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 .
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 connecting portion and size details of claims 4, 18, 21, and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that while the features appear to be shown in figure 2 (see also below 112s) there is no description of the connecting portion or reference numeral in the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 18, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure includes no description of the connecting portion between the bulb and U-shaped portions of the sensor. The only disclosure is in figure 2, where the connecting portion is assumed to be the portion between 34 and 26. As drawings do not have to be to scale, there is no mention in the disclosure that the drawings are to scale, nor is there any mention that the cross-section is the same along the whole length (i.e. the connecting portion could be wider at another point besides that shown in figure 2) it does not appear that the connecting portion having a reduced cross-sectional area as in claim 4 or the length and width details as in claims 18 and 22 are supported by the original disclosure.
Examiner notes that figure 1 even when zoomed in on appears to show the connecting portion as the same width as the inner wall and wider than the portion of the bulb to which it is attached, which contradicts the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 21 recite “a connecting portion that extends between the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion and the anti-pinch sensor mount, and wherein the connecting portion has a reduced cross-sectional area compared to the inner wall and the portion of the anti- pinch sensor bulb to which the connecting portion is connected” (emphasis added). It is unclear what the scope of cross-section area of the connecting portion is or what areas it’s being compared to. The area of the inner wall appears to be of the entire inner wall as there are no modifiers, however, the bulb is described as just the portion to which the connecting portion is attached. As detailed above there is no description in the specification of any of the features of the connecting portion nor is there any clear indication from the figures as to what the portion of the bulb refers to. For purposes of examination claim will be read broadly in keeping with what is shown in figure 2 (although that is contradicted by figure 1 as noted above) as the connecting portion is narrower than the portion of the bulb and the inner wall.
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, 16, and 17 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) and US PG Pub 2009/0313929 to Miyakawa (hereinafter Miyakawa).
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 material features (thermoplastic and the bulb being a softer durometer).
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 thermoplastic 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 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 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).
A softer durometer bulb is shown in Miyakawa in figures 1 and 2 where bulb (8) is of softer durometer material (paragraphs [0025] and [0027]) than mount (8,3).
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 softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa because softer durometer bulbs provided the benefit of a more flexible bulb (see also MPEP 2144.04 selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 2, the U-shaped member (34) which is form fitting onto the 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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto, Harima, and Miyakawa as applied to claim 2 (as well as claims 1, 16, and 17) 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 thermoplastic material of Harima and the softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa, 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 thermoplastic material of Harima, the softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa, 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 thermoplastic material of Harima, the softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa, 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) 4, 5, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto, Harima, and Miyakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 01/34434 to Hirayama (hereinafter Hirayama).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (32) and the anti-pinch sensor mount (34) are an integral extrusion in Miyamoto.
However, Miyamoto does not show the connecting portion.
A connecting portion is shown in Hirayama in figures 12-14 with a bulb (18) and a U-shaped member (12) connected by a connecting portion narrower than the inner wall of the U-shaped member (12) and bulb (18), see annotated figure 12 below.
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 thermoplastic material of Harima and the softer bulb of Miyakawa, with the connecting portion of Hirayama because the connecting portion allows for more mobility of the bulb by providing a narrower joint.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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, as modified by Miyakawa above with claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Miyamoto does not show a connecting portion.
A connecting portion is shown in Hirayama in figures 12-14 with a bulb (18) and a U-shaped member (12) connected by a connecting portion having a length between bulb (18) and inner wall of the U-shaped member (12), a width narrower than that of the inner wall and bulb (18), and is located inwardly of and spaced apart from the opposite sides of the inner wall, see annotated figure 12 above.
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 thermoplastic material of Harima and the softer bulb of Miyakawa, with the connecting portion of Hirayama because the connecting portion allows for more mobility of the bulb by providing a narrower joint.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Harima, Fujiwara, and Miyakawa.
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 thermoplastic or the bulb being a softer durometer.
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 thermoplastic 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 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 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).
A softer durometer bulb is shown in Miyakawa in figures 1 and 2 where bulb (8) is of softer durometer material (paragraphs [0025] and [0027]) than mount (8,3).
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 softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa because softer durometer bulbs provided the benefit of a more flexible bulb (see also MPEP 2144.04 selection of known material based on 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 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 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 thermoplastic material of Harima, the softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa, 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 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 thermoplastic material of Harima, the softer durometer bulb of Miyakawa, 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto, Harima, Fujiwara, and Miyakawa as applied to claim 10 (as well as claims 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15) above, and further in view of Hirayama.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Miyamoto does not show the connecting portion.
A connecting portion is shown in Hirayama in figures 12-14 with a bulb (18) and a U-shaped member (12) connected by a connecting portion narrower than the inner wall of the U-shaped member (12) and bulb (18), see annotated figure 12 above.
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 of Harima and the softer bulb of Miyakawa, with the connecting portion of Hirayama because the connecting portion allows for more mobility of the bulb by providing a narrower joint.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Harima and Hirayama
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 and does not show a connecting portion.
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 thermoplastic 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 thermoplastic material of Harima because 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).
A connecting portion is shown in Hirayama in figures 12-14 with a bulb (18) and a U-shaped member (12) connected by a connecting portion having a length between bulb (18) and inner wall of the U-shaped member (12), a width narrower than that of the inner wall and bulb (18), and is located inwardly of and spaced apart from the opposite sides of the inner wall, see annotated figure 12 above.
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 connecting portion of Hirayama because the connecting portion allows for more mobility of the bulb by providing a narrower joint.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 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 softer durometer bulb. Examiner maintains this limitation is read over by the newly applied Miyakawa.
In regards to applicant's arguments directed to independent claim 18, examiner notes that the arguments are directed to the newly added subject matter of connecting portion. Examiner disagrees that the limitations directed to the connecting portion are supported in the original disclosure as detailed above and maintains that the limitations are read over by the newly added Hirayama.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the dependent claims are primarily that as the independent claims are allowable so too are the dependent claims. As detailed above examiner maintains the independent claims are not allowable.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to new dependent claim 22, examiner disagrees that the limitations directed to the connecting portion are supported in the original disclosure as detailed above and maintains that the limitations are read over by the newly added Hirayama.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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
Prosecution Insights