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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hinge portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the magnets" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the magnets" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gasper (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0113817).
Re claim 1, Gasper discloses a collapsible vehicle door for use with a vehicle, the collapsible vehicle door comprising a flexible frame (30, figure 4) formed in a shape of an opening in a vehicle door frame (the opening formed by 71 and 18 through which passengers pass when entering as shown in figure 4) and a flexible cover piece (33, figure 4) mounted to the frame so as to be at least partially detachable from the frame (by the zipper 27 in figure 4) wherein both the frame and the cover piece are rollable into a spiral wound configuration when the cover piece is mounted to the frame (see paragraph 0037 which discloses the winding of the structures 30 and 33).
Re claim 2, the frame is formed as a single piece (30) so as to provide a single perimeter that frames a portion of the cover piece (it frames the front of the flexible cover piece 33 in figure 4) when the cover piece is mounted to the frame.
Re claim 3, the single perimeter of the frame matches a contour of the vehicle door frame (the perimeter of 30 matches the shape of the vehicle door frame as shown in figure 4).
Re claim 7, the cover piece is further secured to the flexible frame piece by a fastener selected from the group consisting of zippers (27, figure 4), buttons, magnets and clips.
Re claim 8, the cover piece includes a transparent window area (the upper portion of 33 in figure 4).
Re claim 10, the flexible frame is comprised of a material selected from the group consisting of plastics (the transparent portion of 30 is formed from plastic, see paragraph 0028) and carbon fiber composites.
Re claim 16, Gasper discloses a method for deploying a collapsible vehicle door, wherein the collapsible vehicle door comprises a flexible frame (30, figure 4) formed in a shape of an opening in a vehicle door frame (the opening formed by 71 and 18 through which passengers pass when entering as shown in figure 4), a flexible cover piece (33, figure 4) mounted to the frame, both the frame and the cover piece being rollable into a spiral wound configuration when the cover piece is mounted to the frame, wherein the deploying method comprises the steps of unrolling the frame and mounted cover piece from the spiral wound configuration (see paragraph 0037 which discloses the winding of the structures 30 and 33); and securing an unrolled portion of the frame to a vehicle door frame (as shown by figure 4, the device is secured to the vehicle).
Re claim 17, the cover piece is mounted to the frame so as to be completely detachable from the frame (by the zipper 27, figure 4).
Re claim 18, the cover piece is attached to the frame using a zipper (27, figure 4).
Re claim 19, a first side of the zipper is attached to the frame and a second, mating side of the zipper is attached to the cover piece (as shown by figure 4).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasper (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0113817) in view of Schutt (US Patent 6,464,285).
Gasper discloses all of the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the cover piece includes a plurality of sealant strips.
Schutt teaches using sealing strips (23) for zippers.
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 cover piece, such as that disclosed by Gasper, to have a plurality of sealant strips for each of the zippers attached to it, as taught by Schutt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order keep precipitation out of the interior of the vehicle for the comfort of the vehicle passengers and the protection of equipment inside the vehicle.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasper (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0113817) in view of Sappington et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0183808).
Gasper discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for magnets sewn into channels inside the cover piece wherein the collapsible vehicle door includes a sewn in seam extending from the top front corner of the collapsible vehicle door to the bottom of the collapsible vehicle door.
Sappington et al. teaches magnets (8) sewn into channels (pockets, see paragraphs 0070-0072) inside a cover piece wherein the collapsible vehicle door includes a sewn in seam (20, figure 5B) extending from the top front corner of the collapsible vehicle door to the bottom of the 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 Gasper, to have magnets sewn into channels inside a cover piece wherein the collapsible vehicle door includes a sewn in seam extending from the top front corner of the collapsible vehicle door to the bottom of the collapsible vehicle door, as taught by Sappington, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use a fastening mechanism that is more long-term reliable than zippers (see Sappington, paragraphs 0034-0035) and to replace the zippers of Gasper.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasper (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0113817) in view of Sappington et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0183808) as applied to claims above, and further in view of KJ (www.kjmagnetics.com).
Gasper in view of Sappington et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above , except for the magnets being selected from the group consisting essentially of neodymium iron boron, samarium cobalt and aluminum- nickel-cobalt alloy magnets, the magnets being round and are sized from about 0.5 to about one inch in diameter and from about 0.125 to about 0.5 inches in thickness, and the ratio of diameter to thickness of the magnets being in a range of from about 8:1 to 1:1.
KJ teaches using neodymium iron boron magnets, 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, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 9,004,574 (Fisher) teaches a roll-up vehicle door.
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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights