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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/26 has been entered.
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 14 and 21 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 claim(s) contains 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. Applicant does not have support for a hinge comprising a latch or bolt.
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 14 and 21 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.
Applicant has not explained or disclosed how a hinge comprises a latch or bolt nor would one in the art understand how a hinge is a latch or a bolt thus rendering the claims indefinite.
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 1, 3, 8-11, 14-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwinka 1845053 in view of 1774020
Regarding claims 1 and 23-24, Ledwinka 053 teaches a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle frame comprising an exterior portion (see figure 1);
an entry door positioned between an A pillar and an adjacent B pillar of the vehicle (see figure 1 at 2), the entry door including an exterior panel, the exterior panel forming a structural part of an exoskeleton of the vehicle and being mounted to the exterior portion of the vehicle frame through a hinge at one of the A pillar and the adjacent B pillar (see figures 1 and 2); and
at least one component directly attached to the exterior panel (see figure 1 handle);
053 fails to explicitly teach the door comprising a unitary monolithic metal sheet
wherein the exterior panel is a single structural panel that provides structural support of the entry door, the entry door being free of a separate structural inner door reinforcement;
wherein the exterior panel sheet has a continuous uninterrupted exterior; and
wherein the exterior panel provides side impact protection for the vehicle.
Ledwinka 020 teaches unitary steel pressed steel stampings door with accommodations for a window (see figures 2, 3, 4) without additional reinforcement. Outer panel (20) is a single structural panel with a continuous uninterrupted exterior.
It 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 to modify the vehicle body of Ledwinka to have a door as to permit passengers to enter and exit, the various filings of Ledwinka are taught to be used in combination of a well-known vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Ledwinka-s teach a vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the monolithic metal sheet comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of steel and aluminum (lines 1-4 ‘020).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Ledwinka-s teach a vehicle of Claim 1, wherein an exterior surface of the exterior panel does not comprise paint. Before a car is painted, it does not have paint.
Regarding claim 9, Ledwinka-s teach the vehicle of Claim 1, further comprising an electric motor or electric vehicles are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Ledwinka-s teach a vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the exterior panel is configured to define a passenger compartment of the vehicle see figure 1 ‘053.
Regarding claim 11, Ledwinka-s teach a vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the exterior panel is passenger door panel figure 1 ‘053
Regarding claim 14, Ledwinka-s teaches a vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the hinge comprises a latch or a bolt. As best understood Applicant is claiming the door has a hinge and latch or bolt (how the door is locked as customary for car doors so they don’t open when driving).
Regarding claims 15-22 which claim various method claims – the structural limitations of the methods are listed above. Laser cutting, rolling and shaping, not heat treating of a steel door, claims 16-18 are common knowledge in this art to fit panel to the door and eliminate a manufacturing step respectively. Electric window assemblies are well known in the art as well. There is no anti-intrusion bar attached to panel see Ledwinka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents various arguments over “historical” art claiming a door between an A and B pillar on a hinge comprising a metal sheet without a reinforcement structure is novel. In fact, Ledwinka has a large plurality of patents directed to this very concept from about 100 years ago. Applicant argues an inner layer of the door precludes the prior art, however, Applicant’s claim construction is comprising not consisting – Applicant has no support for a door consisting of a single metal sheet – see figure 5A of Applicants where (508) is an inner trim panel, (510) is a window assembly, and there is an unlabeled outer frame element between the two. Any layer comprises reinforcement. Ledwinka does not teach reinforcement bars and teaches instead the same concept as Applicant – outer metal sheet (20), window assembly (38 et al) and an inner panel (26) where the inner and outer sheet provide a housing for the window, just like Applicant. Applicant specifically discusses eliminating the “inner door structure” i.e. anti-intrusion bars. Ledwinka’s various patents predate the concept of anti-intrusion bars as they were viewed to be improvements on safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY REGINA WEISBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-5500. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:15-4:15.
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.
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.
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights