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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8 recites “the flange”. While applicant does not have to include all of the modifying terms from the initial recitation (here a filled thermoplastic outwardly extending flange), later recitations should use consistent terminology. The recitation of line 8 is the only later recitation of the flange in claims 1-7 without the modifying terms and as such should be changed to include them in keeping with the rest of the claims.
New claims 16 and 17 include a similar issue.
Claim 8 lines 11-12 recite “filled thermoplastic outwardly extending flange portion”. The previous recitations were “a filled thermoplastic outwardly extending flange” without the term “portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2012/0222296 to Miyamoto (from 892 of 8/13/2024, hereinafter Miyamoto) in view of US patent 7270863 to Harima (hereinafter Harima).
Regarding claim 1, a vehicle door with anti-pinch sensor is shown in Miyamoto in figures 1-15 with
the door (44) including an outwardly extending flange (54);
the anti-pinch sensor (10) including an anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (32) and an anti-pinch sensor mount (34) including a U-shaped member (34 is U-shaped) which is adapted to fit over and secure to the outwardly extending flange (figure 1) wherein the U-shaped member has two outer legs connected by an inner wall (figure 6), and the outer legs have inner surfaces that are parallel, spaced apart and that conform to surfaces of the flange onto which the outer legs are received (figure 1); and,
the anti-pinch sensor bulb (32) is capable of sensing an interference (via sensor 12 in bulb 32) in opening or closing of the door (44) and reversing the opening or closing of the door (intended use of the sensor).
However, Miyamoto shows a sliding vehicle door not a liftgate and does not teach the flange being filled thermoplastic.
A liftgate with thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with liftgate (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic material with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Miyamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto with the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because liftgates provide another use for the sensor of Miyamoto as both sliding doors and liftgates can use anti-pinch sensors (i.e. both include risk of pinching when moving) and thereby increases the market for the sensor of Miyamoto and because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making liftgates as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 2, the U-shaped member (34) which is form fitting onto the filled thermoplastic (when provided with Harima) outwardly extending flange (54) and is secured on the flange by the form fit without use of adhesives in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 4, the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (32) and the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) are an integral extrusion in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 5, the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) is of a durometer (made of material that can have a durometer) which allows the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) to hold onto the filled thermoplastic (when provided with Harima) outwardly extending flange (portion of 46) and the anti-pinch sensor bulb (32) is of a durometer which allows the anti-pinch sensor bulb (32) to compress with respect to an object interfering with the opening or closing of the liftgate in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 16, the inner surfaces (of the outer legs of the mount 34) are complementary in shape (figure 1) to the corresponding surfaces of the flange (56) over which the outer legs are received in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 17, the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) is press-fit onto the flange (56) and the outer legs are form fit on the flange (56) such that the outer legs engage the flange along an entire length of the outer legs from the inner wall to an end of the legs that are opposite to the inner wall in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 18, a panel for a vehicle is shown in Miyamoto in figures 1-15 with
a panel (door 44) having a flange (56);
an anti-pinch sensor (10) mounted on the flange (56), the anti-pinch sensor (10) having a bulb portion (32) and a mount (34) that is integrally connected to and formed as a one-piece extrusion with the bulb portion (32), the mount (34) is a U-shaped member (figure 6) with two outer legs connected together by an inner wall, and the mount (34) is fit onto the flange (56) with the outer legs engaging the flange along their length (figure 1) between the inner wall and ends of the outer legs that are opposite to the inner wall.
However, Miyamoto is silent as to the material forming the door/panel.
A door with thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with liftgate (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic material with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Miyamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto with the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making liftgates/vehicle doors as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 19, the mount (34) is press-fit onto the flange (56) and the outer legs are form fit on the flange (56) such that the outer legs engage the flange along their entire length (figure 1) in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 20, the outer legs (of mount 34) have respective inner surfaces that are complementary in shape to the corresponding surfaces (figure 1) of the flange (56) over which the outer legs are received in Miyamoto.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto and Harima as applied to claim 2 (as well as claims 1, 4, 5, and 16-20) above, and further in view of US patent 7714595 to Fujiwara (hereinafter Fujiwara)
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto is silent as to the details of the door.
A two panel construction is shown in Fujiwara in figure 1-4C where the door (5) includes and outer show surface panel (74) and an inner panel (71) and the inner panel (71) include the flange (75a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto, having the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima, with the two panel construction of Fujiwara because two panel construction was a known vehicle door construction allowing for a robust door.
Regarding claim 6, Miyamoto already contemplates the use of adhesive (paragraph [0035] adhesive and be used instead of U-shaped mount 34, i.e. mount without groove 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto, having the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima and the two panel construction of Fujiwara, with additional adhesive securing because the use of an additional securing means can help further secure the sensor to the liftgate and prevent unwanted removal.
Regarding claim 7, the flange is not molded in Miyamoto.
A molded inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with liftgate (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made by molding (further taught in column 3 lines 3-10) with protruding members (2R) integral with and extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel when provided to Miyamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto, having the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima and the two panel construction of Fujiwara, with the molded inner panel of Harima because molded inner panels provided the known benefit of reliable mass productivity and good outer appearance as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 and column 2 lines 61-67.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Harima and Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 8, the vehicle door with anti-pinch sensor is shown in Miyamoto in figures 1-15 with
the door (44) including an outwardly extending flange (56);
the anti-pinch sensor (10) including an anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (32) and an anti-pinch sensor mount (34), wherein the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) including a U-shaped member (34 is U-shaped) which is adapted to fit over and secure to the flange (56) wherein the U-shaped member has two outer legs connected by an inner wall (figure 6), and inner surfaces of the outer legs engage the flange (56) along a length of the outer legs from the inner wall to ends of the outer legs that are opposite to the inner wall, and wherein the outer legs are form fitting for promoting securement of the mount onto the outwardly extending flange (56); and,
the anti-pinch sensor bulb (32) attached to the mount (34) for sensing an interference in opening or closing of the liftgate and reversing the opening or closing of the liftgate (intended use of sensor).
However, Miyamoto is silent to the details of the door, shows a sliding vehicle door not a liftgate, and does not teach the flange being filled thermoplastic.
A two panel construction is shown in Fujiwara in figure 1-4C where the door (5) includes and outer show surface panel (74) and an inner panel (71) and the inner panel (71) include the flange (75a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto with the two panel construction of Fujiwara because two panel construction was a known vehicle door construction allowing for a robust door.
A liftgate with thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with liftgate (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic material with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Miyamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto with the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because liftgates provide another use for the sensor of Miyamoto as both sliding doors and liftgates can use anti-pinch sensors (i.e. both include risk of pinching when moving) and thereby increases the market for the sensor of Miyamoto and because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making liftgates as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 9, the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) includes the U-shaped member is pushed onto the filled thermoplastic (when provided with Harima) outwardly extending flange (56) and is secured on the flange in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 10, the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (32) and the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) are an integral extrusion in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 11, the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) is of a durometer (made of material that can have a durometer) which allows the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) to hold onto the filled thermoplastic (when provided with Harima) outwardly extending flange (portion of 46) and the anti-pinch sensor bulb (32) is of a durometer which allows the anti-pinch sensor bulb (32) to compress with respect to an object interfering with the opening or closing of the liftgate in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 12, the flange (56) is provided over pre-selected areas in Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 13, the flange is not molded in Miyamoto.
A molded inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with liftgate (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made by molding (further taught in column 3 lines 3-10) with protruding members (2R) integral with and extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel when provided to Miyamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto, having the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima and the two panel construction of Fujiwara, with the molded inner panel of Harima because molded inner panels provided the known benefit of reliable mass productivity and good outer appearance as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 and column 2 lines 61-67.
Regarding claim 14, Miyamoto teaches the flange extending along the leading edge of the door. The extension along the entire periphery would be a design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto, having the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima and the two panel construction of Fujiwara, with an anti-pinch sensor over the entire periphery because pivoting liftgates (when provided with the liftgate use of Harima) include potential pinch points along all four edges forming the periphery and as such safety is increased by providing a sensor on all four edges.
Regarding claim 15, Miyamoto already contemplates the use of adhesive (paragraph [0035] adhesive and be used instead of U-shaped mount 34, i.e. mount without groove 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door with sensor of Miyamoto, having the liftgate use and the filled thermoplastic material of Harima and the two panel construction of Fujiwara, with additional adhesive securing because the use of an additional securing means can help further secure the sensor to the liftgate and prevent unwanted removal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 8, examiner notes that the arguments are directed to the newly added subject matter of the legs of the mount conforming to the shape of the flange, the inner surfaces of the legs engaging the flange. Examiner notes that in response to the amendments the primary reference is now Miyamoto, which examiner maintains teaches the newly added details of the engagement of the mount and flange as detailed in the above rejections. The previously applied Fujiwara is only applied as a secondary reference and as such the arguments directed to the leg and flange engagement of Fujiwara are moot.
In regards to applicant's arguments directed to newly added independent claim 18, as above the arguments are directed to the previous combination and not the newly applied Miyamoto.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the dependent claims are only that as the independent claims are allowable so too are the dependent claims. As detailed above examiner maintains the independent claims are not allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619