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 .
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GM Global Technology (DE202014009206 – “GM” - see IDS).
Regarding claim 1: GM discloses a vehicle comprising a door assembly comprising an adjustable beltline armrest structure (Figs. 1-4). GM discloses a trim body 2, 3 having an upper terminal edge that is adjacent an inner belt molding at a window frame of the door assembly and a laterally extending armrest portion (Figs. 1-4). GM discloses the trim body being moveable in a vehicle vertical direction between a raised position with the armrest portion closer to the beltline molding and a lowered position with the armrest portion farther from the beltline molding (Fig. 4).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sommer et al. (US 20080054676).
Regarding claim 1: Sommer discloses a vehicle comprising a door assembly comprising an adjustable beltline armrest structure (Figs. 1A-2, 4A, 4B). Sommer discloses a trim body V, I having an upper terminal edge that is adjacent an inner belt molding at a window frame of the door assembly and a laterally extending armrest portion (Figs. 4A, 4B – the terminal edge of V and I is adjacent to the window frame). Sommer discloses the trim body being moveable in a vehicle vertical direction between a raised position with the armrest portion closer to the beltline molding and a lowered position with the armrest portion farther from the beltline molding (Figs. 4A, 4B).
Claims 9-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes (US 20080224498).
Regarding claim 9: Hughes discloses a vehicle comprising a door assembly 6 comprising an interior door panel comprising a lower armrest (Fig. 1 – unnumbered but below element 2) comprising a first laterally extending armrest portion (Fig. 1). Hughes discloses an adjustable beltline armrest structure 2 comprising a trim body comprising a second laterally extending armrest portion above the first laterally extending armrest portion (Fig. 1). Hughes discloses the trim body moveable in a vehicle vertical direction between a raised position with the armrest portion closer to a beltline molding and a lowered position with the armrest portion farther from the beltline molding (Figs. 1, 2; [0017] – trim body 2 moves along track 3).
Regarding claim 10: Hughes discloses that the door assembly comprises an inner belt molding (4, 7, and unnumbered element below element 4) having a groove configured to receive an upper terminal edge of the trim body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11: Hughes discloses that the trim body comprises a lower terminal edge that is adjacent the interior door panel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12: Hughes discloses an actuator 11, 12 configured to move the trim body between the raised position and the lowered position (Fig. 5; [0020]).
Regarding claim 13: Hughes discloses that the actuator comprises a lever arm comprising a handle portion configured to be engaged manually located at a side of a pivot location and an engagement portion configured to engage the trim body located at an opposite side of the pivot location (Figs. 5-8; [0020]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 15: Hughes discloses that the lever arm is pivotally connected to an inner door panel of the door assembly, the inner door panel located between an interior door panel and an exterior door panel of the door assembly (Figs. 5-8; [0020]-[0023] – Hughes discloses this broadly recited connection as there is no detail regarding the term “connected” (i.e. directly, at a certain position, etc.)).
Regarding claim 17: Hughes discloses a method of supporting an arm of a passenger of a vehicle on a vehicle door assembly near a beltline of the vehicle ([0004]). Hughes discloses lowering a trim body of an adjustable beltline armrest structure from a raised position to a lowered position (Figs. 1, 5; 8, [0020]). Hughes discloses the adjustable beltline armrest structure is located above a lower armrest (Fig. 1). Hughes discloses placing an arm on the adjustable beltline armrest structure in the lowered position ([0004]).
Regarding claim 18: Hughes discloses raising the adjustable beltline structure from the lowered position to the raised position nearer a beltline of the vehicle relative to the lowered position (Figs. 5-8; [0020]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 19: Hughes discloses that the step of lowering the trim body is performed using an actuator (Figs. 5-8; [0020]-[0023]).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer et al. (US 20070080560) in view of Walawender et al. (US 20180050582).
Regarding claim 1: Sommer discloses a vehicle comprising a door assembly comprising an adjustable beltline armrest structure 1 (Figs. 1A, 1B; abstr.; [0003], [0055]). Sommer discloses a trim body V, I and a laterally extending armrest portion (Figs. 1A, 1B; abstr.; [0003], [0055]). Sommer discloses the trim body being moveable in a vehicle vertical direction between a raised position with the armrest portion closer to the beltline molding and a lowered position with the armrest portion farther from the beltline molding (Figs. 1A, 1B; abstr.; [0003], [0055] – as broadly recited, the armrest is viewed as being part of the trim).
Sommer appears to illustrate that the upper terminal edge of the trim is adjacent to the window frame (which would have an inner belt molding but does not explicitly describe this positional relationship in the disclosure. Walawender discloses that a trim body 22 has an upper terminal edge that is adjacent an inner belt molding 34 at a window frame of the door assembly (Fig. 4; [0018]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Sommer so that a trim body has an upper terminal edge that is adjacent an inner belt molding at a window frame of the door assembly as taught by Walawender. As Sommer and Walawender are both directed to an inner door assembly, as beltline moldings are well known in the art to help seal near the window frame, as Sommer illustrates a door and window frame, and as Walawender explicitly discloses beltline molding, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific door/trim/window configuration from a finite selection of door/trim/window configurations (i.e. specific molding positioning). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, discloses that the inner belt molding has a groove configured to receive the upper terminal edge of the trim body (Walawender – Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, discloses that the trim body comprises a lower terminal edge that is adjacent an interior door panel (Walawender – Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, discloses an actuator configured to move the trim body between the raised position and the lowered position (Sommer – [0071]). Fig. 4A, 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 5: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, discloses that the actuator comprises a lever arm comprising a handle portion configured to be engaged manually located at a side of a pivot location and an engagement portion configured to engage the trim body located at an opposite side of the pivot location (Sommer – [0062], [0070]-[0074]). Fig. 4A, 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 7: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, discloses that the lever arm is pivotally connected to an inner door panel of the door assembly, the inner door panel located between an interior door panel and an exterior door panel of the door assembly (Sommer – [0062], [0070]-[0074]). Fig. 4A, 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 8: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, does not explicitly disclose that the laterally extending armrest portion is located above a lower armrest of an interior vehicle panel. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Sommer, as modified by Walawender, so that the laterally extending armrest portion can be located above a lower armrest of an interior vehicle panel. As armrests are well known in the arts and as redundant features are well known in the art, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific armrest configuration from a finite selection of armrest configurations (i.e. more than one armrest). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results. Further, it has been held that that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer et al. (US 20070080560) and Walawender et al. (US 20180050582), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes (US 20080224498).
Sommer, Walawender, and Hughes disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8: Sommer, as modified by Walawender, does not explicitly disclose that the laterally extending armrest portion is located above a lower armrest of an interior vehicle panel. Hughes discloses that a laterally extending armrest portion can be located above a lower armrest of an interior vehicle panel (Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Sommer, as modified by Walawender, so that the laterally extending armrest portion can be located above a lower armrest of an interior vehicle panel as taught by Hughes. As Sommer, Walawender, and Hughes are directed to an inner door assembly, as armrests are well known in the arts, as redundant features are well known in the art, and as Hughes explicitly discloses a laterally extending armrest portion located above a lower armrest of an interior vehicle panel, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific armrest configuration from a finite selection of armrest configurations (i.e. more than one armrest). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results. Further, it has been held that that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20080224498), alone.
Hughes discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16: Hughes does not explicitly disclose that the actuator comprises a motor, pneumatic cylinder or hydraulic cylinder. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Hughes so that the actuator comprises a motor, pneumatic cylinder or hydraulic cylinder. As automation of manual functions is very well known in the art, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific actuator from a finite selection of actuator configurations (i.e. manual versus automated such as a motor, pneumatic cylinder or hydraulic cylinder). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results. Further, it has been held that that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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.
Vehicle armrests are very well known in the art including armrest structures as well as interior door structures and adjustability features. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes GM Global Technology (DE202014009206 – “GM” - see IDS), Sommer et al. (US 20080054676), Hughes (US 20080224498), Sommer et al. (US 20070080560), Walawender et al. (US 20180050582), Becker et al. (US 20080012415), Janker et al. (US 5902006), Radu et al. (US 20060163933), Jayasuriya et al. (US 20150291069), and Hirotani et al. (US 20050023861). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle, a vehicle door assembly, a vehicle armrest, various door molding including beltline molding, interior door trim including an armrest, a plurality of arm rests, moving an armrest vertically to raise or lower the arm rest, and using the armrest to rest an arm. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure regarding the explicit positional, structural, and operational relationships of the armrest when combined as a whole with the limitations of the independent claims. It could be argued that that as armrest structures and functional structures of the door interior is very well known and that a variety of armrest configurations and structures are known in the art, and thus, could just be combined and re-configured to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites specific structure and operational relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known systems and/or structures. Further, the claimed systems, structures, and operational relationships are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning system as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
2/19/2026