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 .
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 § 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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henseleit et a. (US Patent 9,605,469) in view of Faubert et al. (US Patent 6,079,767).
Re claim 1, Henseleit et al. discloses a door opening assembly for moving a vehicle door of a motorized vehicle between an open position and a closed position, comprising a frame member (213, 215, figure 2) configured to be coupled to a body of the motorized vehicle; a pivot arm assembly (216 and 218, figure 2) coupled at a first end (210 figure 2) about the frame member and pivotally coupled at a second end (226, figure 2) about the vehicle door.
Henseleit et al. does not disclose a gear rack configured to be coupled to the body of the motorized vehicle; and a gear fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack.
Faubert et al. teaches a gear rack (92, figure 5) configured to be coupled to the body of a motorized vehicle, and a gear (208, figure 14) fixed to a door for rotational engagement with the gear rack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have a gear rack configured to be coupled to the body of the motorized vehicle and a gear fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1, lines 58-63).
Re claim 2, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses a link assembly (234, 240 figure 2) coupled between the vehicle door and the frame member, wherein the link assembly includes a cam (232, figure 2) that engages with a cam follower (228, figure 5a) disposed on the pivot assembly.
Re claim 3, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses the link assembly comprises a link (240, figure 2) operably coupled to the frame member and a link arm (234, figure 2) pivotally coupled about the link, wherein the link arm comprises the cam.
Re claim 4, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses the door assembly being used in a motorized vehicle (see the Abstract).
Re claim 5, Henseleit et al. does not disclose the gear rack being fixed below a door opening of the motorized vehicle.
Faubert et al. teaches a gear rack (92, figure 5) being fixed below a door opening (16, figure 2) of a motorized vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have the gear rack be fixed below a door opening of the motorized vehicle, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1, lines 58-63).
Re claim 6, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses the pivot arm assembly comprises a pivot arm (216, figure 2) coupled at the first end of the pivot arm assembly about the frame member, and a pivot bracket (220) pivotally coupled at the second end of the pivot arm assembly about the vehicle door.
Re claim 7, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses a link assembly (234, 240 figure 2) coupled between the vehicle door and the frame member, wherein the link assembly includes a cam (232, figure 2) that engages with a cam follower (228, figure 5a) disposed on the pivot assembly.
Re claim 8, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses a motor (312, figure 3) configured to drive the door between the open position and the closed position.
Re claim 9, Henseleit et al. does not disclose the motor driving the gear.
Faubert et al. teaches a motor (210, figure 10) driving the gear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have the motor drive the gear, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1 lines 58-63).
Re claim 13, Henseleit et al. discloses a wheelchair accessible vehicle comprising a door opening assembly for moving a door between an open position and a closed position, comprising
a frame member (213, 215, figure 2) coupled to a body of the wheelchair accessible vehicle, and a pivot arm assembly (216, 218, figure 2) coupled at a first end (210, figure 2) about the frame member and pivotally coupled at a second end (226, figure 2) about the door.
Henseleit et al. does not disclose a gear rack coupled to the body of the wheelchair accessible vehicle; and a gear fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack.
Faubert et al. teaches a gear rack (92, figure 5) configured to be coupled to a body of the wheelchair accessible vehicle, and a gear (208, figure 14) fixed to a door for rotational engagement with the gear rack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have a gear rack configured to be coupled to the body of the wheelchair accessible vehicle and a gear fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1, lines 58-63).
Re claim 14, Henseleit et al. does not disclose the gear rack being fixed below a door opening of the wheelchair accessible vehicle.
Faubert et al. teaches a gear rack (92, figure 5) being fixed below a door opening (16, figure 2) of a motorized vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have the gear rack be fixed below a door opening of the wheelchair accessible vehicle, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1, lines 58-63).
Re claim 18, Henseleit et al. additionally discloses using a motor (312, figure 3) configured to drive the door between the open position and the closed position.
Re claim 19, Henseleit et al. does not disclose the motor driving the gear.
Faubert et al. teaches a motor(210, figure 10) driving a gear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have the motor drive the gear, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1, lines 58-63).
Re claim 20, Henseleit et al. discloses a method of controlling movement of a vehicle door from a closed position to an open position, the vehicle door being operably coupled to a body of a motorized vehicle, the method comprising providing the motorized vehicle with a frame member (213, 215 figure 2) coupled to the body of the motorized vehicle, a pivot arm assembly (216 and 218, figure 2) coupled at a first end (210, figure 2) about the frame member and pivotally coupled at a second end (226, figure 2) about the vehicle door, and wherein the pivot arm assembly pivots about the frame member.
Henseleit et al. does not disclose a gear rack coupled to the body of the motorized vehicle below a door opening, a gear fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack, a motor and a controller, and driving the motor by the controller to move the door between the closed position and the open position, and the gear traversing a length of the gear rack.
Faubert et al. teaches a gear rack (92, figure 5) coupled to a body of a motorized vehicle below a door opening, a gear (208, figure 14) fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack, a motor (210, figure 10) and a controller (54) ; and, driving the motor by the controller to move the door between the closed position and the open position, and the gear traversing a length of the gear rack
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for controlling a vehicle door, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al., to have a gear rack coupled to the body of the motorized vehicle below a door opening, a gear fixed to the door for rotational engagement with the gear rack, a motor and a controller; and, driving the motor by the controller to move the door between the closed position and the open position, and the gear traversing a length of the gear rack, as taught by Faubert et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a drive mechanism that has improved reliability and performance (see Faubert et al., column 1, lines 58-63).
Claims 10-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henseleit et al. (US Patent 9,605,469) in view of Faubert et al. (US Patent 6,079,767) as applied to claims 1-9, 13, 14, 18-20 above, and further in view of Somnay et al. (US Patent 6,729,072).
Henseleit et al. in view of Faubert et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the gear rack comprises a substantially S- shaped curvature, the gear rack comprises a length defined between its first end and its second end, the gear rack comprising a first arc portion, a second arc portion, and a substantially linear portion, the gear rack comprises a first vertex, a second vertex, and an inflection point located therebetween, wherein the first arc portion is defined between the first end of the gear rack and the inflection point, the second arc portion is defined between the inflection point and the substantially linear portion, the substantially linear portion defined between the second end of the gear rack and the second arc portion.
Somnay et al. teaches a gear rack (22, figure 1) comprises a substantially S- shaped curvature, the gear rack comprises a length defined between its first end and its second end, the gear rack comprising a first arc portion, a second arc portion, and a substantially linear portion, the gear rack comprises a first vertex, a second vertex, and an inflection point located therebetween, wherein the first arc portion is defined between the first end of the gear rack and the inflection point, the second arc portion is defined between the inflection point and the substantially linear portion, the substantially linear portion defined between the second end of the gear rack and the second arc portion. See the annotated figure below for explanation.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door opening assembly, such as that disclosed by Henseleit et al. in view of Faubert et al. above, to have a gear rack comprise a substantially S- shaped curvature, the gear rack comprises a length defined between its first end and its second end, the gear rack comprising a first arc portion, a second arc portion, and a substantially linear portion, the gear rack comprises a first vertex, a second vertex, and an inflection point located therebetween, wherein the first arc portion is defined between the first end of the gear rack and the inflection point, the second arc portion is defined between the inflection point and the substantially linear portion, the substantially linear portion defined between the second end of the gear rack and the second arc portion, as taught by Somnay et al., in order to have rack conform to a variety of openings of different shapes in different models of vehicles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues that the combination of Henseleit and Faubert is improper because the references teach fundamentally different and mechanically incompatible systems. Applicant argues that because Henseleit involves a pivoting door system following a complex arcuate path as it swings out and away from the body and Faubert discloses a sliding door system where the sliding door system moves along a linear or gently curved path, applying the drive system of Faubert to the device of Henseleit would result in a non-functional device. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that as the door in Henseleit pivots outward, the gear fixed to the door would immediately disengage from the stationary gear rack fixed to the vehicle body. While the examiner agrees that using the exact gear rack used in the Faubert reference with the device of Henseleit might result in such non-functionality, one of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware of modifying the shape of the rack of Faubert to match the path of the Henseleit door. Faubert does as much as shown in figure 5 where the shape of the gear rack is matched to the opening path of the door. The gear rack of Faubert is not simply a straight path. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could make such a combination work with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine the references. Applicant asserts that the stated motivation, to use a drive mechanism with “improved reliability and performance” is conclusory and unsupported. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Such a motivation is supported by Faubert in column 1, lines 58-63 which touts the reliability and performance of the geared drive mechanism. Instead, applicant states that the proposed modification “would introduce significant technical challenges and increase complexity, which would logically lead to decreased reliability” which is itself a statement which is conclusory and unsupported.
Finally, applicant argues that Henseleit’s use of a rotary drive system teaches away from the proposed combination. Applicant argues that a skilled artisan seeking to improve Henseleit’s device would be motivated to refine its existing rotary drive and not to look to a different class of door (a sliding door) for a mechanically incompatible linear drive solution. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Using a particular type of drive, in Henseleit’s case a rotary drive, is not a teaching away from using a geared drive system. Henseleit is silent as to whether the rotary drive system is better, worse, or equal to a geared drive system. Simply by using a rotary drive system, Henseleit cannot be said to teach away from a linear drive device. Additionally, applicant seeks to make a distinction between the “sliding” door of Faubert and the “pivoting” door of Henseleit as though they represent a different class of door. While the mechanism may be different, the purpose of both the Faubert and Henseleit doors is the same and that is to move a rear side door of a vehicle in a generally front to rear direction. One of ordinary skill in the art, looking to improve, modify, or change either would be well aware of both the Faubert and Henseleit doors, the various mechanisms, and how they could be combined or modified as they are both seeking to accomplish the same task. The doors are not of a “completely different type” as applicant suggests.
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 Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights