CTFR 18/408,912 CTFR 84307 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner thanks applicant for stating, page 2 paragraph 2 of remarks 4/7/2026 that the “claimed first direction….corresponds to a vertical direction in the figures [4 and 6]”. This clarifies issues. Examiner thanks applicant for positively claiming the structural intention of the term “float” to mean “compression member does not contact the housing” in claims 7 and 17. This reduces issues. Regarding the housing, present in original claims 6 and 16, now present in independent claims 1 and 11, the concept was rejected twice; once without secondary reference Matsuki, once with secondary reference Matsuki. Applicant has added structural requirements to the housing in the dependent claims 1 and 11, requiring the use of Matsuki, as Matsuki discloses 6 walls, keeping the cam members and the compression members within the housing as the rod moves through the housing. Regarding 103 (second) rejection of claims 6 and 16, regarding the inclusion of a housing around the cams/compression member of Krajenke, applicant asserts that since the compression members of Matsuki are different than the compression member of Krajenke. Krajenke requires the use of a device (“housing” 100) to keep the compression members in a particular geospatial position relative to the vehicle body, while the check rod 38 is sometimes within the compression members 50. Matsuki discloses an old and well known check rod used in the manner disclosed by applicant, going through a housing, and within the housing are cam members compressed against the check rod in the old and conventional manner, and the cam members/compression members are maintained in a particular geospatial position relative to the vehicle body by using the housing. Examiner contends that both directions of modification of Krajenke and Matsuki are obvious modifications; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the compression mechanism and cams of Krajenke in the known housing of Matsuki, AND It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the housing of Matsuki to the mechanism of Krajenke in an alternative known structure of Krajenke’s device 100 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 9022452 Krajenke in view of . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by 9022452 Krajenke in view of 2014/0059802 Matsuki . AND 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Krajenke . Examiner notes that all claims are rejected twice, Krajenke in view of Matsuki, AND Matsuki in view of Krajenke. Examiner will address all limitations taught by both, then address the obviousness rejections after all structure is disclosed. Examiner notes that claim 11 is the combination of the cam slider assembly of claim 1, with the standard vehicle configuration with a body, dashboard, steering wheel, wheels, and a door. Therefore, by properly rejecting claim 11, claim 1 is also rejected. Dependent claims 2-10 are identical in scope to claims 12-20, and will be treated together. Regarding claims 1 and 11, Krajenke discloses a vehicle (figure 1) comprising: a body 10 including a door check rod 42, the body defining a passenger compartment 24 having one or more seats 22; a dashboard arranged in the passenger compartment; a steering control (steering wheel) arranged between the dashboard and the one or more seats; a plurality of wheels supported by the body; and PNG media_image1.png 556 521 media_image1.png Greyscale a door 20 pivotally mounted to the body 10, the door including a cam slider assembly (detailed in figure 4) operatively connected to the door check rod 42, the cam slider assembly comprising: a first cam member 44 including a first body having a first cam surface 52 a first base surface 50; a second cam member 46 including a second body having a second cam surface 52 and a second base surface 50; and a compression member 96 that is an annular structure (continuous circumference shown in figure 4, but looks square since the cam members 44/46 are square; [0040] states “can be any suitable configuration”) extending around both the first body 44 and the second body 46 (as shown in figure 3), the compression member 96 biasing the first cam surface towards the second cam surface (column 8 line 58: “elastic band 96 surrounding [the cam members] such that the elastic band 96 continuously biases the second segment 46 towards the first segment 44”) in a first direction; and a housing 100 which maintains the cam members in a particular geospatial position relative to the vehicle, wherein the first base surface 50 (exterior of first cam member 44) comprises a first compression member support surface (part of the surface on which the band 96 is abutting) in direct contact with the compression member (as shown in figure 3) and a second compression member support surface (on the second cam 46) in direct contact with the compression member (in the same manner as the first cam member), wherein the door check rod 38 extends between the first cam member and the second cam member (figure 6), wherein the first cam member 46 and the second cam member 48 are supported on the door check rod 38 via the biasing by the compression member (as shown in figure 6), wherein the housing 100 configured to restrain the first cam member and the second cam member in the second direction (by having the band extend around the housing 100 as shown in figures 5 and 6), and wherein the housing 100 does not bias the first cam member or the second cam member in the first direction (the band biases the cams against each other, the housing 100 does not alter the function of the band 96). PNG media_image2.png 506 476 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claims 1 and 11, Matsuki discloses a door check system comprising: a door check rod 10; and a cam slider assembly (16 and 16) comprising: a first cam member 6 including a first body having a first cam surface (cam surface is rounded to abut the check rod 10) and a first base surface (opposite the cam surface which abuts compression member 17); a second cam member 16 including a second body having a second cam surface (rounded to abut the check rod 10) and a second base surface (opposite the cam surface which abuts compression member 17); and a compression member 17, the compression member biasing the first cam surface towards the second cam surface in a first direction (as shown in the conventional manner in figure 3); and a housing 1 in which the first cam member and the second cam member are disposed (figure 3), wherein the first base surface (of first cam member 6) comprises a first compression member support surface (opposite the rounded cam surface) in direct contact with the compression member 17 and a second compression member support surface (on the second cam member) in direct contact with the compression member 17, wherein the door check rod 10 extends between the first cam member and the second cam member (as shown in figure 3), wherein the first cam member and the second cam member are supported on the door check rod via the biasing by the compression member (the cam members 16 are pressed against the rod 10 by the compression member 17), wherein the housing comprises a pair of opposing walls (1b and the wall opposite 1b, figure 3) separated from each other in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (as shown in figure 3), the pair of opposing walls configured to restrain the first cam member and the second cam member in the second direction (by having walls preventing the cams 16 going through the hole 4). Krajenke in view of Matsuki: Krajenke discloses the use of a “housing 100” in order to hold the compression members in a particular geospatial location, but does not disclose the use of a housing with walls. Matsuki discloses the use of a housing with walls around compression members in order to hold the compression members to a particular geospatial location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a different known mounting mechanism, such as the housing taught by Matsuki, to mount the similarly used cams and compression members as taught by Krajenke, also known in the art of vehicle door checks, in order to mount Krajenke to the bracket 26 as required by Krajenke, rather than the “housing” 100. Examiner contends that the use of a housing would prevent the cams from falling off the stem device 100/bracket 26 if the band 96 loosens or degrades, and would maintain the cams in the correct geospatial location at all times. Examiner contends that these are equivalent mounting devices for similar cam members used in vehicles with a door check between the cams. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Examiner contends that modifying the mounting means of Krajenke does not modify the form, function, or use, of the Krajenke device. Matsuki in view of Krajenke: Matsuki does not disclose the compression member 17 goes all the way around both of the compression members. Krajenke discloses the use of a band 96 that goes all the way around both of the compression members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the two separate conventional compression members 17 of Matsuki with the similar single compression member known in the art of vehicle door check rods as taught by Krajenke to be used in other known vehicle door check rods, as these are known equivalents in the art. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Examiner contends that either compression members 17 of Matsuki OR known compression member 96 of Krajenke are both known to do identical functions (squeeze cam members against a central rod) and therefore does not alter the form, function, or use, of the Matsuki device. Regarding claims 2 and 12, Krajenke as modified discloses the vehicle according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the first base surface includes a first side, a second side, and a first compression member support surface (as annotated in Krajenke fig. 4 above) extending between the first side and the second side. Regarding Matsuki, the use of the band compression member results in the same cam members surfaces which abut the compression member in the manner of Krajenke. Regarding claims 3 and 13, Krajenke as modified discloses the vehicle according to claims 2 and 12, wherein the first cam surface extends outwardly (cam surface 66 extends beyond surface 52) of the first body opposite the first compression member support surface between the first side and the second side (as shown in Krajenke figure 4). Regarding Matsuki, the cam surfaces are rounded and therefore the cam surfaces “extend outwardly”. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Krajenke as modified discloses the vehicle according to claims 2 and 12, wherein the second base surface 50 includes a first side portion, a second side portion, and a second compression member support surface extending between the first side portion and the second side portion (as annotated in figure 4, both cams are identical). Regarding Matsuki, the use of the band compression member results in the same cam members surfaces which abut the compression member in the manner of Krajenke. Regarding claims 5 and 15, Krajenke as modified discloses the vehicle according to claims 4 and 14, wherein the second cam surface (surface 68) extends outwardly of the second body opposite the second compression member support surface between the first side portion and the second side portion (as shown in figure 4). Regarding Matsuki, the cam surfaces are rounded and therefore the cam surfaces “extend outwardly”. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Krajenke as modified discloses the vehicle according to claims 4 and 14, wherein the housing (of Matsuki) has an opening 4 (by having an opening because the cam assembly has an opening for the rod 42, figures 5-6). Regarding Matsuki, the housing 1 has the opening 4 allowing for the check rod to go through the housing. Regarding claims 7 and 17, Krajenke as modified discloses the vehicle according to claims 6 and 16, wherein the first cam member, the second cam member, and the compression member do not require the use of the housing walls, as Krajenke does not require a housing in the first place. Therefore, the use of the housing of Matsuki around the Krajenke device only requires contact between the cams/compression member based on a size relationship between the housing and the cams/compression member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the housing as large as desired to contain the cams/compression member of Krajenke, as the size of the housing does not matter, only the relative size of the opening 4 of the housing prevents the cams/compression member from coming out of the housing. Regarding Matsuki as modified, the compression members of Matsuki require the contact with the housing, but Matsuki as modified obviously replaces these members with band 96, which does not require the use of contact with the housing. Therefore, examiner contends that the “do not contact” requirement is merely a claim of relative size between the housing and the cams/compression member combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the housing as large as desired to contain the cams/compression member of Krajenke, as the size of the housing does not matter, only the relative size of the opening 4 of the housing prevents the cams/compression member from coming out of the housing. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Krajenke and Matsuki as modified disclose the vehicle according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the first base surface defines a first flat surface and the second base surface comprises a second flat surface. Krajenke does not disclose that the base surfaces are curved. Matsuki does not disclose that the base surfaces are curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of an exterior surface to a rounder surface, in order to elongate the life of the compression member/band 96. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). The shape of the exterior surfaces of the cams 44/46 does not affect the form, function, or use, of the cam assembly taught by Krajenke or Matsuki. In fact, the disclosure that the band 96 may be “any suitable configuration” [0040] would allow for rounded surfaces for the band to engage with to be within “any suitable configuration” for the band 96. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Krajenke discloses the vehicle according to claims 8 and 18, wherein the compression member 96 comprises a band (“elastic band 96”) that extends about each of the first exterior surface and the second exterior surfaces, whether the exterior surfaces are flat as taught by Krajenke, or curved, as modified in claim 8. Regarding Matsuki, the use of the band 96 of Krajenke instead of the separate compression member 17 of Matsuki results in the same structure of Krajenke, discussed above. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Krajenke discloses the vehicle according to claims 9 and 19, wherein the band 96 comprises a continuous elastomeric band 96 (figure 4). Regarding Matsuki, the use of the band 96 of Krajenke instead of the separate compression member 17 of Matsuki results in the same structure of Krajenke, discussed above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST. 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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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. /EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 2 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 3 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 4 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 5 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 6 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 7 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 8 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 9 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/408,912 Page 10 Art Unit: 3677
Prosecution Insights