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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the arguments filed on December 23, 2025, and claims filed August 08, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 21-27 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed August 08, 2025, the Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to combine the references (see pages 2-4 of instant arguments), are not persuasive.
In this case, Baur teaches a method for
opening and closing portal doors (see at least Paragraph [0004], Figure 1, of Baur),
where the doors may be unlocked using a controller (see at least Paragraphs [0012], [0018]-[0020]; Figures 2a-c, of Baur),
the doors overlap each other when closed (see at least Paragraph [0004], Figure 2a, of Baur),
the doors are disposed within a single aperture (see at least Paragraph [0014], Figure 1, of Baur)
a door may be moved to an intermediate position so as to allow one door or the other to open (see at least Paragraph [0012], [0018]-[0019], Figures 2b-c, of Baur),
unlocking the doors (see at least Figures 2b-c, of Baur),
moving the doors to allow access to the cabin (see at least Paragraph [0019], Figures 2a-c, of Baur)
closing the doors (see at least Paragraph [0019], Figures 2a-c, of Baur),
locking the doors (see at least Paragraphs [0017]-[0020], Figures 2a-c, of Baur), and
latching the doors to the frame (see at least Paragraph [0018], Figure 1, of Baur).
Baur teaches the features of the claims, and applies to the same field of endeavor as the Applicant’s invention. Castillo teaches a method for latching vehicle doors, which is in a related field of invention as taught by the Applicant, and as taught by the teachings of Baur. Castillo teaches that the frame may comprise an “A” pillar and “C” pillar with a door respectively hinged on each pillar, where the doors may be latched together or unlatched from each other so as to maintain the doors in an open or closed position (see at least Paragraphs [0018], [0022], [0025] of Castillo). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Baur, with Castillo, to latch the doors together so that 1) the doors may be sealed together (see at least Paragraphs [0007], [0023] of Castillo), and 2) the doors may engage with and latch with each other (see at least Paragraph [0018] of Castillo). Baur also teaches that the arrangement of the portal doors so as to prevent inadvertent opening of the doors (see at least Paragraphs [0005], [0007] of Baur). These teachings show that it would have been obvious to latch the doors together and to the frame to prevent the doors from opening unintentionally, such as when the vehicle is moving. The combination of Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches every feature of the independent claims, as written. The Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to withdrawing the previous rejection (see page 4 of instant arguments), the Examiner will note that while the references were previously introduced in prior actions, the rejection was a new rejection, necessitated by the previous amendments, and the rejection comprised a new combination of the references, as well as incorporating a new reference for the new claims. As a result, the Examiner had withdrawn the previous rejection, and made a new rejection in response.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the teachings of Goldberg and the teachings of unlatching the doors from each other (see page 5 of instant arguments), the Examiner considers these arguments irrelevant, as Goldberg is not applied to the teachings of latching the doors together. Baur teaches that the doors can be sealed together using a sealing assembly (see at least Paragraph [0015]; Figures 2a-b of Baur). Goldberg explicitly teaches that the doors can be sealed with a magnetic seal (see at least Col. 3 line 59- Col. 4 line 10; Col. 4 lines 34-37 of Goldberg). Baur, in view of Goldberg, teaches that a magnetic assembly can be used to seal the doors together. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Similarly, regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the teachings of McKee and the teachings of unlatching the doors from each other (see page 6 of instant arguments), the Examiner considers these arguments irrelevant, as McKee is not applied to the teachings of latching the doors together. Baur teaches that the doors can be sealed together using a sealing assembly (see at least Paragraph [0015]; Figures 2a-b of Baur). McKee teaches that the status of the doors can be displayed to indicate the positions of each door (see at least Paragraph [0057] of McKee). Baur, in view of McKee, teaches that the doors can be latched together, and that the status of each door is provided to a display. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. 102017213848 A1, to Baur, et al (hereinafter referred to as Baur; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0127712 A1, to Castillo (hereinafter referred to as Castillo; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Baur discloses the features of a method for operating coach-style doors for a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0004]; Figure 1; where first and second doors of a vehicle are pivotally attached the body of the vehicle in order to open as portal doors (i.e. swinging coach-style doors), the method comprising steps of:
unlocking (e.g. Paragraph [0020]; Figures 2a-c; where the front door (4) has a pivotable manipulation and locking element (15), which is operated electrically or electro-mechanically that the door may be moved to the intermediate position (16) (i.e. is unlocked)), via a controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0007], [0012], [0018]-[0019]; where the doors can be operated by a remote control switch, or electrically or electro-mechanically, or automatically via an electronics control and regulation unit assigned to the doors (4, 6)),
a front door that overlaps a rear door in a closed position (e.g. e.g. Paragraphs [0004] Figure 2a; where the doors are designed to overlap in their free end; and where the free end (7b) of the front door (4) overlaps the free end (8b) or the rear door (6)),
wherein the front and rear doors are disposed within a single access aperture of a frame for the vehicle in the closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0002], [0014]; Figures 1, 3a; where the doors are hinged to the body (3) to as to be pivotable about different accesses and without a B-pillar in order to offer increased room when getting into or out of a vehicle); ‘…’
moving, via the controller, the front door to a rear door clear position wherein the rear door is unobstructed by the front door (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0012], [0017], [0019]; Figures 2b-c; where the door has a pivotable and/or translational movable manipulation and locking element which can be operated electrically or electro-mechanically or automatically in such a way that said door can be moved by positive guidance into an intermediate position (16) which removes the limitation of the other door opening in the same direction (i.e. the front door can be moved to an intermediate position to clear the path of the rear door));
unlocking the rear door (e.g. Paragraph [0020]; Figures 2a-c; where the rear door (6) has a pivotable manipulation and locking element (18), which is operated electrically or electro-mechanically, and when actuated, the rear door (6) may be moved to the intermediate position (19) (i.e. is unlocked) once the front door (4) is in its intermediate position) via the controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0007], [0012], [0018]-[0019]; where the doors can be operated by a remote control switch, or electrically or electro-mechanically, or automatically via an electronics control and regulation unit assigned to the doors (4, 6)); and
moving the rear door to a rear door open position to provide access to a passenger cabin for the vehicle via the single access aperture (e.g. Figures 2b-c; where the rear door is opened);
moving the rear door to a rear door closed position within the single access aperture (e.g. Paragraph [0019]; Figures 2a-c; where closing the rear door (6) is done in reverse order- where the rear door is moved from its open to intermediate position (19) to its closed position after the front door (4) is moved from is closed position to its intermediate position (16));
locking the rear door via the controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; where the rear door (6) has a manipulation and locking element (18) in order to transfer the rear door (6) to the intermediate position (19); and if the rear door (6) is pivoted further out, the guide pins (18a) cause the guide pins (18a) to leave their guide slot and transfer the door to the intermediate position (19) and back, and closing the door is done in reverse, where the door is moved from the intermediate position (19) to the closed position to engage the guide pins (i.e. locked));
moving the front door, via the controller, from the rear door clear position to a front door closed position (e.g. Paragraphs [0017]-[0019]; Figures 2a-c; where once the rear door (6) has moved to its closed position and has actuated the switching contacts of the guide pins, the front door (4) is moved from its intermediate position to its closed position; and where the front door (40) is moved from its closed position to its intermediate position (16), and the rear door (6) is pivoted to its intermediate position (19) and then fully swings open; and the closing of the rear door (6) is done in the opposite order- where the rear door (6) pivots from the open to its intermediate position (19) to its closed position, and the front door (4) then pivots from its intermediate position (16) to its closed position); and
locking the front door via the controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]; Figures 2a-c; where the rear door (6) has a pivotable manipulation and locking element (18), which is operated electrically or electro-mechanically, and when actuated, the rear door (6) may move from its intermediate position to its closed position by engaging the locking element),
wherein the step of locking the front door via the controller includes latching the front door to the frame (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; Figures 1, 2a-c; where the front door (4) has a locking element (15) on the vehicle body, which locks or unlocks the front door (4) to or from the frame) ‘…’.
Baur fails to teach every feature of wherein the step of unlocking the front door includes unlatching the rear door from the front door, via the controller; and wherein the step of locking the front door via the controller includes ‘...’ latching the front door to the rear door.
However, Castillo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the features of wherein the step of unlocking the front door includes unlatching the rear door from the front door, via the controller. Castillo teaches a dual-axis door hinge assembly for vehicles, where the rear side door (36) faces forward or toward the front end (16) of the vehicle body (14), and the door assembly (10) includes a striker or latch member attached to the forward end (40) of the rear side door (36) for engagement and disengagement with a latch on a rear end (44) of the front side door (34) (i.e. the front and rear doors latch together), and where the actuation of a door handle upon the front door releases the latch from the latch member; and that the motion of the rear door may be assisted using a mechanism similar for a power sliding door (i.e. controller) (e.g. Paragraph [0018], [0022], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the portal-style door system of Baur, with the feature of unlocking the front door from the rear door in the system of Castillo, in order to prevent unintentional opening of doors while the vehicle is moving (see at least Paragraph [0018] of Castillo).
Castillo further teaches the features of wherein the step of locking the front door via the controller also includes latching the front door to the rear door.
However, Castillo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a dual-axis door hinge assembly for vehicles, where the rear side door (36) faces forward or toward the front end (16) of the vehicle body (14), and the door assembly (10) includes a striker or latch member attached to the forward end (40) of the rear side door (36) for engagement and disengagement with a latch on a rear end (44) of the front side door (34) (i.e. the front and rear doors latch together) (e.g. Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the portal-style door system of Baur, with the feature of locking the front door from the rear door in the system of Castillo, in order to prevent unintentional opening of doors while the vehicle is moving (see at least Paragraph [0018] of Castillo).
As per Claim 2, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Baur further discloses the features of wherein the step of unlocking the front door also includes unlatching the front door from the frame (e.g. Paragraph [0018]; Figures 1, 2a-c; where the front door (4) has a locking element (15) on the vehicle body, which locks or unlocks the front door (4) to or from the frame).
As per Claim 4, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Baur further teaches the features of wherein the front door in the rear door clear position remains within the single access aperture (e.g. Figures 3a-d; where the front door remains in the body of the vehicle).
As per Claim 5, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Baur further discloses the features of wherein the step of moving the rear door to the rear door open position includes operating the rear door via the controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0007], [0012], [0018]; where the doors can be operated by a remote control switch, or electrically or electro-mechanically to open or close).
As per Claim 6, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Baur further discloses the features of wherein after the rear door is moved to the rear door open position, the front door is moved from the rear door clear position to a front door closed position (e.g. Figures 2a-c; where the front door (4) is closed when the rear door (6) is cleared and open).
As per Claim 7, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 6, and Baur further discloses the features of wherein when the rear door is moved toward a rear door closed position, the front door is moved from the front door closed position to the rear door clear position (e.g. Paragraph [0019]; where the front door (40) is moved from its closed position to its intermediate position (16), and the rear door (6) is pivoted to its intermediate position (19) and then fully swings open; and the closing of the rear door (6) is done in the opposite order- where the rear door (6) pivots from the open to its intermediate position (19) to its closed position, and the front door (4) then pivots from its intermediate position (16) to its closed position).
As per Claim 21, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Castillo further teaches the features of wherein the step of unlatching the rear door includes disengaging a latching assembly that extends between the front door and rear door.
Castillo teaches a dual-axis door hinge assembly for vehicles, where the rear side door (36) faces forward or toward the front end (16) of the vehicle body (14), and the door assembly (10) includes a striker or latch member attached to the forward end (40) of the rear side door (36) for engagement and disengagement with a latch on a rear end (44) of the front side door (34) (i.e. the latch is disposed between the front and rear doors) (e.g. Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the portal-style door system of Baur, with the feature of locking the front door from the rear door in the system of Castillo, in order to prevent unintentional opening of doors while the vehicle is moving (see at least Paragraph [0018] of Castillo).
As per Claim 22, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Baur further teaches the features of wherein the step of disengaging the latching assembly includes disengaging a sealing assembly that is disposed between the front and the rear door (e.g. Figures 1, 2a-c; where a sealing element (13) is engaged with a sealing surface (12) between the front door (4) and rear door (6) when the doors are closed, and disengaged when the doors are open/ opening).
As per Claim 23, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 2, and Baur further teaches the features of wherein the step of moving, via the controller, the front door to the rear door clear position includes unsealing the front door relative to the rear door when the rear door is in the rear door closed position (e.g. Figures 2a-b; where a sealing element (13) is engaged with a sealing surface (12) between the front door (4) and rear door (6) when the doors are closed, and disengaged when the doors are open/ opening; and the front door is disengaged from the sealing surface when opening).
As per Claim 25, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Baur further discloses the features of wherein the step of unsealing the front door relative to the rear door includes operating a mechanical sealing assembly to an actuated position that is moved away from a gap defined between the front door and the rear door (e.g. Paragraph [0015]; Figures 2a-b; where a sealing element (13) is engaged with a sealing surface (12) between the front door (4) and rear door (6) when the doors are closed, and disengaged when the doors are open/ opening; and the front door is disengaged from the sealing surface when opening; and where the sealing element may be an elastomer).
As per Claim 26, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Baur further discloses the features of wherein the step of unlatching the front door relative to the rear door and the step of unsealing the front door relative to the rear door are performed in sequential steps (e.g. Paragraph [0019]; Figures 2a-b; where a door handle is actuated, the system generates a signal to transfer the front door (4) from its closed position to its intermediate position (16), which disengages the locking element and subsequently, the front door is disengaged from the rear door, and the rear door (6) is then pivoted towards its open position (i.e. the system sequentially unlatches the door, then moves the door to disengage the sealing assembly)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur, in view of Castillo, as applied to Claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,487,819 B1, to Goldberg, et al (hereinafter referred to as Goldberg; newly of record).
As per Claim 24, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 23, and Baur further teaches the features of wherein the step of unsealing the front door relative to the rear door includes operating a ‘…’ sealing assembly to an actuated position that is repelled from a gap defined between the front door and the rear door (e.g. Paragraph [0015]; Figures 2a-b; where a sealing element (13) is engaged with a sealing surface (12) between the front door (4) and rear door (6) when the doors are closed, and disengaged when the doors are open/ opening; and the front door is disengaged from the sealing surface when opening; and where the sealing element may be an elastomer).
The combination of Baur, in view of Castillo, fails to teach every feature of operating a magnetic sealing assembly.
However, Goldberg, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for utilizing weather strips for securing a vehicle door and a vehicle, where the vehicle weatherstripping is magnetic (e.g. Col. 3 line 59- Col. 4 line 10; Col. 4 lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the portal-style door system of Baur, in view of Castillo, with the feature of using a magnetic sealing assembly in the system of Goldberg, in order to form a stronger attraction to keep the door sealed (see at least Col. 5 lines 29-60 of Goldberg).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur, in view of Castillo, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0313477 A1, to McKee, et al (hereinafter referred to as McKee; newly of record).
As per Claim 27, Baur, in view of Castillo, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Baur, in view of Castillo, fails to teach every feature of further comprising a step of: communicating to a display the status of the front door relative to a front door open position and the rear door relative to the rear door open position.
However, McKee, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a door assist system, where the controller may include a status display indicating at least one of door switch activation and door position, and may indicate that a door is in an open or closed position (e.g. Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the portal-style door system of Baur, in view of Castillo, with the feature of displaying door status in the system of McKee, in order to permit an operator time to respond to an open or close door activation signal (see at least Paragraph [0064] of McKee).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights