DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The claims filed on December 14, 2023 have been entered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on December 14, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "notably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2 and 4-13 are subsumed by the previously noted rejections because of their dependance either directly or indirectly. Appropriate corrections are required.
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, 7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vitale et al., US 2007/0267888 (hereinafter Vitale).
Claim 1: Vitale discloses an assisting system for closing a driver’s door in a vehicle (driver’s side front door of vehicle 70), especially in a heavy-duty vehicle (door assist pedal assembly 10), comprising:
a pedal (10) movable between a high position (fully released position Fig 2b) and a low position (fully depressed position, Fig 2a) (par [0015]);
a door check strap (door engagement end 62) arranged in the driver’s door (70) and configured to be able to act on a degree of opening of the driver’s door (70) (par [0017]); and
a connecting cable (cable 16) for linking the pedal (10) to the door check strap (62) (Fig 2A-2B, par [0017]);
the door check strap (62) being configured such that when the pedal (10) moves from the high position (Fig 2a) to the low position (Fig 2a), the connecting cable (16) pulls part of the door check strap (62) so that the driver’s door (76) moves from a maximum open position (pedal 10 released, see Fig 2b) to a closed position or to an intermediate open position (pedal 10 depressed, see Fig 2a).
Claim 7: Vitale discloses wherein the pedal (10) is fixed at an end of a pivoting element (cam engagement end 60) pivotable around a pivot axis (axis of pin 52 through aperture 54) and the connecting cable (16) is fixed at the other end (cable retention notch 58) of the pivoting element (60) (Fig 1, par [0016]).
Claim 11: Vitale discloses wherein the pedal (10) is a dead pedal (mounted to floor panel 72, as shown in Fig 2a-2b)
Claim 12: Vitale discloses wherein the connecting cable (16) is chosen in the group consisting of a cable, a metal rod, a stiff object (cable 16) (par [0020]).
Claim 13: Vitale discloses wherein the assisting system is configured so that when the driver’s door (76) is closed (see Fig 2A), the pedal (10) is moved from the high position to the low position (shown in Fig 2a, par [0021]) and when the driver’s door (76) is opened, the pedal (10) is moved from the low position to the high position (see Fig 2b, par [0022]).
Claim 14: Vitale discloses heavy-duty vehicle (vehicle 70) , such as a truck, a bus, and a construction equipment, comprising a driver’s door (door 76) and the assisting system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallinato, French Patent No. 2835872 (hereinafter Gallinato) (all citations are to English translation dated 2026).
Claim 1: Gallinatio discloses an assisting system (actuating device 22) for closing a driver’s door (door 18) in a vehicle (motor vehicle 10) (see Fig 1), especially in a heavy-duty vehicle, comprising:
a pedal (vehicle’s clutch pedal 16) movable between a high position and a low position (depressed position);
a door check strap (drive 30, bar 36) arranged in the driver’s door (18) (30 is located in driver’s door 18 as shown in Fig 1) and configured to be able to act on a degree of opening of the driver’s door (18) (shown in Fig 1); and
a connecting cable (cable 24) for linking the pedal (16) to the door check strap (30, 36);
the door check strap (30, 36) being configured such that when the pedal (16) moves from the high position to the low position (depressed position), the connecting cable (24) pulls part of the door check strap (30, 36) so that the driver’s door moves from a maximum open position (see Fig 2) to a closed position (see Fig 3) or to an intermediate open position (see Fig 2-4, pg 4).
Claim 2: Gallinatio discloses the door check strap (30, 36) comprises a metal plate (bar 36 is a metal plate) fixedly secured to the driver’s door (18) and linked (via connecting rod 48) to the connecting cable (24) (as shown in Fig 2-3, pg 5), and the door check strap comprises a stalk (groove 64) having a proximal end (end located at the opposite end of groove 64 from end 63) and a distal end (at 63), wherein the metal plate (36) is movable relative to the stalk (64), so that when the pedal (16) passes from the high position (shown in Fig 2) to the low position (depressed position) (shown in in Fig 3), the connecting cable (24) pulls the metal plate (36), initially close to the distal end (at 63) (shown in Fig 2), along the stalk (64) away from the distal end towards the proximal end (bar 36 has moved inward as shown in Fig 3).
Claim 8: Gallinatio discloses that the connecting cable (24) remains in tension whatever the position of the driver’s door (18) and of the pedal (16) (cable 24 is fixed to the end 63 of the groove 64 so as to wind around the wheel 32, see Fig 2-3, this necessarily keeps the cable in tension).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitale in view of Dowling, US 1,607,062 (hereinafter Dowling).
Claim 9: Vitale discloses wherein the pedal (10) has a height from the floor (floor panel 72) of a cab of the vehicle (70), in the high position (see Fig 2a), when the driver’s door (76) is in the maximum open position (as shown in Fig 2a, par [0021]), equal to a+h (as shown in Fig 2a).
Vitale is silent as to the height of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle, in an initial position, from the floor being equal to a.
Dowling discloses vehicle pedals located at the same height in rest position with the door closed (see Fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the height of the pedal in the high position to be greater by h than the height a of the accelerator pedal in the initial position, as this modification would have yielded the predictable results of both pedals in a position at the same height when the door is closed as disclosed by Dowling and the vehicle is ready for operation. One of ordinary skill in that art would have been capable of making such a modification and recognized that the predictable results would lead to a vehicle with equal height pedals when ready for operation.
Claim 10: Vitale, as modified by Dowling, discloses wherein the pedal (10), in the low position thereof (shown in Fig 2a), when the driver’s door (76) is in the closed position or in said intermediate open position (see Fig 2a), has a height equal to a (Dowling, height of vehicle pedals in rest position with door closed is equal, see Fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims contain allowable subject matter over the closest prior art as cited above.
Regarding claims 3-6, Vatale and Gallinatio fail to disclose wherein the proximal end of the stalk comprises a loop to be attached to a vehicle’s body and rotative relative to the stalk, notably rotative about an axis substantially perpendicular to the stalk, wherein the stalk is arranged so as to enter and lodge into an empty slot inside the driver’s door when the metal plate is pulled away from the distal end towards the proximal end, wherein the metal plate has an opening through which the stalk passes, the door check strap comprising rollers arranged in the opening between the stalk and the metal plate, wherein the stalk comprises a hollow region so that the connecting cable enters the stalk through the hollow region from one end and is attached to the metal plate.
Fyre et al., US 5,002,331 (hereinafter Fyre) discloses a pedal actuated vehicle door closer that includes a door check strap (bias means 50) and a connecting cable (web 30) for linking the pedal (20) to the door check strap (50) and a stalk (tube 56) with a hollow region inside of the stalk (see Fig 2-3).
Fyre does not discloses the proximal end of the stalk comprises a loop to be attached to a vehicle’s body and rotative relative to the stalk, notably rotative about an axis substantially perpendicular to the stalk, the stalk arranged so as to enter and lodge into an empty slot inside the driver’s door when the metal plate is pulled away from the distal end towards the proximal end, the metal plate has an opening through which the stalk passes, the door check strap comprising rollers arranged in the opening between the stalk and the metal plate, and wherein the stalk comprises a hollow region so that the connecting cable enters the stalk through the hollow region from one end and is attached to the metal plate.
The Examiner is unaware of prior art which reasonably suggests alone, or in combination, the limitations of claims 3-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The disclosure of Posa US 5,549,348 drawn to a door closer mechanism for a vehicle and the disclosure of Thomas US 3,206,186 drawn to a door operator are applicable to the claims but were not relied upon in the current rejection.
Claims 1-14 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676