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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid (US 20190337465 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid discloses a door system (Fig. 2) for selectively covering (Fig. 5, can open or close) an opening (3 in Fig. 2) of a vehicle (1 in Fig. 2), the door system comprising: a door (4 in Fig. 2) configured to move between a closed position (Fig. 2), in which the door is configured to be disposed within the opening of the vehicle, and an open position (Fig. 5, pivot away from vehicle body), in which the door is configured to be spaced from the opening of the vehicle, wherein the door comprises: an interior surface (Fig. 1 shows interior view) configured to face an interior (6 in Fig. 2) of the vehicle in the closed position; an exterior surface (see annotated Fig. 5) configured to face an exterior of the vehicle in the closed position; and a lateral surface (see annotated Fig. 5) that extends between the interior surface and the exterior surface and spaced from the opening of the vehicle in the open position; and an object receiving portion (12 in Fig. 1, receives a smartphone 16) extending from the door (Fig. 1, extending from interior surface of the door) and configured to support an object (16 in Fig. 1), with the object receiving portion configured to move (Fig. 3 and paragraph 46) relative to the interior surface between a first position (22 in Fig. 3) when the door is in the closed position and a second position (20 in Fig. 5) when the door is in the open position, wherein the object receiving portion is closer to the lateral surface in the second position than the first position (see annotated Fig. 5, position 20 is closer to the lateral surface than position 22).
Examiner notes that the limitation, “object receiving portion”, is not interpreted under 112(f) because “extending from the door” imposed sufficient structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 5 from Schmid
Regarding claim 2, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 1, wherein the object receiving portion is configured to translate relative to the interior surface between the first position and the second position (Fig. 3 and paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 12, Schmid discloses a door system (Fig. 2) for selectively covering (Fig. 5, can open or close) an opening (3 in Fig. 2) of a vehicle (1 in Fig. 2), the door system comprising: a door (4 in Fig. 2) comprising: an interior surface (Fig. 1 shows interior view) configured to face an interior (6 in Fig. 2) of the vehicle; and an exterior surface (see annotated Fig. 5) configured to face an exterior of the vehicle; an object receiving portion (12 in Fig. 1, receives a smartphone 16) extending from the door (Fig. 1, extending from interior surface of the door) and configured to support an object (16 in Fig. 1), with the object receiving portion configured to move relative (Fig. 3 and paragraph 46) to the interior surface between a first position (22 in Fig. 3) and a second position (20 in Fig. 5); and an actuator (paragraph 55 and 59, motor) coupled to the object receiving portion and configured to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position (paragraph 59).
Examiner notes that the limitation, “object receiving portion”, is not interpreted under 112(f) because “extending from the door” imposed sufficient structure.
Regarding claim 15, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 12, wherein the object receiving portion is configured to translate relative to the interior surface between the first position and the second position (Fig. 3 and paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 16, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 15, wherein the door includes a rail (25a/25b in Fig. 2) disposed within the door, with the object receiving portion slidably coupled to the rail and configured to translate relative to the interior surface (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 17, Schmid discloses a vehicle (1 in Fig. 2) comprising: a body (2 in Fig. 2) defining an interior (6 in Fig. 2); an interior surface (Fig. 1 shows interior view) disposed within the interior; an object receiving portion (12 in Fig. 1, receives a smartphone 16) extending into the interior (Fig. 2) and configured to support an object (16 in Fig. 1), with the object receiving portion configured to move (Fig. 3 and paragraph 46) relative to the interior surface between a first position (22 in Fig. 3) and a second position (20 in Fig. 5); and an actuator (paragraph 55 and 59, motor) coupled to the object receiving portion and configured to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position (paragraph 59).
Examiner notes that the limitation, “object receiving portion”, is not interpreted under 112(f) because “extending into the interior” imposed sufficient structure.
Regarding claim 18, Schmid discloses the vehicle of claim 17, further comprising a door (4 in Fig. 2) movably coupled (Fig. 2 and 5, can close or open) to the body, with the door at least partially comprising the interior surface (Fig. 1) such that the object receiving portion moves relative to the door between the first position and the second position (Fig. 3, movement indicated by arrow P12).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ardigo (US 20120133168 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 1, further comprising a door release (Schmid, paragraph 52-53, can be a button on the object receiving portion 12, unlocks the door and opens the door automatically) configured to be manipulated by a passenger to facilitate movement of the door from the closed position to the open position, with the door release coupled to the object receiving portion (Schmid, paragraph 52).
Schmid fails to disclose the door release configured to move the object receiving portion from the first position to the second position.
Ardigo teaches the door release configured to move the object receiving portion from the first position to the second position (Ardigo, paragraph 5-6, user can hold on the handle portion – door release – to open/close the door and translate the handle relative to door interior surface; Schmid also teaches a handle portion on the object receiving portion in paragraph 9).
Ardigo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door slidable handles as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Ardigo with a reasonable expectation of success and have a door release that opens/closes the door and moves the object receiving portion. Doing so allows users to control the door while adjusting gripping positions to allow the most comfortable gripping position during door movement.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh (KR 102262092 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 1, but fails to disclose a magnet coupled to the object receiving portion and configured to magnetically retain the object to the object receiving portion.
Oh teaches a magnet (Oh, 211 in Fig. 2) coupled to the object receiving portion and configured to magnetically retain the object to the object receiving portion (Oh, Fig. 2-3, coupled with magnet 122 on an object 100).
Oh is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle smartphone support as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Oh with a reasonable expectation of success and have magnets. Doing so provides both retaining means for the smartphone/case and for charging the device.
Regarding claim 11, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 1, but fails to disclose a case comprising a magnet having a first polarity, wherein the object receiving portion comprises a ferrous material or a magnetic material having a second polarity, opposite the first polarity, with the case configured to be magnetically retained to the object receiving portion.
Oh teaches a case (Oh, 100 in Fig. 3) comprising a magnet (Oh, 122 in Fig. 3) having a first polarity (Oh, Fig. 3, since it’s magnet, it will have a polarity), wherein the object receiving portion comprises a ferrous material or a magnetic material (Oh, 211 in Fig. 2) having a second polarity (Oh, Fig. 2, since it’s magnet, it will have a polarity), opposite the first polarity (Oh, Fig. 2-3, they coupled to each other and only opposite polarities allow attachment/attraction, same polarity will repel), with the case configured to be magnetically retained (Oh, Fig. 1) to the object receiving portion.
Oh is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle smartphone support as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Oh with a reasonable expectation of success and have a case and magnets. Doing so provides both retaining means for the smartphone/case and for charging the device.
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid as applied to claims 12 and 17 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20150340173 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Schmid discloses the door system of claim 12, further comprising a controller (Schmid, paragraph 63), an input (Schmid, paragraph 56, button), and with the controller configured to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position (Schmid, paragraph 19, controller moves the object receiving portion).
Schmid fails to disclose the controller in communication with the actuator and the input in communication with the controller, with the input configured to send an input signal to the controller and with the controller configured to send an output signal to the actuator to command the actuator to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position.
Suzuki teaches the controller in communication with the actuator (Suzuki, paragraph 28, controller 200 in communication with actuator 25) and the input in communication with the controller (Suzuki, paragraph 28, input 70A in communication with controller 200), with the input configured to send an input signal to the controller (Suzuki, paragraph 28) and with the controller configured to send an output signal (Suzuki, paragraph 28, sends output signal to motor/actuator) to the actuator to command the actuator to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position (after combination).
Suzuki is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door mounted control system for control vehicle parts as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success and have the controller, the input, and the actuator in communication with each other. Doing so provides an input that can control the movements of the object receiving portion, making the system more convenient.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schmid in view of Suzuki teaches the door system of claim 13, wherein the input includes a selection surface (Suzuki, paragraph 28-29, touch surface that can be touch by a passenger to operate different functions 70A or 70B) configured to be contacted by a passenger to send the input signal to the controller (Suzuki, paragraph 28-29).
Suzuki is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door mounted control system for control vehicle parts as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success and use a touch surface or selection surface. Doing so allows easier interaction since less force is needed as compare to pressing a button, and having no moving parts like in a button prevents parts wearing over time.
Regarding claim 19, Schmid discloses the vehicle of claim 17, further comprising a controller (Schmid, paragraph 63), an input (Schmid, paragraph 56, button), and with the controller configured to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position (Schmid, paragraph 19, controller moves the object receiving portion).
Schmid fails to disclose the controller in communication with the actuator and the input in communication with the controller, with the input configured to send an input signal to the controller and with the controller configured to send an output signal to the actuator to command the actuator to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position.
Suzuki teaches the controller in communication with the actuator (Suzuki, paragraph 28, controller 200 in communication with actuator 25) and the input in communication with the controller (Suzuki, paragraph 28, input 70A in communication with controller 200), with the input configured to send an input signal to the controller (Suzuki, paragraph 28) and with the controller configured to send an output signal (Suzuki, paragraph 28, sends output signal to motor/actuator) to the actuator to command the actuator to move the object receiving portion between the first position and the second position (after combination).
Suzuki is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door mounted control system for control vehicle parts as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success and have the controller, the input, and the actuator in communication with each other. Doing so provides an input that can control the movements of the object receiving portion, making the system more convenient.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Schmid in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 19, wherein the input includes a selection surface (Suzuki, paragraph 28-29, touch surface that can be touch by a passenger to operate different functions 70A or 70B) configured to be contacted by a passenger to send the input signal to the controller (Suzuki, paragraph 28-29).
Suzuki is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door mounted control system for control vehicle parts as Schmid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Schmid to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success and use a touch surface or selection surface. Doing so allows easier interaction since less force is needed as compare to pressing a button, and having no moving parts like in a button prevents parts wearing over time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the object receiving portion extends outwardly from the lateral surface in the second position. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art is Fitzpatrick et al. (US 20180186253 A1), which teaches an object receiving portion 22 in Fig. 3 moving between two positions (Fig. 3-4). Fig. 4 shows 22 extending outwardly from the lateral surface. However, Fitzpatrick fails to teach the object receiving portion 22 is closer to the lateral surface in the second position than the first position as required by claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle door interior surface mounted object receiving portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612