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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 Jan. 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Harajli does not disclose signaling the second actuation that releases the cinch mechanism from a position where the extensible is extended, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the cinch mechanism disclosed by Harajli, the new ground of rejection does not rely on Harajli for teaching a cinch mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 recites “the latch assembly comprises the cinch mechanism that is controlled, in response to not detecting a user taking manual control of the door, to move the door from the presented position to the closed position” (note claim objection below, claim 21 is interpreted in light of the disclosure). Claim 21 depends from claim 15, which depends from independent claim 14. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the latch assembly includes a cinch mechanism that moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position, following detection of a user not taking manual control of the first door” in lines 13-15. The claims are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slide difference in wording. Both claims require a cinch mechanism that is controlled to move the door from the presented position to the closed position when it is determined that a user did not take manual control of the door.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 21, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 11 of claim 8, “the safety catch” should be --a safety-- because it is not previously recited
in line 14 of claim 8, “a safety catch” should be --the safety-- because it is previously recited
in line 22 of claim 8, “the presenter” should be --the presenter mechanism--
in line 2 of claim 21, “a cinch mechanism” should be --the cinch mechanism-- because it is previously recited in independent claim 14, from which the claim depends
in line 11 of claim 22, “the presenter” should be --the presenter mechanism--
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al., US 2022/0025682 A1, in view of Harajli et al., US 2019/0203508 A1, and Johann et al., US 2020/0318400 A1.
Claim 1: Becher discloses a door system for a first door of a motor vehicle (Fig. 2) configured for movement between a closed position (position 7, Fig. 1), a presented position (position 3, Fig. 1), and an open position (position 4, Fig. 1), comprising:
a presenter mechanism that moves the first door from the closed position to the presented position (claim 20: “a driving means is provided for movement of the car door from the closed end position into the intermediate position” corresponds to a presenter mechanism; [0016]); and
a latch assembly (abstract: “driven mechanical lock/or unlock unit including a latching element for latching the closed door end position” corresponds to a latch assembly) configured for movement between a striker safety capture position ([0006]: “latched intermediate position”), whereat the first door is in the presented position as moved by the engagement of the presenter mechanism with the first door and the first door is prevented from moving to the open position from the presented position ([0006]; [0007]: “this intermediate position is latched, it is a safe position”), and a striker safety release position ([0032] “unlatching of the intermediate position” corresponds to a striker safety release position), whereat the first door is moveable from the presented position to the open position ([0032]; claim 17);
wherein the latch assembly engages the first door to prevent the first door from moving from the closed position to the presented position (claim 14: “latching a closed end position”),
wherein a first actuation of the latch assembly occurs such that thereafter the presenter mechanism engages and moves the first door from the closed position to the presented position (claim 20; [0031] “the control unit of the locking device opens the door into the intermediate position” corresponds to a first actuation of the locking device to allow the door to move to the presented position), and
a second actuation of the latch assembly occurs such that thereafter the first door is moveable from the presented position to the open position ([0032] “the unlatching of the intermediate position” corresponds to a second actuation of the latch assembly; claim 17);
wherein the latch assembly includes a cinch mechanism that moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position ([0017]: “driving means and a control unit to move the car door from the intermediate position into the closed position” corresponds to a cinch mechanism; claim 22) following detection of a user not taking manual control of the first door (claim 23: “move the car door from the intermediate position into the closed end position dependent on a time interval without a second operating step sensor operation” and claim 24: “dependent on a time interval without movement the car door”);
wherein, when the first door is in the presented position, a signaling of a manual control of the door by the user controls the second actuation of the latch assembly ([0032]: a touch sensor operated by gripping the door correlates to signaling manual control of the door; claim 15), which releases the striker ([0011]: “the sensor is operated to unlatch the intermediate position”; [0032]).
Becher teaches a presenter mechanism and a cinch mechanism; however, Becher is silent to a presenter mechanism comprising an extensible member, and wherein the cinch mechanism moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position following an extensible member of the presenter mechanism moving form an extended position to a retracted position.
Harajli teaches a presenter mechanism (16) that moves the door from a closed position to a presented position ([0020]; [0029]) and engages the first door during movement of the door to the presented position ([0020]), and the door moves from the presented position to the closed position following detection of a user not taking manual control of the first door and following an extensible member of the presenter mechanism (26) moving from an extended position to a retracted position ([0020]; [0036-37]). Harajli further teaches the extensible member of the presenter mechanism in the extended position when the first door is in the presented position ([0020]).
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 disclosed by Becher to include the presenter mechanism comprising an extensible member, the extensible member in an extended position when the first door is in the presented position as taught by Harajli, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driving means to position the door in the presented position for a user to access the edge of the door and practice the system disclosed by Becher (Harajli [0020]; Becher claim 20).
Furthermore, 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 cinch mechanism disclosed by Becher to move the door from the presented position to the closed position following detection of a user not taking manual control of the first door and following an extensible member of the presenter mechanism moving from an extended position to a retracted, as taught by Harajli, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase security and so the extensible member does not interfere with fully closing the door.
Becher discloses a first actuation and a second actuation of the latch assembly; however, Becher does not explicitly disclose the mechanical structure of the latch. Becher is silent to the latch assembly having a safety catch that engages and retains a striker and the latch assembly comprising a ratchet and pawl assembly configured to maintain the striker, wherein a first actuation of the latch assembly causes the ratchet and pawl assembly to release the striker, a second actuation of the latch assembly causes the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position to release the striker.
Johann teaches a latch assembly (12) having a safety catch (80) configured for movement between a striker safety capture position (position in Fig. 4A), whereat the safety catch engages and retains a striker (50) associated with a first door in a blocked position when the first door is in a presented position ([0071]), wherein the safety catch prevents the first door from moving to an open position from a presented position ([0079]), and a striker safety release position (position in Fig. 7A), whereat the safety catch releases the striker from the blocked position such that the first door is moveable from a presented position to an open position ([0075-76]), wherein the latch assembly engages the first door and comprise a ratchet and pawl assembly (40, 24) configured to maintain the striker in a striker capture position (Fig. 2A) to prevent the first door form moving from the closed position to the presented position ([0042], [0071]).
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 door system taught by Becher, in view of Harajli, to include a latch assembly having a safety catch and ratchet and pawl assembly taught by Johann, 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 reasonably expect, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch assembly comprising a ratchet and pawl assembly configured to maintain the striker in a striker capture position and having a safety catch, wherein the safety catch is configured for movement between a striker safety capture position, whereat the safety catch engages and retains a striker in a blocked position when the first door is in a presented position (i.e., “latched intermediate position” of Becher [0007]), and a striker safety release position, whereat the safety catch releases the striker from the blocked position (i.e., “unlatch the intermediate position” of Becher [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the resulting system taught by Becher, as modified by Harajli and Johann, comprises a latch assembly and presenter mechanism wherein a first actuation of the latch assembly causes the ratchet and pawl assembly to release the striker such that thereafter the presenter mechanism engages and moves the first door from the closed position to the presented position (Johann [0076]; Becher [0031] (authorization triggers a first actuation)), and a second actuation of the latch assembly causes the safety catch to move 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 (Becher [0032] (sensor triggers a second actuation); Johann [0076]). And accordingly, with the extensible member of the presenter mechanism in the extended position and the safety catch engaging and retaining the striker in the blocked position when the first door is in the presented position as taught by Becher, as modified by Johann and Harajli, a signaling of a manual control of the door by the user controls the second actuation of the latch assembly (Becher [0032]), which causes the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to the striker safety release position, which releases the striker (as modified, Johann [0076]).
Claim 2: Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the presenter mechanism comprises the extensible member (Harajli 26) moveable from the retracted position, whereat the first door is moveable to the closed position (Harajli Figs. 6-7), to the extended position, whereat the first door is moved by the extensible member to the presented position (as modified above, Harajli Fig. 4, [0020]),
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, and the safety catch is in the striker safety capture position (as modified, the first door is in the presented position when the extensible member is in the extended position, and the safety catch in the safety capture position when the first door is in the presented position which prevents the door from moving away (Johann [0071], Fig. 4A; Becher [0008])),
wherein the extensible member moves to the retracted position from the extended position while the striker remains retained by the safety catch (one skilled in the art would understand the safety catch is configured to remain in the striker safety capture position without a second actuation, including while the extensible member moves to the retracted position) and also prior to the cinch mechanism moving the first door from the presented position to the closed position (as modified, the extensible member has to be retracted before the cinch mechanism fully closes the ratchet and pawl assembly to move the door to the closed position (see claim 1 above)).
Claim 4: Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, teaches the door system of claim 1. Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, does not explicitly teach 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.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the movement of the safety catch to the striker safety capture position taught by Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, to be coordinated with movement of the presenter mechanism to move the door to the presented position in order to successfully allow the striker to move from a fully closed position to the presented position without breakdown or impairment.
Claim 5: Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, teaches the door system of claim 4, further comprising a controller (Becher claim 14: “an electronic control unit”) operable to coordinate the movement of the safety catch with the movement of the extensible member (as modified above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the controller is configured to control movement of the safety catch and the extensible member, therefore the controller is operable to coordinate the movements).
Claim 6: Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, teaches the door system of claim 1, further comprising a switch (Becher 5) configured to signal movement of the safety catch from the striker safety catch position to the striker safety release position (Becher [0032]).
Claim 7: Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, teaches the door system of claim 6, wherein the switch is further configured to signal movement of the presenter mechanism to move the door from the closed position to the presented position (Becher [0035-36]: the same switch (“proximity sensor” functions as a switch) can be configured to signal movement of the presenter mechanism to move the door to the presented position and signal movement of the safety catch from the striker safety catch position to the striker safety release position).
Claim 22: Becher, in view of Harajli and Johann, teaches the door system of claim 1, further comprising a controller (Becher [0031-32]: “control unit”) 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 (Becher [0031]: as modified, the controller controls the latch assembly and presenter mechanism in response to receiving a first signal of the user approaching the car);
control the safety catch to move from the striker safety capture position to the striker release position to allow the first door to be moved to the open position in response to receiving a second signal (Becher [0032]: as modified, the controller controls the safety catch in response to receiving a second signal from a touch sensor);
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 from the presented position to the closed position (Becher claim 23);
the controller further configured to control the presenter and move the extensible member from the extended position to the retracted position (as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the controller is configured to control the presenter 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 (the controller is configured to move the door from the presented position to the closed position if the user does not open the door (Becher [0036]; Becher claim 24), so the extensible member would be retracted prior to control of the safety catch to the striker safety release position so the door is permitted to move from the presented position back to the closed position but is not able to move to the open position).
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al., US 2022/0025682 A1, in view of Scheuring et al., US 2014/0150581 A1, and Johann et al., US 2020/0318400 A1.
Claim 8: Becher 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 to correspondingly move the door from the closed position to the presented position (claim 20; [0006]; [0016]);
maintaining the door in the presented position, blocking movement toward the open position by a safety catch ([0008]; claim 1 “a latching element … to block an intermediate position”);
detecting a user signaling a manual control of the door ([0032]: detecting a user touching the door edge signals a manual control);
in response to detecting the user signaling the manual control of the door, controlling a second actuation of a latch assembly, whereat the latch assembly prevents the passenger door from moving to the open position from the presented position ([0008]), to a striker safety release position, whereat the latch assembly allows the passenger door to be moved from the presented position to the open position ([0032]: “consequently the control unit will execute the second operating step. This includes the unlatching of the intermediate position 3 and so the person can pull the door”); and
controlling a cinch mechanism of the latch assembly, in response to not detecting a user taking manual control of the door, to move the door from the presented position to the closed position ([0018]; claim 23: “move the car door from the intermediate position into the closed end position dependent on a time interval without a second operating step sensor operation”).
Becher discloses controlling a latch assembly but is silent to controlling a first actuation of a latch assembly to releasably secure the door to a vehicle body to cause a ratchet and pawl assembly thereof to release a striker, which is provided on one of the door and a body of the motor vehicle, to allow the door to move from the closed position to the presented position and controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly, and controlling a second latch actuation causing a safety catch to move from a striker safety capture position, whereat the safety catch blocks the striker and prevents the passenger door from moving to the open position from the presented position, to a striker safety release position, whereat the safety catch unblocks the striker.
Johann teaches a method comprising controlling a first actuation of a latch assembly to releasably secure the door to a vehicle body to cause a ratchet and pawl assembly (40, 24) thereof to release a striker (50), which is provided on one of the door and a body of the motor vehicle ([0071]), to allow the door to move from the closed position to the presented position ([0075-76] (a first actuation of the latch assembly moves it to a secondary closed position that allows the door to move to the presented position)) and
controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly, and causing a safety catch (80) to move from a striker safety capture position (Fig. 4A), whereat the safety catch blocks the striker and prevents the passenger door from moving to the open position from the presented position ([0075], [0079]), to a striker safety release position (Fig. 7A), whereat the safety catch unblocks the striker and allows the passenger door to be moved from the presented position to the open position ([0076] (a second actuation of the latch assembly moves it to a primary unlocking position that releases the striker from the safety catch)).
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 of Becher to include controlling a first actuation of a latch assembly to releasably secure the door to a vehicle body to cause a ratchet and pawl assembly thereof to release a striker, which is provided on one of the door and a body of the motor vehicle, to allow the door to move from the closed position to the presented position and controlling a second actuation of the latch assembly, and causing a safety catch to move from a striker safety capture position, whereat the safety catch blocks the striker and prevents the passenger door from moving to the open position from the presented position, to a striker safety release position, whereat the safety catch unblocks the striker and allows the passenger door to be moved from the presented position to the open position, as taught by Johann to practice the method disclosed by Becher and provide a latch assembly with reduced cost and complexity (Johann [0005]).
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 reasonably expect, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a method comprising controlling a first actuation of a latch assembly to cause a ratchet and pawl assembly to release a striker and controlling a second actuation of a latch assembly causing a safety catch to move from a striker safety capture position (i.e., “latched intermediate position” of Becher [0007]) to a striker safety release position (i.e., “unlatch the intermediate position” of Becher [0010]).
Although Becher, in view of Johann, discloses maintaining the door in the presented position, blocking movement toward the open position, Becher, in view of Johann, is silent to blocking movement toward the closed position by an extensible member of the presenter mechanism. Becher, in view of Johann, is also silent to controlling the presenter to move the extensible member from an extended position to a 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.
Scheuring teaches maintaining a door in a presented position, blocking movement toward a closed position by an extensible member (118) of a presenter mechanism ([0024-25]).
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 taught by Becher, in view of Johann, to include maintaining the door in the presented position, blocking movement toward the closed position by an extensible member of the presenter mechanism as taught by Scheuring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the presented door from closing as a result of the vehicle being situated on an incline (Scheuring [0024]).
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 Becher, as modified by Johann and Scheuring, would include controlling the presenter to move the extensible member from an extended position to a retracted position prior to controlling the latch assembly to move the safety catch from the 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, in order to prevent the extensible member from interfering with the cinch mechanism moving the door to the closed position if the user does not take manual control of the door (Becher [0036]; Becher claim 24).
Claim 9: Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, teaches the method of claim 8. As modified above, the method taught by Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, further comprises 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 (Scheuring [0024]), whereby the door is allowed to move from the presented position to the open position (Becher [0032]) but not allowed to move from the presented position to the closed position (Scheuring [0024]; as modified above, the door is not allowed to move to the closed position when the extensible member remains extended).
Claim 11: Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, teaches the method of claim 8. Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, teaches the safety catch is in the striker safety capture position when the door is in the presented position.
Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, is silent to coordinating movement of the safety catch to the striker safety capture position from a primary striker capture position with movement of the presenter mechanism to move the door from the closed position to the presented position. However, one skilled in the art would recognize the door taught by Becher, as modified by Johann and Scheuring, is not allowed to move to the presented position because the striker cannot move out of the fully latched position, until the safety catch is moved to the striker safety capture position.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of coordinating movement of the safety catch to the striker safety capture position from a striker capture position with movement of the presenter mechanism to move the door from the closed position to the presented position with the method taught by Becher, as modified by Johann and Scheuring, in order to practice the device and method taught by Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, with a reasonable expectation of success and to successfully move the striker to the safety capture position for presenting the door without a breakdown or fault in operation.
Claim 12: Becher, in view of Johann and Scheuring, 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 (as modified, the extended presenter mechanism blocks the door from moving to the closed position until it is retracted) and blocking movement toward the open position by the safety catch (Becher [0008-09]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the presenter mechanism maintains the door in the presented position so the user can safely engage the door edge).
Claims 14-15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al., US 2022/0025682 A1, in view of Scheuring et al., US 2014/0150581 A1.
Claim 14: Becher discloses a door system for a first door of a motor vehicle (Fig. 2) configured for pivotal movement between a closed position (position 7, Fig. 1), a presented position (position 3, Fig. 1), and an open position (position 4, Fig. 1), comprising:
a latch assembly that engages the first door for retaining the first door to the motor vehicle (claim 1: “a driven mechanical lock/or unlock unit including a latching element for latching a closed end position of a car door”);
a presenter mechanism that moves the first door from the closed position to the presented position (claim 20: “a driving means is provided for movement of the car door from the closed end position into the intermediate position” corresponds to a presenter mechanism; [0016]); and
a safety catch of the latch assembly (claim 1: “locking element is provided to block an intermediate position of the car door”) that moves between a blocking position ([0006]: “latched intermediate position”), whereat the safety catch prevents the first door from moving to the open position from the presented position ([0007]), and a release position ([0032] “unlatching of the intermediate position” corresponds to a release position), whereat the safety catch permits movement of the first door from the presented position to the open position following a second actuation of the latch assembly ([0010-11] “unlatch the intermediate position” corresponds to a second actuation of the latch assembly, then the door can be moved to the open position; claim 17);
wherein the latch assembly includes a cinch mechanism that moves the first door from the presented position to the closed position ([0017]: “driving means and a control unit to move the car door from the intermediate position into the closed position” corresponds to a cinch mechanism; claim 22) following detection of a user not taking manual control of the first door and prior to the second actuation of the latch assembly (claim 23: “move the car door from the intermediate position into the closed end position dependent on a time interval without a second operating step sensor operation”), without moving the safety catch from the blocking position to the release position (the safety catch would not be moved to the release position because there is not detection of a user or a second actuation of the latch assembly);
wherein the door is maintained in the presented position, blocking movement toward the open position by the safety catch ([0008]), until a user signaling a manual control of the door causes the second actuation of the latch assembly ([0032]: the door is maintained in the presented position for a user to be able to operate a touch sensor by gripping the door which signals a manual control; claim 15).
However, Becher is silent to the latch assembly configured 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, the presenter mechanism configured to contact and move the first door following the first actuation of the latch assembly, the cinch mechanism moves the first door to the closed position following movement of an extensible member of the presenter mechanism from an extended position to a retracted position, wherein the door is maintained in the presented position, blocking movement toward the closed position by the extensible member.
Scheuring teaches a presenter mechanism (116) that contacts and moves a first door ([0017]) following a first actuation of a latch assembly ([0027], [0032] (the closed ratchet has to be opened to move the door from the closed position, corresponding to a first actuation of the latch assembly)), wherein the door is maintained in the presented position, blocking movement toward the closed position by the extensible member ([0024-25]).
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 presenter mechanism disclosed by Becher, to contact and move the first door from the closed position to the presented position following the first actuation of the latch assembly and wherein the door is maintained in the presented position, blocking movement toward the closed position by the extensible member as taught by Scheuring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to practice the presenter mechanism disclosed by Becher and prevent the door in the presented position from closing unintentionally, such as a result of the vehicle being situated on an incline (Scheuring [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cinching mechanism of the system taught by Becher, as modified by Scheuring, is configured to move the first door to the closed position following movement of an extensible member of the presenter mechanism from an extended position to a retracted position in order to allow the door to successfully move into the closed position without the extensible member interfering to cause a breakdown or fault in operation.
Claim 15: Becher, in view of Scheuring, teaches the door system of claim 14, further comprising a controller (Becher [0010]: “a control unit”) configured to:
control the latch assembly to release the striker to move the first door to the presented position in response to receiving a first signal (Becher [0031]); 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 (Becher claim 17).
Claim 17: Becher, in view of Scheuring, 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 (Becher claim 23), 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 (Becher claim 23), wherein the second signal corresponds to the user taking manual control of the first door (Becher claim 15; Becher [0009]).
Claim 18: Becher, in view of Scheuring, 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 (Becher claim 23).
Claim 21: Becher, in view of Scheuring, teaches the door system of claim 15, wherein the latch assembly comprises a cinch mechanism that is controlled, in response to not detecting a user taking manual control of the door, to move the door from the presented position to the closed position (Becher claim 23 (a cinch mechanism moves the door to the closed position in response to not detecting a user taking manual control via the sensor over a period of time); see claim 14 above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher and Scheuring, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Johann et al., US 2020/0318400 A1.
Claim 16: Becher, in view of Scheuring, teaches the door system of claim 15, wherein the first signal and the second signal are generated by activation of a power release switch.
Johann teaches a controller (116) configured to control a latch assembly to release a striker to move a door to a presented position in response to receiving a first signal and control a safety catch to move to a release position to allow the door to be moved to an open position in response to receiving a second signal ([0072], [0076]), wherein the first signal and second signal are generated by activation of a power release switch (52; [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 system taught by Becher, in view of Scheuring, to include the controller configured to control the latch assembly in response to a first signal and control the safety catch in response to a second signal, the first signal and second signal are generated by a power release switch, as taught by Johann, in order to enable presenting and opening the door from inside the passenger compartment (Johann [0072]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher and Scheuring, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mobius et al., US 2013/0169002 A1.
Claim 19: Becher, in view of Scheuring, teaches the door system of claim 17, further comprising housing for mounting the latch assembly and the cinch mechanism to the first door (Johann 46, Fig. 2A). However, Becher, in view of Scheuring, does not explicitly teach a frame plate for mounting to the first vehicle door, wherein the latch assembly and the chinch mechanism are mounted to the frame plate.
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.
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. It is known in the art to provide a frame plate for mounting to a vehicle door, as evidenced by Mobius. Mobius teaches a frame plate (2) for mounting to a vehicle door (1), wherein the latch assembly and functional components are mounted to the frame plate ([0003], [0044]).
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 include a frame plate for mounting to the vehicle body with the door system and housing taught by Becher, in view of Scheuring, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and expect, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable because the modification is a simple rearrangement of parts and does not affect operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04(VI); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (finding shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (holding the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was an obvious matter of design choice)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher, in view of Scheuring, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al., US 6,955,389 B2.
Claim 20: Becher, in view of Scheuring, the door system of claim 14, but is silent to the first door being part of 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 Suzuki. Suzuki teaches a first door (4) being part of a B-pillarless closure system (col. 3 ln. 34-38). 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 disclosed by Becher, in view of Scheuring, with a first door that is part of a B-pillarless closure system, as taught by Suzuki, 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.
Conclusion
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