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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiramoto (US 20220034128 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiramoto teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a door control mechanism (1) that defines a cavity (space within 1), the door control mechanism comprising:
an actuator body (IH, OH) comprising a contact surface (211); and
a projection (60) that extends from the actuator body into the cavity; and
a spacer (40) to be disposed in the cavity, the spacer comprising:
a spacer body (40);
a first stopper (43) that extends from the spacer body, the first stopper to interface with the contact surface of the actuator body (para. 0054); and
a second stopper that extends from a surface of the spacer body (44), the second stopper to interface with the projection of the door control mechanism (60 interfaces with 44), at least one of the first stopper and the second stopper to prevent the door control mechanism from actuating in response to a manual force (para. 0076; position of 40 causes 60 to travel in the slot and not actuate the door control mechanism).
Regarding claim 2, Hiramoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising the first stopper comprising a stopper arm (43 is an arm extending off body 40) that extends from the spacer body, the stopper arm to inhibit motion of the actuator body of the door control mechanism (43 inhibits motion of 211 temporarily until 211 causes 43 to move), wherein the motion of the actuator body unlatches a latch to facilitate at least one of opening a door and closing the door (para. 0074).
Regarding claim 17, Hiramoto teaches a system, comprising:
a door control mechanism (1) to couple with a door, the door control mechanism defining a cavity (voids within 1), the door control mechanism comprising:
an actuator body (IH, OH) comprising a contact surface (211); and
a projection (60) that extends from the actuator body into the cavity; and
a spacer (40) to be disposed in the cavity, the spacer to prevent manual actuation of the door control mechanism (para. 0076), the spacer comprising:
a spacer body (40); and
a stopper (401) extending from the spacer body, the stopper configured to interface with at least one of the contact surface and the projection (interfaces with 60) to prevent the manual actuation of the door control mechanism (para. 0076).
Regarding claim 18, Hiramoto teaches the system of claim 17, comprising the stopper comprising a stopper arm (43) extending from the spacer body, the stopper arm comprising a stopper surface, the stopper surface to interface with the contact surface (211) when a manual force is applied to the door control mechanism (para. 0076).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the second stopper is configured to prevent the door from closing. The door control device of Hiramoto does not function to prevent a vehicle door from closing and it would be improper hindsight to modify the control device of Hiramoto to function in that manner.
Claims 4 and 19 contain allowable subject matter for disclosing that the second stopper is disposed in an aperture of the door control mechanism to prevent the door from opening and closing. Hiramoto does not explicitly teach an aperture in the door control mechanism where the second stopper is disposed in the aperture.
Claim 5 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the spacer contains a first side and second side which mirror each other to allow the spacer to be used in a left hand or right handed door. Hiramoto does not discuss the usage in right or left handed doors and does not provide a symmetrical design of the spacer.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the spacer comprises a plurality of locating features to keep the spacer stationary within the cavity. The spacer of Hiramoto is required to move In order to maintain function of the latch mechanism.
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that a pocket of the spacer is configured to receive a portion of a cable to facilitate disengagement of a mechanical release mechanism. The door control mechanism of Hiramoto is configured to maintain functionality of the mechanical release mechanism.
Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing a third stopper as part of the spacer, wherein the first stopper and the third stopper prevent a door from opening. Hiramoto does not teach a structure which could be interpreted as a third stopper and it would be improper hindsight to modify Hiramoto’s invention with a third stopper.
Claims 9 and 20 contain allowable subject matter for disclosing that the door control mechanism actuates in response to the manual force with the spacer not disposed in the cavity and actuates in response to an electrical power input with the spacer disposed in the cavity. The door control mechanism of Hiramoto is designed to operate with the spacer in the cavity at all times and does not operate without the spacer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675