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 .
A response to the first office action and amendment were received on 23 April 2026.
Claims 1-20 are still pending; Claims 1, 8, 13 and 20 have been amended.
Arguments directed to the rejection of Claims 1-20 have been received and acknowledged below.
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 of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the prohibited term “disclosed” in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer cover" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “an outer cover” in line 10. As the outer cover has been previously referenced, it should read, “the outer cover”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Getzschman (US 2020/0079192).
Regarding Claim 1, Getzschman discloses a door assembly attachable to a vehicle body, comprised of an interior cover 720 (see Fig. 61) formed in a manner to enclose the internals of the vehicle body and provide structural rigidity to the door assembly (encloses the body with the outer door assembly), wherein the interior cover comprises a plurality of integrally formed protruding surfaces (see Fig. 61; protruding flanges around the outside), each protruding surface containing apertures therein for receiving fasteners therethrough (see Fig. 63B at 768 for fasteners that attach inner to outer door panel) to attach an outer cover 753 (Fig. 63B) to the interior cover 720; a joint 644 (hinges in Fig. 56) coupled to the interior cover and vehicle body, enabling the interior cover to pivot with respect to the vehicle body; and the outer cover securely mounted to the interior cover using fasteners, wherein the outer cover completes the door assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, the interior cover 720 includes a main component 722 (Fig. 61), and upper and lower brackets are coupled to the main component (via the outer cover at locations 734; Fig. 62A).
Regarding Claim 3, the upper and lower bracket attachments (at 734) include multiple attachment points (Fig. 62A; holes in bracket locations) to secure to the vehicle body.
Regarding Claim 4, the main component 722 comprises predefined mounting points for fastening the joint to facilitate the pivoting of the interior cover and outer cover (edges of main component 722 include holes for mounting the door assembly together which in turn includes multiple attachment points to mount the brackets of the joint).
Regarding Claims 5, 9, 14 and 17, the door parts may be fabricated from a fiberglass/composite material (paragraph 0159).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the interior cover is shaped to conform to a door opening (interior of the outer door which conforms to the opening for the door in the vehicle).
Regarding Claims 8, 19 and 20, the fasteners of the door may include Dzus ® style twist-lock fasteners (see paragraph 0199, page 15, line 18) which are detachable.
Regarding Claim 10, the interior cover 720 comprises structural members 726 (interior pocket increases stiffness around the edges where the flange is doubled) to enhance the overall strength and stiffness of the door assembly.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, the door further includes an integrated locking system (latch) at numeral 44, Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the interior cover comprises one or more interior panels 722, 726 (Fig. 61) and trim elements to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the vehicle interior.
Regarding Claim 13, Getzschman discloses a method for manufacturing a frameless vehicle door assembly attachable to a vehicle body, comprised forming an interior cover 720 to enclose the internals of the vehicle body and provide structural rigidity to the door assembly, wherein the interior cover comprises a plurality of integrally formed protruding surfaces (see Fig. 61; protruding flanges around the outside), each protruding surface containing apertures therein for receiving fasteners therethrough (see Fig. 63B at 768 for fasteners that attach inner to outer door panel); integrating a joint 644 (hinges in Fig. 56) into the interior cover (via the outer cover) to enable smooth pivoting of the interior cover with respect to the vehicle body; and attaching an outer cover 753 to the interior cover using fasteners through the apertures of the integrally formed protruding surfaces to complete the door assembly.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getzschman as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Helms (US 2010/0050524).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Getzschman discloses the use of a hinge type connection, but is unclear as to the construction of the hinge. Helms discloses a device for use on a vehicle door, wherein the device uses Heim joints (ball and socket) 20 as connections between parts. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the Heim joint (ball and socket) of Helms on the door of Getzschman in order to have not only a smooth operating hinge for the closure, but a known strong and long wearing solution to the hinge for the vehicle door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights