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.
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, 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osti et al. US 10,450,785 in view of Thorpe et al. US 8,628,141.
Regarding claim 1, Osti et al. disclose:
A wedge system comprising: a receiver (22; Fig. 4b); a wedge (12; Fig. 4b below) that is received within the receiver (as shown in Fig. 4b below) when a moveable vehicle panel (namely a trunk lid; col. 3, line 16) is in a closed position (Fig. 4b), and wherein the wedge (12; Fig. 4b) stabilizes movement of the moveable vehicle panel (trunk lid; col. 3, line 16) along a first axis (see annotated Fig. 4b below) along a second axis (see annotated Fig. 4b below) and along a third axis (see annotated Fig. 4b below); and the wedge (12; Fig. 4b) is insertable within the receiver along the third axis, as can be seen when comparing Fig. 4a to Fig. 4b and with elements pointed out in annotated Fig. 4b below.
PNG
media_image1.png
807
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Osti et al. do not disclose that the wedge and receiver are positioned relative to the trunk and vehicle structure so that the first axis is a lateral axis extending across a vehicle width, the second axis is a longitudinal axis extending along a vehicle length, the third axis is along a vertical axis extending along a vehicle height or that the third axis direction in which the wedge is insertable within the receiver is along the vertical axis.
Notwithstanding, Thorpe et al. disclose a wedge and receiver arrangement (see annotated Fig. 4 below) of a trunk of a sedan (col. 5, line 8) where: “Each of the first sub-system 46 (Fig. 4) and the second sub-system 48 (Fig. 4) are disposed on opposing lateral sides of the closure panel 26 (Fig. 1), across a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 20 (Fig. 1)” as disclosed in col. 4, lines 61-64. Therefore, this excerpt from the specification defines a first, lateral axis out of the page in Fig. 4 and extending across a vehicle width, a second, longitudinal axis (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending along a vehicle length, a third, a vertical axis (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending along a vehicle height, where the wedge is insertable within the receiver is along the vertical axis, as can be seen when comparing Figs 2 and 3.
Therefore, it 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 to arrange the trunk wedge arrangement of Osti et al. so that the first axis is a lateral axis extending across a vehicle width, the second axis is a longitudinal axis extending along a vehicle length, the third axis is along a vertical axis extending along a vehicle height or that the third axis direction in which the wedge is insertable within the receiver is along the vertical axis as taught by Thorpe et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because wedge and receiver arrangements on either side of the trunk lid rather than elsewhere, such as at the end region thereof, is more effective at stabilizing the trunk lid in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image2.png
773
953
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Osti et al. disclose:
A wedge system comprising: a vehicle structure (namely a vehicle body) naturally defining a lateral axis extending along a vehicle width, a longitudinal axis extending along a vehicle length, and a vertical axis extending along a vehicle height; a panel (namely a trunk lid; col. 3, line 16) naturally moveable relative to the vehicle structure between an open position and a closed position; a receiver (22; Fig. 4b) mounted to the vehicle structure (while cooperating the wedge is mounted to the closure (trunk); see col. 2, line 60); and a wedge (12; Fig. 4b above) mounted to the panel (see col. 2, line 60), wherein the wedge is insertable along a third axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above) and is received within the receiver (22; Fig. 4b) when the panel (namely a trunk lid; col. 3, line 16) is in the closed position (where such closed position is shown in Fig. 4b) wherein the wedge stabilizes movement of the panel along a first axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above), along a second axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above), and along a third axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above).
However, Osti et al. does not disclose that the wedge and receiver are positioned relative to the trunk and vehicle structure so that the a first axis is a lateral axis, the second axis is a longitudinal axis and the third axis is a vertical axis.
Notwithstanding, Thorpe et al. disclose a wedge and receiver arrangement (see annotated Fig. 4 below) of a trunk of a sedan (col. 5, line 8) where: “Each of the first sub-system 46 (Fig. 4) and the second sub-system 48 (Fig. 4) are disposed on opposing lateral sides of the closure panel 26 (Fig. 1), across a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 20 (Fig. 1)” as disclosed in col. 4, lines 61-64. Therefore, this excerpt from the specification defines a first, lateral axis out of the page in Fig. 4 and extending across a vehicle width, a second, longitudinal axis (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending along a vehicle length, a third, a vertical axis (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending along a vehicle height, where the wedge is insertable within the receiver is along the vertical axis, as can be seen when comparing Figs 2 and 3.
Therefore, it 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 to arrange the trunk wedge arrangement of Osti et al. so that the first axis is a lateral axis, the second axis is a longitudinal axis and the third axis is a vertical axis as taught by Thorpe et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because wedge and receiver arrangements on either side of the trunk lid rather than elsewhere, such as at the end region thereof, is more effective at stabilizing the trunk lid in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Osti et al. disclose:
A method comprising: providing a fixed vehicle structure (namely the vehicle body (including body panel 72; Figs 4a and 4b) on which the closure panel (a trunk lid; col. 3, line 16) is mounted) naturally defining a lateral axis extending along a vehicle width, a longitudinal axis extending along a vehicle length, and a vertical axis extending along a vehicle height; mounting a wedge receiver (22; Fig. 4b) to the fixed vehicle structure body panel 72; Figs 4a and 4b); mounting a wedge (12; Fig. 4b above) to the panel; and inserting the wedge into the wedge receiver (as shown by comparing Figs. 4a and 4b) along a third axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above) when moving the panel to the closed position to stabilize movement of the panel along a first axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above), along a second axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above), and along a third axis (see annotated Fig. 4b above).
However, Osti et al. does not disclose that the wedge and receiver are positioned relative to the trunk and vehicle structure so that the a first axis is a lateral axis, the second axis is a longitudinal axis and the third axis is a vertical axis.
Notwithstanding, Thorpe et al. disclose a wedge and receiver arrangement (see annotated Fig. 4 below) of a trunk of a sedan (col. 5, line 8) where: “Each of the first sub-system 46 (Fig. 4) and the second sub-system 48 (Fig. 4) are disposed on opposing lateral sides of the closure panel 26 (Fig. 1), across a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 20 (Fig. 1)” as disclosed in col. 4, lines 61-64. Therefore, this excerpt from the specification defines a first, lateral axis out of the page in Fig. 4 and extending across a vehicle width, a second, longitudinal axis (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending along a vehicle length, a third, a vertical axis (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending along a vehicle height, where the wedge is insertable within the receiver is along the vertical axis, as can be seen when comparing Figs 2 and 3.
Therefore, it 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 to arrange the trunk wedge arrangement of Osti et al. so that the first axis is a lateral axis, the second axis is a longitudinal axis and the third axis is a vertical axis as taught by Thorpe et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because wedge and receiver arrangements on either side of the trunk lid rather than elsewhere, such as at the end region thereof, is more effective at stabilizing the trunk lid in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, Osti et al., in view of Thorpe et al, disclose:
The method according to claim 16, as explained above, including self-aligning, in that the tapered surfaces (34, 36; of the wedge 12; Fig 4a. of Osti et al.) in cooperation with the tapered surfaces (26, 28; of the receiver 22; Fig 4a. of Osti et al.) allows for variances in position relative to one another that permits the wedge to engage and travel along the receiver so as to become centered as the wedge is inserted, thereby the wedge receiver (22; Fig 4a) is aligned with the wedge (12; Fig 4a) during insertion of the wedge (12; Fig 4a) into the wedge receiver (22; Fig 4a).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osti et al. US 10,450,785 in view of Thorpe US 8,628,141, as applied above to claim 9 and further in view of Westgarth et al. US 10,822,832.
Regarding claim 10, Walther discloses:
The wedge system according to claim 9, as explained above, except for including at least one sensor mounted to the panel.
However, Westgarth et al. disclose a sliding door panel (5; Fig. 1) with a front end (6: Fig. 1), as disclosed in col. 3, line 50. The front end (6: Fig. 1) of the door panel includes a sensor (60; Fig. 4; disclosed in col. 6, line 43) which is shown in Fig. 4 to be mounted on the sliding panel (5; Fig. 1) via its front end (6: Fig. 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Westgarth et al. reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Westgarth et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle sliding doors, as the Walther reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide a sensor on the sliding door panel of Walther as taught by Westgarth et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to sense when the sliding door is fully closed. Motivation provided by Westgarth et al. in col. 6, lines 43-44.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-8, 11-13, and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 14 and 18, the reasons for allowance were presented in the Office action of 10/16/25. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and claims 19-20 depend from claim 18.
The recitation in claim 2 of the wedge comprises a mounting flange with an elongated body that extends generally perpendicularly from the mounting flange to a distal end is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Osti et al. US 10,450,785 in view of Thorpe et al. US 8,628,141 are the only two references of record where the wedge is inserted along a vertical axis. Neither of these references have such a mounting flange with an elongated body that extends generally perpendicularly from the mounting flange to a distal end.
Claims 3-5 depends form claim 2.
The recitation in claim 6 and claim 11 of first and second sloped surfaces extending away from opposing edges of a base surface, and a third sloped surface extending away from the base surface and connecting the first and second sloped surfaces to each other to form a pocket is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Osti et al. US 10,450,785 in view of Thorpe et al. US 8,628,141 are the only two references of record where the wedge is inserted along a vertical axis. Neither receiver has a third sloped surface as recited in these claims.
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 6 and claims 12-13 depend from claim 11.
The recitation in claims 21-23 a first attachment opening at one edge of the receiver and a second attachment opening at an opposite edge of the receiver, the second attachment opening comprising an elongated slot is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Osti et al. US 10,450,785 in view of Thorpe et al. US 8,628,141 are the only two references of record where the wedge is inserted along a vertical axis. Neither receiver of these references has an elongated slot associated therewith as recited in these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, 10, 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Applicant’s argument concerning the new claim language in claims 1, 9 and 16 that “the wedge is inserted along the receiver along a vertical axis” is now moot in view of the above rejections which address such new claim language in claims 1, 9 and 16.
Conclusion
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 Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights