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 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 1, 3, 8-11, 14-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has added “wherein the entry door comprises the exterior panel and said at least one component directly attached thereto, the entry door being free of an inner door panel and free of an inner door frame structure, such that the monolithic metal sheet of the exterior panel is a sole structural member of the entry door”; Regarding claim 15, Applicant has added “and wherein the exterior panel, together with the electric window assembly directly attached thereto, forms an entry door of the vehicle that is free of an inner door panel and free of an inner door frame structure, such that the monolithic metal sheet of the exterior panel is the sole structural member of the entry door”; and Regarding claim 23 “wherein the vehicle door assembly is free of an inner door panel and free of an inner door frame structure, such that the monolithic metal sheet of the exterior door panel is the sole structural member of the vehicle door assembly.”
Applicant cites [0022], [0023], and [0027-0030] which state “Thus, the exoskeleton design described herein eliminates the inner door structure and protection system, and uses only a unitary outer exterior panel.” “In contrast, this body side structure construction would convention have a thin, cosmetic outer panel welded to a structural closed section (typically one or more inner stamped sections welded to one or more outer stamped sections). However, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to an exoskeleton construction, where the outer structural reinforcement(s) are made from a single structural panel that provide the same load advantages as the more complex conventional structure, but also serve the cosmetic functions of the customer facing areas of the vehicle.” And “In some embodiments, the outer panels of the vehicle could be designed in such a way as to replace both the structural inner and outer reinforcements with a single panel.” It appears first cited section is referencing the additional support structures such as support beams, anti-intrusion bar, etc as previously presented in the claims. There is no discussion of an inner frame structure and inner door panel not being present; and the monolithic metal sheet of the external door panel is the sole structural member of the vehicle door assembly” these amount to negative limitations, see MPEP 2173.05(i) “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure.” Applicant only has support for eliminating the inner door structure and protection system; as claimed it appears Applicant is trying to claim the door as viewed from inside and outside is the metal sheet. The scope of the claim presented is not supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, the amended claim appears to contradict “wherein the exterior panel sheet has a continuous uninterrupted exterior and has a B-pillar support directly mountable to a B-pillar of the vehicle without requiring an intermediate B-pillar support” and claim 23 “wherein the exterior door panel is configured to rotate about the hinge; and wherein the exterior door panel sheet has a continuous uninterrupted exterior and has a B- pillar support directly mountable to the B-pillar of the vehicle”. Appears Applicant is claiming a B-pillar support which would be an interior frame.
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 1, 3, 8-11, 14-26 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.
Claims 1/15/23 says it doesn't have an interior panel or an inner door frame. There is an inner door panel (508) shown and what might be part of a window guide/seal between elements (508) and (512), as shown in Figure 5A. That object must keep its shape which would then provide some structural support to the window contradicting the limitation of "the monolithic metal sheet of the exterior panel is a sole structural member of the entry." Thus, the metes and bounds of the claims is indefinite.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, the amended claim appears to contradict “wherein the exterior panel sheet has a continuous uninterrupted exterior and has a B-pillar support directly mountable to a B-pillar of the vehicle without requiring an intermediate B-pillar support” and claim 23 “wherein the exterior door panel is configured to rotate about the hinge; and wherein the exterior door panel sheet has a continuous uninterrupted exterior and has a B- pillar support directly mountable to the B-pillar of the vehicle”. Appears Applicant is claiming a B-pillar support which would be an interior frame, this renders the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 23 from which 25 depends already excluded interior support structure thus 25 merely more specifically claims the species which does not further limit as the genus was excluded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amendments have support in specification; Examiner disagrees; see above. The amendments also render the claims indefinite.
Due to the 112 issues art cannot be applied to case.
Conclusion
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 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