DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 10/12/2023.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1A-2B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Figures 1A and 10 are cad renderings which is not an accepted category for presenting drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(a).
Figure 7 is a cross-sectional view however the drawings do not show where it is taken. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Reference characters such as 100 (figures 4-5), 20 (figure 6), 30 (figure 8), and 200 (figure 12), as non-limiting examples, have underline and missing their respective lead lines. See 37 CFR 1.84(q) for guidance regarding appropriate use of underline and lead line requirement.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 16 - “a main ball bearing…rolling along the path formed by the upper rail”.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract filed on 10/12/2023 is objected as it repeats information given in the title.
Claim Interpretation
In lines 1-2 of claim 14, “wherein the upper rail includes opposite side walls” is brought to applicant’s attention whether this side walls are different than the side walls of the upper rail introduced on claim 13, to which claim 14 depends. Examiner notes that, in light of the drawings, this seems to be the same side walls as such no objections set forth. If this is the same side walls as in claim 13, perhaps this should read --wherein the upper rail includes the opposite side walls--.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 8, “fixedly coupled to an external circumferential surface of the case” should read --fixedly coupled to the external circumferential surface of the case--.
In line 1 of claim 10, “the external tire” should read --an external tire-- or applicant can amend claim 10 to depend to claim 9.
In lines 6-7 of claim 16, “a main ball bearing…rolling along the path formed by the upper rail” is objected. Note that the main ball bearing is rolling on the lower rail as shown in figure 12.
In lines 1-2 of claim 17, “the lower end portion of the shaft” should read --a lower end portion of the shaft-- or applicant can amend claim 17 to depend to claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claim 13-17 is 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 13
Recitations such as “wherein the wheel bearing rolls while being in contact with side walls of the upper rail” on lines 6-7 render the claims indefinite. Note that claim 13 further defines the rail to have an upper rail and lower rail which are located at different positions and claim 1, to which claim 13 depends from, recites “a wheel bearing rotatably provided on an external circumferential surface of the ball bearing assembly and rolling while being in contact with side walls of the rail”. This indefinite issue is set forth because it is unclear how can the wheel bearing, which is provided on the external circumferential surface of the ball bearing assembly, roll and be in contact with the differently-positioned side walls of the upper rail and side walls of the rail.
It seems that claim 13 is directed to the second embodiment in figures 12-13 which seems to be a different embodiment than the invention claimed in claim 1.
Claim 17
Recitations such as “the second end portion of the door arm is interposed and coupled between the lower end portion of the shaft and the upper end portion of the case” renders the claim indefinite. Note that claim 17 recites the lower end portion of the shaft is screwed with the upper end portion of the case as such it would not seem possible for the door arm to be coupled between the lower end portion of the shaft and the upper end portion of the case once both parts are screwed together.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above. All claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected for including the 112 issues of the claim from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alain (FR 2726854).
Claim 1
(Alain discloses) A sliding door apparatus (figures 1-3) for a vehicle (intended use; the door apparatus of Alain can be applied and installed to a vehicle), the sliding door apparatus comprising:
a door (1) for opening and closing a door opening portion formed in a vehicle body (intended use);
a rail (6);
a door arm (3) including a first end portion (vertical end portion attached to the door 1) connected to an internal side of the door (figure 2) and a second end portion (horizontal end portion attached to the 16A) movably engaged to the rail extending in a longitudinal direction (direction along the rail 6) of the vehicle body (figures 1-3);
a ball bearing assembly (22 and 9; figures 2-3) provided at the second end portion of the door arm and moving along a path formed by the rail (figure 3; Excerpt 1 from page 5 of Alain below); and
a wheel bearing (18) rotatably provided on an external circumferential surface of the ball bearing assembly (figures 2-3) and rolling while being in contact with side walls of the rail (Excerpt 2 from page 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
168
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
PNG
media_image2.png
149
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
Claim 2
(Alain discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ball bearing assembly includes:
a shaft (11) coupled to a lower portion of the second end portion of the door arm and extending toward a bottom wall (6C) of the rail (figure 3);
a case (22) coupled to a lower end portion of the shaft (figure 3), wherein the wheel bearing is coupled to an external circumferential surface of the case (figure 3); and
a main ball bearing (9) protruding from a lower end portion of the case and rolling along the path formed by the rail while being in contact with the bottom wall of the rail (figures 2-3).
Claim 3
(Alain discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 2, wherein the door arm is connected to the shaft of the ball bearing assembly by riveting or screwing (via the screw underneath 16A in figure 3; the door arm is connected to the ball bearing assembly by way of the screw underneath 16A).
Claim 7
(Alain discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 2, wherein the case includes a stepped external circumferential surface (see stepped external surface of 22; figure 3).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alain, as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, in view of Mains et al. (US 6195838) (hereinafter “Mains”).
Claim 4
(Alain discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 2.
Alain fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the ball bearing assembly further includes a damper coupled to the lower end portion of the shaft inside the case; and
(ii) absorbing a shock transferred from the bottom wall of the rail.
(i) (However, Mains discloses) wherein a ball bearing assembly (10; Mains figures 1-4) further includes a damper (62; Mains figure 3) coupled to a lower end portion of a shaft (12) inside a case (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the ball bearing assembly of Alain with the damper of Mains, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the predictable and expected benefits of dampening vibration and noise thus reducing damage to the entire door assembly.
(ii) (Alain, as modified above, discloses) the damper absorbing a shock transferred from the bottom wall of the rail (this is inevitably taught via the combination above).
Claim 5
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 4.
Modified Alain fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the ball bearing assembly further includes auxiliary ball bearings provided around the damper inside the case; and
(ii) transferring a load of the door to the damper, and rotating while being in contact with the main ball bearing to rotate the main ball bearing.
(i) (However, Mains discloses) wherein a ball bearing assembly (10) further includes auxiliary ball bearings (50; Mains figure 2) provided around a damper (62) inside a case (16), transferring a load the damper, and rotating while being in contact with a main ball bearing (50) to rotate the main ball bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the ball bearing assembly of Alain with the auxiliary ball bearings of Mains, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional rotational assistance and improving the fluidity of the rotation of the main ball bearing thus creating a lesser friction assembly.
(ii) (Alain, as modified above, discloses) transferring a load of the door to the damper, and rotating while being in contact with the main ball bearing to rotate the main ball bearing (this is inevitably taught via the combination above).
Claim 6
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 2.
Modified Alain fails to disclose wherein the shaft and the case are integrated with each other.
(However, Mains discloses) wherein a shaft (12; Mains figures 2-3) and a case (16) are integrated with each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shaft and case of Alain such that they are integrated as taught by Mains, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a seamless construction while also adding structural stability to the assembly.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alain, as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, in view of Barbosa et al. (DE 102013208738) (hereinafter “Barbosa”).
Claim 8
(Alain discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 2.
Alain fails to disclose wherein the wheel bearing includes:
(i) an internal ring fixedly coupled to an external circumferential surface of the case;
(ii) an external ring spaced from the internal ring at a predetermined interval outside the internal ring, rotating around the internal ring, and rolling along the side walls of the rail; and
(iii) retaining ball bearings provided between the internal ring and the external ring so that the internal ring and the external ring are spaced from each other at the predetermined interval, and rotating while being in contact with the external ring to rotate the external ring.
However, Barbosa teaches:
an internal ring (3; Barbosa figure 1);
an external ring (2) spaced from the internal ring at a predetermined interval outside the internal ring (Barbosa figure 1), rotating around the internal ring (Barbosa figure 1); and
retaining ball bearings (4) provided between the internal ring and the external ring so that the internal ring and the external ring are spaced from each other at the predetermined interval, and rotating while being in contact with the external ring to rotate the external ring (Barbosa figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the wheel bearing of Alain with the wheel bearing of Barbosa, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improving the fluidity and reducing the friction of rotation of the wheel bearing thus reducing noise and vibration.
(Alain, as modified above, discloses)
(i) the internal ring fixedly coupled to an external circumferential surface of the case;
(ii) the external ring rolling along the side walls of the rail (both of these clauses are inevitably taught via the combination above; note that the wheel bearing of Alain is coupled to an external circumferential surface of the case 22).
Claim 11
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 8, wherein the wheel bearing further includes a retainer (Annotated figure 1 below) defining positions of the retaining ball bearings between the internal ring and the external ring (Annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
487
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
Claim 12
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 8, wherein the wheel bearing further includes upper and lower shields (both shown in Annotated figure 1 above) covering upper and lower surfaces of the internal ring and the external ring in a direction perpendicular to the side walls of the rail (Annotated figure 1 above).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alain in view of Barbosa, as applied to claims 8 and 11-12 above, in view of Mains.
Claims 9 and 10
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 8.
Modified Alain fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the wheel bearing further includes an external tire attached to an external circumferential surface of the external ring. (claim 9).
(ii) wherein the external tire of the wheel bearing rolls while being in contact with the side walls of the rail. (claim 10).
(i) (However, Mains discloses) wherein a wheel bearing (41; Mains figure 4) further includes an external tire (64; Mains figure 3) attached to an external circumferential surface of an external ring (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the wheel bearing of modified Alain with the external tire of Mains, with a reasonable expectation of success, for gripping roller surface and for improving the traction of the wheel bearing as it contacts the rail.
(ii) (Alain, as modified above, discloses) wherein the external tire of the wheel bearing rolls while being in contact with the side walls of the rail (this is inevitable via the combination above).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alain, as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, in view of Asai (JP 2019086107).
Claim 13 - note that this was examined as best understood by the examiner in light of the indefinite issue above
(Alain discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 1.
Alain does disclose an upper and lower rails, but fails to disclose:
wherein the rail includes an upper rail extending in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and a lower rail disposed below the upper rail,
wherein the ball bearing assembly moves along an upper surface of the lower rail, and
wherein the wheel bearing rolls while being in contact with side walls of the upper
rail.
(However, Asai teaches)
wherein a rail (16; Asai figures 1-2) includes an upper rail extending in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and a lower rail disposed below the upper rail (both upper and lower rails shown in Annotated figure 2 below),
wherein a ball bearing assembly (24) moves along an upper surface of the lower rail (Asai figure 2), and
wherein a wheel bearing (26) rolls while being in contact with side walls of the upper rail (Asai figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the sliding door apparatus of Alain with the sliding door apparatus of Asai, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a balanced support in the upper and lower sections of the door arm via the upper and lower assemblies thus improving the robustness and stability of the sliding door.
PNG
media_image4.png
654
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
Claim 14
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 13, wherein the upper rail includes opposite side walls (20L and 20R) and an upper wall (Annotated figure 2 above) connecting the side walls, and the wheel bearing rolls while being in contact with the side walls of the upper rail (Annotated figure 2 above).
Claim 15
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 13, wherein a second end portion of the door arm is coupled to the ball bearing assembly between the upper rail and the lower rail (this is inevitably taught via the combination above, note that Asai teaches its door arm to be between the upper and lower rail).
Claim 16
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 15, wherein the ball bearing assembly includes:
a shaft (28 and 30; Asai figure 2) coupled to an upper portion of a door arm (32) and extending toward the upper rail;
a case (34A) coupled to a lower end portion of the shaft (Asai figure 2); and
a main ball bearing (36) protruding from a lower end portion of the case (Asai figure 2) and rolling along the path formed by the upper rail while being in contact with the upper surface of the lower rail (Asai figure 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alain in view of Asai, as applied to claims 13-16 above, in further view of Chelton (GB 2482555).
Claim 17
(Alain, as modified above, discloses) The sliding door apparatus of claim 15, the second end portion of the door arm (Annotated figure 2 above) is interposed and coupled between the lower end portion of the shaft and the upper end portion of the case (Annotated figure 2 above).
Modified Alain is silent regarding wherein the lower end portion of the shaft is formed as a male screw, an upper end portion of the case is formed as a female screw, the shaft and the case are screwed.
(However, Chelton teaches) A ball bearing assembly (Chelton figure 6) wherein a lower end portion of a shaft (17) is formed as a male screw (Chelton figure 6), an upper end portion (16) of a case (case of 8) is formed as a female screw, the shaft and the case are screwed (Chelton figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lower end portion of the shaft and provide the case of modified Alain with the upper end portion of the case of Chelton such that the shaft and the case are screwed together as taught by Chelton, with a reasonable expectation of success, for allowing the case to be removably attached to the shaft without compromising durability and stability of the ball bearing assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634