movements caused by outside influences (motor itself may act as braking member against externa forces, when unpowered due to transmission friction and irreversibility of a transmission, see paragraph 0022).”
Regarding claim 7, Winter teaches “The tank flap system according to claim 3, further including a spring arrangement, the drive lever being is associated with the spring arrangement and the spring arrangement exerting on. the drive lever a permanent torque countering a gravitational torque exerted by gravity of the tank flap (toggle joint provides retaining force against motion of flap from external influences, it is appreciated that the effects of gravity on the flap comprises a type of external influence, see paragraph 0018), wherein the torque is lower than a torque of the drive motor for moving the drive lever (retaining force is less than driving force of the motor, see paragraph 0013).”
Regarding claim 8, Winter teaches “The tank flap system according to claim 7, wherein in that the spring arrangement is configured as a torsion spring (see Winter, paragraph 0097) acting coaxially to the rotary axis of the base-side end region of the drive lever and transmitting torque to the drive lever (torsion spring acts on flap and linkage mechanism, thus also acts on axis of drive lever through connected first pivot arm, see Winter paragraph 0074).”
Regarding claim 9, Winter teaches “A tank flap system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a base fixed to the motor vehicle in a state assembled ready for operation (base component, see paragraph 0069);
a tank flap (flap, see Abstract);
a four-joint mechanism, the tank flap being mounted on the base by the four-joint mechanism so as to be movable between a closed position closing a tank recess and an open position exposing the tank recess (trapezoidal linkage, see paragraph 0070);
a drive motor coupled to the four-joint mechanism to move the tank flap between the closed position and the open position (electric motor is coupled to flap to actuate position, see paragraph 0012);
and a drive lever rotatably joined to the base on a base side and to the tank flap on a flap side (first pivot arm, 145, is coupled to base at output shaft, 147, and flap at bearings, 143, see paragraph 0070), the coupling lever being joined to a base-side end region of the drive lever at a distance to a base-side rotary axis of the drive lever in order to transmit rotary movements of the crank rocker to the drive lever (first toggle joint leg, 183, is coupled to base, but offset from drive lever axis/output shaft, 147, see Winter, Figure 5).”
Regarding claim 10, Winter teaches “The tank flap system according to claim 3, further including a spring arrangement, the drive lever being associated with the spring arrangement and the spring arrangement exerting on the drive lever a permanent torque countering a gravitational torque exerted by gravity of the tank flap in a direction of the closed position of the tank flap (toggle joint provides retaining force against the opening of the of flap from external influences, it is appreciated that the effects of gravity on the flap comprises a type of external influence, see paragraph 0018), and the torque is lower than a torque of the drive motor for moving the drive lever into the open position of the tank flap (retaining force is less than driving force of the motor, see paragraph 0013).”
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 20240034146 A1), in view of Leitner (US 20050146157 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Winter teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 4. Winter does not teach “the base-side end region of the drive lever and the braking member have contact contours matching one another and effecting a force-limited braking or attenuating effect for the at least one position of the drive lever.”
However, Leitner teaches “the base-side end region of the drive lever and the braking member have contact contours matching one another and effecting a force-limited braking or attenuating effect for the at least one position of the drive lever (see Leitner, Abstract).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the braking cam feature taught by Leitner into the drive lever of the fuel flap assembly as taught by Winter to provide an additional braking force in addition to the constant resistance of the motor or actuator that is variable depending on the angle of the cam, thereby increasing or decreasing the urging or braking force in response to the angular displacement of the drive lever, making it easier for the flap to settle at a preset open or closed state and harder for it to be perturbed out of that state, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Winter, in view of Leitner, teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 5 above. Further, Leitner teaches “a leaf spring arranged on the base as a braking member and interacting with the contact contour of the base-side end region of the drive lever (cam biasing spring may be a leaf spring, see Leitner, paragraph 0026).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose fuel flap actuation assemblies:
Ilardo et al. (US 20220213728 A1)
Bange et al. (EP 3911825 B1)
Schweigert et al. (DE 102017223396 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JRC/
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
