DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 25 April 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-20, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Johann (US 2020/0318400 A1), Johann is not relied upon to teach a presenter mechanism or extensible member.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 5-6 of claim 1, “abut the first door” should be --abut a vehicle body-- and in line 32 of claim 1, “with the door” should be --with the vehicle body-- as disclosed, and will be examined as such
Paragraphs 0086-87 of the specification describe the extensible member on the vehicle door is configured to abut the vehicle body
Figures 8a-8b illustrate the presenter mechanism 602 mounted on the vehicle door 22 and the extensible member abutting the vehicle body 11 with bumper 622
In lines 30-34 of claim 1, it is suggested that “wherein, with the extensible member of the presenter mechanism in an extended position the door is prevented from moving towards the closed position by the abutting contact of the extensible member with the door and with the safety catch engaging and retaining the striker in the blocked position when the first door is in the presented position the door is prevented from moving towards the open position” would be clearer as --wherein, when the extensible member is in an extended position, the first door is prevented from moving towards the closed position by the abutting contact of the extensible member with the door and, when the first door is in the presented position with the safety catch engaging and retaining the striker in the blocked position, the first door is prevented from moving towards the open position--
In line 35 of claim 1, “wherein in response to receiving a second signal the system” should likely be --wherein, in response to receiving a second signal, the system--
In lines 38-39 of claim 1, “wherein in response to not receiving the second signal the system controls” should likely be --and wherein, in response to not receiving the second signal, the system--
In line 40 of claim 1, “the door” should be --the first door--
In line 5 of claim 8, “abut the first door” should be --abut a vehicle body-- as disclosed, and will be examined as such
Paragraphs 0086-87 of the specification describe the extensible member on the vehicle door is configured to abut the vehicle body
Figures 8a-8b illustrate the presenter mechanism 602 mounted on the vehicle door 22 and the extensible member abutting the vehicle body 11 with bumper 622
In line 7 of claim 14, “abut the first door” should be --abut a vehicle body-- as disclosed, and will be examined as such
Paragraphs 0086-87 of the specification describe the extensible member on the vehicle door is configured to abut the vehicle body
Figures 8a-8b illustrate the presenter mechanism 602 mounted on the vehicle door 22 and the extensible member abutting the vehicle body 11 with bumper 622
in lines 32-34 of claim 14, it is suggested that “with the safety catch blocking movement of the first door toward the open position when in the blocking position the first door is prevented from moving toward the open position” should likely be --and, with the safety catch in the blocking position and blocking movement of the first door toward the open position, the first door is prevented from moving toward the open position-- for clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the extensible member configured to abut the first door must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al., US 4,848,031 A, in view of Johann et al., US 2019/0226247 A1, and Roos et al., US 2018/0051502 A1.
Claim 1: Yamagishi discloses a door system for a first door of a motor vehicle (Fig. 1) configured for movement between a closed position (col. 2 ln. 61-66), a presented position (col. 3 ln. 21-26), and an open position (col. 9 ln. 9-10), comprising:
a presenter mechanism (door driving device “C”) that moves the first door from the closed position to the presented position (col. 7 ln. 54-59), the presenter mechanism having an extensible member (69) to abut the first door (Fig. 1) (the limitation “abut the first door” is being interpreted in light of the disclosure as referring to an extensible member on the first door to abut a vehicle body (see claim objection above)), wherein the presenter mechanism engages the first door during movement of the door to the presented position (col. 3 ln. 21-26; col. 7 ln. 49-59); and
a latch assembly (full closing lock device “A”) configured for movement between a striker safety capture position (Fig. 6), where a striker associated with the first door (13) is engaged and retained in a blocked position (col. 4 ln. 28-31, 37-41) when the first door is in the presented position as moved by the engagement of the presenter mechanism with the first door (col. 7 ln. 56-59), and prevents the first door from moving to the open position from the presented position (col. 4 ln. 37-41), and a striker safety release position (Fig. 7), where the striker is released from the blocked position such that the first door is moveable from the presented position to the open position (col. 4 ln. 48-50);
wherein the latch assembly engages the first door and comprises a ratchet and pawl assembly (14, 16; Fig. 4) configured to maintain the striker in a striker capture position (Fig. 5) to prevent the first door from moving from the closed position to the presented position (col. 4 ln. 17-22, 37-41),
wherein a first actuation of the latch assembly in response to receiving a first signal (col. 11 ln. 32-33 (“switch ‘SW1’ is pushed to turn ‘on’”) causes the ratchet and pawl assembly to release the striker (movement from Fig. 5 to Fig. 6; col. 11 ln. 32-39) and thereafter causes the presenter mechanism to engage and move the first door from the closed position to the presented position (col. 11 ln. 52-58), and
a second actuation of the latch assembly moves from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position to release the striker such that thereafter the first door is moveable from the presented position to the open position (col. 4 ln. 45-50; col. 9 ln. 4-10);
wherein the latch assembly includes a cinch mechanism (B-2) that moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position (col. 12 ln. 28-40);
wherein, with the extensible member of the presenter mechanism in an extended position the door is prevented from moving towards the first closed position by the abutting contact of the extensible member with the first door (col. 8 ln. 1-11) (note the limitation is being interpreted consistent with the comment above to be referring to abutting contact of the extensible member with the vehicle body; see claim objection) and with the striker in the blocked position (Fig. 6) when the first door is in the presented position the door is prevented from moving towards the open position (col. 4 ln. 37-41).
Yamagishi further teaches the latch assembly comprising a ratchet and pawl assembly has a striker capture position (Fig. 5), a striker safety capture position (Fig. 6), and a striker safety release position (Fig. 7). However, Yamagishi is silent to the latch assembly having a safety catch and a ratchet and pawl assembly.
Johann teaches a latch assembly (30) having a safety catch (132) configured for movement between a striker safety capture position (position in Fig. 7A),
whereat the safety catch engages and retains a striker (22) associated with a door in a blocked position when the door is in a presented position ([0078]),
wherein the safety catch prevents the door from moving to an open position from the presented position ([0078]), and a striker safety release position, whereat the safety catch releases the striker from the blocked position such that the door is moveable from a presented position to an open position ([0066], [0080]),
wherein the latch assembly engages the door and comprises a ratchet and pawl assembly (40, 42) configured to maintain the striker in a striker capture position (Fig. 2A) to prevent the door from moving from the closed position to the presented position ([0069], [0074]).
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 latch assembly disclosed by Yamagishi to include a safety catch, as taught by Johann, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably retain the striker and prevent the first door from unintentionally moving to the open position (Johann [0078]).
Yamagishi, as modified by Johann, teaches a manual lever for fully opening the door and a second actuation of the latch assembly moves from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position to release the striker such that thereafter the first door is moveable from the presented position to the open position. However, Yamagishi and is silent to, in response to a second signal, the system controlling the second actuation of the latch assembly and, in response to not receiving the second signal, the system controls the extensible member to first move towards a retracted position prior to the cinch mechanism moving the door from the presented position to the closed position.
Roos further teaches a system for controlling a latch:
wherein in response to receiving a second signal, the system controls a second actuation of a latch assembly to release the striker ([0063]; Fig. 11 steps 464 and 470), and
wherein in response to not receiving the second signal, the system controls an extensible member to first move towards a retracted position prior to a cinch mechanism moving the door from the presented position to the closed position ([0062]; Fig. 11 steps 464-468).
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 door system taught by Yamagishi, in view of Johann, to further include receiving a second signal and wherein in response to receiving a second signal, the system controls a second actuation of a latch assembly to release the striker, and wherein in response to not receiving the second signal, the system controls an extensible member to first move towards a retracted position prior to a cinch mechanism moving the door from the presented position to the closed position, as taught by Roos, in order to improve convenience by reducing the manual force applied to open the door and increase security by electronically controlling the latch and automatically closing the door, preventing unauthorized access from the presented position (Roos [0005], [0062]).
Claim 2: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the presenter mechanism comprises the extensible member movable from the retracted position, whereat the first door is moveable to the closed position (the extensible member is structured to prevent closure when extended so it has to be retracted in order to move the door to the closed position (see Yamagishi col. 8 ln. 1-4)), to the extended position, whereat the first door is moved by the extensible member to the presented position (Yamagishi Fig. 1; Yamagishi col. 7 ln. 57-59),
wherein the first door is prevented from moving away from the presented position when the first door is in the presented position, the extensible member is in the extended position (Yamagishi col. 8 ln. 1-4: the extensible member prevents the door from moving to the closed position), and the safety catch is in the striker safety capture position (as modified above, the safety catch in the striker safety capture position prevents the door from moving to the open position);
wherein the extensible member moves to the retracted position from the extended position while the striker remains retained by the safety catch (the safety catch is structured that the striker is not released during retraction) and also prior to the cinch mechanism moving the first door from the presented position to the closed position (the extensible member prevents the door from closing so it has to be retracted before the cinch mechanism moves the door in order to allow the door to fully close from the presented position (see Roos [0062])).
Claim 4: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein movement of the safety catch to the striker safety capture position is coordinated with movement of the presenter mechanism to move the first door to the presented position (Yamagishi col. 7 ln. 49-59, as modified).
Claim 5: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 4. Yamagishi further teaches a control circuit (Fig. 12), but is silent to a controller in particular operable to coordinate the movement of the safety catch with the movement of the extensible member.
Roos further teaches a controller (52) operable to coordinate movement of a latch and movement of an extensible member ([0041], [0057], [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller operable to coordinate the movement of the safety catch with the movement of the extensible member, as taught by Roos, with the door system taught by Yamagishi, as modified by Johann and Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to send and receive sensor signals and to implement stored instructions to operate the door system as intended (Roos [0039-41]).
Claim 6: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 1, further comprising a switch (Roos [0057] (“handle switch 63”); as modified by Roos, the second signal is sent by a switch) configured to signal movement of the safety catch from the striker safety catch position to the striker safety release position (Roos [0063], [0068] (actuation of external handle (handle switch 63) represents the user having manual control of the door via the handle and the system is configured to allow the user to fully open the door upon receiving the second signal)).
Claim 7: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 6, wherein the switch is further configured to signal movement of the presenter mechanism to move the first door from the closed position to the presented position (Roos [0057] (the system moves the door to the presented position upon receiving a signal representing actuation of the external door handle).
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al., US 4,848,031 A, in view of Johann et al., US 2020/0318400 A1.
Claim 8: Yamagishi discloses a method of controlling movement of a door of a motor vehicle from a closed position to a presented position, comprising:
controlling a presenter mechanism (door driving device “C”) to correspondingly move the door from the closed position to the presented position (col. 7 ln. 54-59), the presenter mechanism having an extensible member (69) to abut the first door (Fig. 1); (the limitation “abut the first door” is being interpreted in light of the disclosure as referring to an extensible member on the first door to abut a vehicle body (see claim objection above))
controlling a first actuation of a latch assembly (full closing lock device “A”) to releasably secure the door to a vehicle body (movement between Figs. 5 to 7), wherein the first actuation of the latch assembly occurs in response to receiving a first signal (col. 11 ln. 32-33 (“switch ‘SW1’ is pushed to turn ‘on’”)) and causes a ratchet and pawl assembly of the latch assembly to release a striker (movement from Fig. 5 to Fig. 6; col. 11 ln. 32-39), which is provided on one of the doors and a body of the motor vehicle (Fig. 1; col. 4 ln. 17-22), and thereafter causes the presenter mechanism to engage and move the door from the closed position to the presented position (col. 11 ln. 52-58); and
maintaining the door in the presented position, blocking movement toward the closed position by the extensible member of the presenter mechanism (col. 8 ln. 1-11) and blocking movement toward the open position (col. 4 ln. 37-41);
wherein the latch assembly includes a cinch mechanism (B-2) that moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position (col. 12 ln. 28-40);
wherein, with the extensible member of the presenter mechanism in the extended position, the door is prevented from moving toward the closed position by the abutting contact of the extensible member with the door (col. 8 ln. 1-11) (note the limitation is being interpreted consistent with the comment above to be referring to abutting contact of the extensible member with the vehicle body; see claim objection), and with the latch engaging and retaining the striker in a blocked position when the door is in the presented position the door is prevented from moving toward the open position (col. 4 ln. 28-31, 37-41),
controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly (movement from Fig. 6 to Fig. 7), which causes the latch to move from a striker safety capture position, whereat the latch blocks the striker in the blocked position and prevents the passenger door from moving to the open position from the presented position (col. 4 ln. 28-31, 37-41), to a striker safety release position, which releases and unblocks the striker and allows the passenger door to be moved from the presented position to the open position (col. 4 ln. 23-26, 45-50); and
first controlling the extensible member to move toward the retracted position and thereafter controlling the cinch mechanism of the latch assembly and causing the cinch mechanism to move the door from the presented position to the closed position (col. 8 ln. 1-11 (the extensible member maintains the door in a presented position and has to be retracted in order for the door to close); col. 12 ln. 36-38).
Yamagishi is silent to specifically a safety catch, blocking movement toward the open position by the safety catch, and the safety catch in a safety striker capture position engaging and retaining the striker in a blocked position when a door is in a presented position so the door is prevented from moving toward the open position.
Johann teaches blocking movement toward an open position by a safety catch (80), and the safety catch in a safety striker capture position engaging and retaining the striker in a blocked position when a door is in a presented position (Fig. 4A), so the door is prevented from moving toward the open position ([0078]).
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 method disclosed by Yamagishi to include a blocking movement toward an open position by a safety catch, the safety catch in a striker safety capture position engaging and retaining the striker in a blocked position so the door is prevented from moving from the presented position toward the open position, as taught by Johann, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more reliably retain the striker with latch via the safety catch portion and prevent the first door from unintentionally moving to the open position from the presented position (Johann [0079]).
Yamagishi is silent to the method comprising, in response to detecting a second signal, controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly which causes the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to a striker safety release position.
Johann further teaches a method comprising detecting a second signal ([0076]); and
in response to detecting a second signal, controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly which causes the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to a striker safety release position ([0076]).
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 method disclosed by Yamagishi to include steps of controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly in response to detecting a second signal, which causes the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to a striker safety release position as taught by Johann, with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate a hands-free operation (Johann [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the resulting method taught by Yamagishi, as modified by Johann, would further include controlling the presenter mechanism to move the extensible member from the extended position to the retracted position prior to controlling the latch assembly to move the safety catch from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position, thereby permitting movement of the door from the presented position to the closed position but preventing movement of the door from the presented position to the open position (the extensible member has to be moved from the extended position to the retracted position in order to allow the door to close when the user no longer desires to open the door before the striker is released).
Claim 9: Yamagishi, in view of Johann, teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising controlling the presenter mechanism to maintain the door in the presented position prior to controlling the latch assembly to move the safety catch from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position (Yamagishi col. 8 ln. 1-11), whereby the door is allowed to move from the presented position to the open position but not allowed to move from the presented position to the closed position (Yamagishi col. 8 ln. 1-11, col. 11 ln. 61-68).
Claim 11: Yamagishi, in view of Johann, teaches the door system of claim 8, further comprising coordinating movement of the safety catch to the striker safety capture position from a primary striker capture position (Yamagishi Fig. 5) with movement of the presenter mechanism to move the door from the closed position to the presented position (Yamagishi col. 7 ln. 49-59).
Claim 12: Yamagishi, in view of Johann, teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising maintaining the first door in the presented position and blocking movement toward the closed position by the presenter mechanism (Yamagishi col. 8 ln. 1-11) and blocking movement toward the open position by the safety catch (Yamagishi Fig. 6, as modified by Johann: the safety catch blocks the striker from moving toward the open position).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al., US 4,848,031 A, in view of Johann et al., US 2020/0318400 A1, and Roos et al., US 2018/0051502 A1.
Claim 14: Yamagishi discloses a door system for a first door of a motor vehicle configured for pivotal movement between a closed position (col. 2 ln. 61-66), a presented position (col. 3 ln. 21-26), and an open position (col. 9 ln. 9-10), comprising:
a latch assembly (full closing lock device “A”) that engages the first door for retaining the first door to the motor vehicle (col. 4 ln. 17-22, 37-41) and for releasing the first door to allow the first door to be moved away from the closed position after a first actuation of the latch assembly (col. 4 ln. 48-50; movement from Fig. 5 to Fig. 6 corresponds with a first actuation);
a presenter mechanism (door driving device “C”) having an extensible member (69) to abut the first door (Fig. 1) (the limitation “abut the first door” is being interpreted in light of the disclosure as referring to an extensible member on the first door to abut a vehicle body (see claim objection above)) that contacts and moves the first door from the closed position to the presented position following the first actuation of the latch assembly (col. 3 ln. 21-26; col, 7 ln. 49-59); and
the latch assembly moves between a blocking position, whereat the latch prevents the first door from moving to the open position from the presented position (movement from Fig. 5 to Fig. 6; col. 4 ln. 37-41), and a release position (Fig. 7), whereat the latch permits movement of the first door from the presented position to the open position following a second actuation of the latch assembly (movement from Fig. 6 to Fig. 7; col. 4 ln. 48-50);
wherein the first actuation of the latch assembly is caused in response to receiving a first signal (col. 11 ln. 32-33 (“switch ‘SW1’ is pushed to turn ‘on’”), wherein the first actuation causes the latch assembly to release a striker of the first door and thereafter causes the presenter mechanism to engage and move the first door from the closed position to the presented position (col. 11 ln. 32-39, 52-28);
wherein the second actuation of the latch assembly causes the latch to move from the blocking position to the release position (col. 4 ln. 45-50; col. 9 ln. 4-10),
wherein the latch assembly includes a cinch mechanism (B-2) moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position (col. 12 ln. 28-40),
wherein, with the extensible member of the presenter mechanism in an extended position the door is maintained in the presented position and prevented from moving toward the closed position by the abutting contact of the extensible member (col. 8 ln. 1-11), and with the latch blocking movement of the first door toward the open position when in the blocking position the first door is prevented from moving toward the open position (col. 4 ln. 37-41).
Although Yamagishi teaches controlling the latch assembly to prevent the first door from moving to the open position from the presented position, Yamagishi is silent to specifically a safety catch that moves between a blocking position and a release position.
Johann teaches a latch assembly (15) having a safety catch (80) configured for movement between a blocking position (position in Fig. 4A), whereat the safety catch prevents the first door from moving to the open position from the presented position ([0079]) and a release position (position in Fig. 7A), whereat the safety catch permits movement of the first door from the presented position to the open position following an actuation of the latch assembly ([0076]); and with the safety catch blocking movement of the first door toward the open position when in the blocking position the first door is prevented from moving toward the open position ([0079]).
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 latch assembly disclosed by Yamagishi to include a safety catch, as taught by Johann, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably retain the striker and prevent the first door from unintentionally moving to the open position (Johann [0078]).
Yamagishi, as modified by Johann, teaches a second actuation of the latch assembly moves from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position to release the striker such that thereafter the first door is moveable from the presented position to the open position. However, Yamagishi and Johann is silent to, in response to a second signal, the system causes the second actuation of the latch assembly, which causes the safety catch to move from the blocking position to the release position, wherein in response to not receiving the second signal, the system controls the extensible member to first move towards a retracted position prior to the cinch mechanism moving the door from the presented position to the closed position.
Roos further teaches a system for controlling a latch:
wherein in response to receiving a second signal, the system causes a second actuation of a latch assembly, which releases the striker ([0063]; Fig. 11 steps 464 and 470), and
wherein in response to not receiving the second signal, the system controls an extensible member to first move towards a retracted position prior to a cinch mechanism moving the door from the presented position to the closed position ([0062]; Fig. 11 steps 464-468).
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 door system taught by Yamagishi, in view of Johann, to further include receiving a second signal and wherein in response to receiving a second signal, the system controls a second actuation of a latch assembly to release the striker by moving the safety catch from the blocking position to the release position, and wherein in response to not receiving the second signal, the system controls an extensible member to first move towards a retracted position prior to a cinch mechanism moving the door from the presented position to the closed position, as taught by Roos, in order to improve convenience by reducing the manual force applied to open the door and increase security by electronically controlling the latch and automatically closing the door, preventing unauthorized access from the presented position (Roos [0005], [0062]).
Claim 15: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 14. Yamagishi further discloses a control circuit (Fig. 12) but does not explicitly disclose a controller in particular. However, 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 control circuit disclosed by Yamagishi to be a controller, to interface with a vehicle body control module and utilize advanced computer programs (see Johann [0072], [0081]; Roos [0061]).
As a result, the controller is configured to:
control the latch assembly to release the striker and control the presenter mechanism to move the first door to the presented position in response to receiving a first signal (Yamagishi col. 11 ln. 52-58 (actuation of a switch causes the latch assembly to release the striker and move to a presented position); Johan [0076]); and
control the safety catch to move to the release position to allow the first door to be moved to an open position in response to receiving a second signal (Roos [0063]).
Claim 16: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 15, wherein the first signal and the second signal are generated by activation of a power release switch (Roos [0057], [0063] (“handle switch 63” corresponds to a power release switch)).
Claim 17: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 15, wherein the cinch mechanism is configured to move the first door from the presented position to the closed position (Yamagishi col. 6 ln. 25-29), wherein the controller is configured to control the cinch mechanism to move the first door from the presented position to the closed position in response to the controller not receiving the second signal (Roos [0062]; Roos Fig. 11 steps 464-468), wherein the second signal corresponds to the user taking manual control of the first door (Roos [0063], [0068] (actuation of external handle (handle switch 63) represents the user having manual control of the door via the handle at step 464)).
Claim 18: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 17, wherein the controller is configured to control the cinch mechanism to move the first door from the presented position to the closed position after an expiry of a predetermined period of time in response to the controller not receiving the second signal prior to the expiry of the predetermined period of time
(Roos [0062] (“ECU 52 waits for a specified period of time to receive a signal”) and [0070] (“after expiration of a pre-set time”)).
Claim 19: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 17, further comprising a frame plate (Yamagishi 24) for mounting to the first door (Yamagishi Fig. 1), wherein the latch assembly and the cinch mechanism are mounted to the frame plate (Yamagishi Fig. 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al., US 4,848,031 A, Johann et al., US 2020/0318400 A1, and Roos et al., US 2018/0051502, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Cappelli et al., US 2020/0080348 A1.
Claim 20: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 14, but do not disclose a B-pillarless closure system.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
A B-pillarless closure system is known in the art, as evidenced by Cappelli. Cappelli teaches a first door (12) being a part of a B-pillarless closure system ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to utilize the door system taught by Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, with a first door that is part of a B-pillarless closure system, as taught by Cappelli, with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a door system for a first door of a motor vehicle that is part of a B-pillarless closure system configured for pivotal movement.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al., US 4,848,031 A, in view of Johann et al., US 2019/0226247 A1, and Roos et al., US 2018/0051502 A1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 22: Yamagishi, in view of Johann and Roos, teaches the door system of claim 1. Yamagishi further discloses a control circuit (Fig. 12) but does not explicitly disclose a controller in particular. However, 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 control circuit disclosed by Yamagishi to be a controller, to interface with a vehicle body control module and utilize advanced computer programs (see Johann [0072], [0081]; Roos [0061]).
The resulting controller is configured to:
control the latch assembly to release the striker and control the presenter mechanism to engage and move the first door to the presented position in response to receiving a first signal (result of modification in claim 1; Yamagishi col. 11 ln. 52-58; Yamagishi col. 11 ln. 32-33 (“switch ‘SW1’ is pushed to turn ‘on’” correlates to a first signal);
control the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to the striker release position to allow the first doo to be moved to the open position in response to receiving a second signal (result of modification in claim 1; Roos [0063]; Roos Fig. 11 steps 464 and 470);
wherein the cinch mechanism is controlled, in response to not detecting a user taking manual control of the first door, to move the first door form the presented position to the closed position (Roos [0062]; Roos Fig. 11 steps 464-468; result of modification in claim 1);
the controller further configured to control the presenter mechanism and move the extensible member from the extended position to the retracted position prior to the control of the safety catch that moves the safety catch from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position, thereby permitting movement of the door from the presented position to the closed position, but preventing movement of the door from the presented position to the open position (as modified, the extensible member is controlled by the controller to move from the extended position, which prevents the door from closing, to the retracted position to allow the door to close if the user no longer desires to open the door).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwab (DE 10301998 A1) is related to a door system comprising a presenter mechanism and latch that moves a door between a closed position, presented position, and open position.
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights