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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 190, 220. 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. 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.
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 transparent window area in claim 8, a plurality of sealant strips in figure 9, and the magnets sewn into channels inside the cover piece in claim 11, and the securing portion in claims 4-6 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the phrase, “portion the secures” should be changed to --portion that secures--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are 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 claims contain 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.
In claim 1, applicant claims, “a flexible frame that can be rolled into a collapsed configuration”. Applicant fails to describe how the frame is made rigid enough to act as a frame and still be flexible enough to be rolled. On page 4 of the specification, in the final lines of the page and continuing on page 5, lines 1-11, applicant does not disclose how the frame is shaped, its dimensions, or the specific material it is constructed of. At most, the frame is generally described as being constructed in any suitable way or from any suitable material. However, this does not disclose the process of making the frame, 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 the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention
In claim 4, applicant claims, “a securing portion that secures the hinge portion to the frame”. Applicant fails to describe what this securing portion is or how it operates to secure the hinge portion to the frame. No description whatsoever of the securing portion appears in the specification. In addition, in clams 5 and 6, the securing portion is claimed as having a through hole which is not shown or described in the specification. The hole is not referred to in the detailed description of the invention.
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 1-4, 7, 8, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US Patent 2,682,427) in view of Howie et al. (US Patent 8,708,027) and KJ (www.kjmgagnetics.com).
Re claims 1 and 13-15, Bright discloses a collapsible vehicle door for use with a vehicle, the collapsible vehicle door comprising a flexible frame (64, figure 2) that can be rolled into a collapsed configuration (see column 1, lines 39-45 which describes how the frame is collapsed and rolled), wherein the flexible frame comprises two sides, a top and a bottom (see the annotated figure below); a latch (see the annotated figure below) secured to the flexible frame piece; a hinge portion secured to the flexible frame piece (see the annotated figure below); and a cover piece (figure 4 shows the entire cover piece) comprising three evenly spaced clips along the top and bottom of the flexible frame and four evenly spaced clips along one side of the flexible frame (see the annotated figure below), wherein the deploying method comprises the steps of releasing the flexible frame from a collapsed configuration (shown in figure 5) , stretching the cover piece over the vehicle cabin (the stretched out cover position is shown in figure 1), and sliding the clips farther apart (the clips are slid farther apart from the rolled condition to the installed position shown in figure 1) until a desired fit is achieved.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bright does not disclose using magnets in substitution of the clips, four evenly spaced clips along a second side of the flexible frame, the magnets being characterized as being capable of producing a coercive magnetic field strength of at least 1,000 oersted, the magnets being neodymium iron boron, or the magnets being round and sized from about 0.5 to about one inch in diameter and from about .125 to about 0.5 inches in thickness.
Howie et al. teaches using magnets in substitution of clips (see column 4, lines 10-12).
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 collapsible vehicle door, such as that disclosed by Bright, to use magnets in substitution of clips, as taught by Howie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Howie teaches that magnets can be used instead of clips and it appears the device would perform equally well with a variety of fasteners including magnets (see Howie et al, column 4, lines 8-15).
KJ teaches using neodymium iron boron magnets that have a coercive magnetic field strength (N52 magnets) of at least 1000 oersted, the magnets being neodymium iron boron, the magnets being round and sized from about 0.5 to about one inch in diameter and from about .125 to about 0.5 inches in thickness, and wherein the ratio of diameter to thickness of the magnets is in a range of from about 8:1 to 1:1.
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 collapsible vehicle door, such as that disclosed in the suggested combination above, to use neodymium iron boron magnets having a coercive magnetic field strength of at least 1000 oersted and the magnets being round and sized from about 0.5 to about one inch in diameter and from about .125 to about 0.5 inches in thickness, and wherein the ratio of diameter to thickness of the magnets is in a range of from about 8:1 to 1:1, as taught by KJ, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use magnets strong enough to keep the door assembly together while the vehicle to which the door is attached is in motion.
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 collapsible vehicle door, such as that disclosed above by the combination of references, to have four evenly spaced clips along a second side of the flexible frame, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and doing so would further secure the cover to the frame. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Re claim 2, Bright further discloses the frame having a single perimeter (the perimeter of the frame is shown in figure 2).
Re claim 3, Bright further discloses the single perimeter of the frame matches a contour of a door frame of the vehicle (the bottom of the frame is matched to the contour of the door frame) .
Re claim 4, Bright further discloses the hinge portion has a securing portion (at 66 in figure 2) the secures the hinge portion to the frame, and a pin portion (at 59 in figure 2) connected to the securing portion and configured to attach to a vehicle hinge portion of a vehicle door frame.
Re claim 7, Bright further discloses the cover piece is further secured to the flexible frame piece by a fastener selected from the group consisting of zippers, buttons, and clips (130, 131).
Re claim 8, Bright further discloses the cover piece includes a transparent window area (135).
Re claim 10, Bright in view of Howie et al. and KJ, as applied above, does not disclose the flexible frame being comprised of a material selected from the group consisting of plastics and carbon fiber composites.
The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of plastic is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a collapsible vehicle door, such as that disclosed by the combination of Bright in view of Howie et al. and KJ, as applied above, to have the flexible frame be comprised of plastic, as is old and well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, (CCPA 1960). Using plastic to construct at least a portion of the frame, as a washer or a coating for example, would be desirable to reduce costs in the production of the device or to protect it from corrosion.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US Patent 2,682,427) in view of Howie et al. (US Patent 8,708,027) and KJ (www.kjmagnetics.com), as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 13-16 above, and further in view of Rafeld (US Patent 10,106,019).
Bright, Howie et al., and KJ disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the cover piece including a plurality of sealant strips.
Rafeld teaches using sealant strips (see column 6, lines 49-55) with a collapsible vehicle door.
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 collapsible vehicle door, such as that disclosed by the combination of Bright, Howie et al., and KJ above, to have the cover piece include a plurality of sealant strips, as taught by Rafeld, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to keep water out of the interior of the vehicle to which the door is attached.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US Patent 2,682,427) in view of Howie et al. (US Patent 8,708,027) and KJ (www.kjmgagnetics.com), as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 13-16 above, and further in view of Goldstein et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0217704).
Bright, Howie et al., and KJ disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the magnets (144) being sewn into channels inside the cover piece.
Goldstein et al. teaches magnets (144) being sewn into channels (see paragraph 0040, pockets or sleeves provide the channels) inside a cover piece.
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 collapsible vehicle door, such as that disclosed by the combination of Bright, Howie et al., and KJ above, to have the magnets be sewn into channels inside the cover piece, as taught by Goldstein et al., in order to attach the magnets in a permanent manner to prevent their separation from the vehicle door.
Re claim 12, Bright further discloses a sewn in seam ( the sewn seam can be seen at 134, in figures 3 and 6) extending from the top front corner of the collapsible vehicle door to the bottom of the collapsible vehicle door.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose vehicle doors.
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 (517) 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
February 17, 2026