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, 4, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al. (US 20050279549 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurtz discloses a vehicle closure member system (Fig. 3), comprising: a hinge assembly (Fig. 4) including a body-side hinge bracket (130 in Fig. 4) and door-side hinge bracket (132 in Fig. 4) that is movably connected to the body-side hinge bracket by a pivot pin (paragraph 30); and a bottle opener feature (edge 142 in Fig. 4 can be used to open a bottle) at least partially provided by a portion of the body-side hinge bracket.
Although Kurtz does not teach the edge portion can be used to open a bottle, it teaches a structure that is capable to be used as a bottle opener. See attached NPL - quora answer any edge accessed 02072026, where it is known that “any 90 degree or better edge of a sufficiently stiff material will be sufficient to pry the teeth of a bottle cap open enough to remove the cap.” Additionally, NPL - YouTube - BuzzFeedVideo - Ways to Open A Beer Without A Bottle Opener 01212016 teaches at time 0:34 of the video (last page of NPL includes a screenshot) that one can open a bottle with an edge of a bracket part on a door.
Regarding claim 4, Kurtz discloses the vehicle closure member system as recited in claim 1, wherein the portion is a contact edge (Fig. 4, 142 is a contact edge) of an arm (Fig. 4, 142 is on the arm part of the bracket 130) of the body-side hinge bracket.
Regarding claim 6, Kurtz discloses the vehicle closure member system as recited in claim 4, wherein the body-side hinge bracket is mounted to a hinge attach bracket (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 4 from Kurtz
Regarding claim 11, Kurtz discloses the vehicle (abstract), comprising: a vehicle body (Fig. 2-3); a closure member (110 in Fig. 3) movable between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 3) relative to the vehicle body; and a first hinge assembly (Fig. 4) configured to movably support the closure member relative to the vehicle body, wherein the first hinge assembly includes an integrated bottle opener feature (edge 142 in Fig. 4 can be used to open a bottle) that is concealed when the closure member is in the closed position (Fig. 2, concealed from exterior) and exposed for use (Fig. 3) when the closure member is in the open position.
Regarding claim 12, Kurtz discloses the vehicle as recited in claim 11, wherein the first hinge assembly includes a body-side hinge bracket (130 in Fig. 4) that provides the integrated bottle opener feature.
Regarding claim 13, Kurtz discloses the vehicle as recited in claim 12, wherein the body-side hinge bracket is secured to a hinge attach bracket (see annotated Fig. 4), and the hinge attach bracket is mounted to the vehicle body (Fig. 4 and paragraph 30).
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.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Queveau et al. (FR 2892345 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kurtz discloses the vehicle closure member system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose the body-side hinge bracket is at least partially concealed by a trim piece.
Queveau teaches the body-side hinge bracket is at least partially concealed by a trim piece (Queveau, last paragraph on page 4 of machine translation NPL, plastic cap is a trim piece; Kurtz teaches nuts and bolts for the bracket in Fig. 4, the plastic cap trim piece of Queveau will conceal part of the bracket).
Queveau is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hinged door with bolt and nut connection as Kurtz.
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 Kurtz to incorporate the teachings of Queveau with a reasonable expectation of success and have a plastic cap trim piece. Doing so provides aesthetic appeal (Queveau, last paragraph on page 4 of machine translation NPL) and protection to the bolt and nut connection location.
Regarding claim 16, Kurtz discloses the vehicle closure member system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose the first hinge assembly is at least partially concealed by a trim piece.
Queveau teaches the first hinge assembly is at least partially concealed by a trim piece (Queveau, last paragraph on page 4 of machine translation NPL, plastic cap is a trim piece; Kurtz teaches nuts and bolts for the bracket in Fig. 4, the plastic cap trim piece of Queveau will conceal part of the bracket, and therefore the hinge assembly).
Queveau is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hinged door with bolt and nut connection as Kurtz.
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 Kurtz to incorporate the teachings of Queveau with a reasonable expectation of success and have a plastic cap trim piece. Doing so provides aesthetic appeal (Queveau, last paragraph on page 4 of machine translation NPL) and protection to the bolt and nut connection location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9-10, 14-15, 17-22 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 contact edge is part of a lower wall that bounds a recessed cavity of the arm as claimed in claim 5; the contact edge and a contact surface of the hinge attach bracket cooperate to apply an opening force for removing a bottle cap from a bottle as claimed in claim 7; a bottle cap catch feature is provided by the trim piece as claimed in claims 9 and 17; the integrated bottle opener feature is established by a contact edge of an arm of the body-side hinge bracket and a contact surface of a lower edge of the hinge attach bracket as claimed in claim 14; and an interior side of the body-side hinge bracket includes a recessed cavity, and a lower wall that bounds the recessed cavity includes a contact edge as claimed in claim 21. The closest prior art Kurtz fails to teach the additional structural details of the bottle opener feature and catch feature as required by the above objected claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited reference that is not relied upon discloses a vehicle door hinge bracket with a slot that shaped similar to a bottle opener.
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