DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 9, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the specification and drawings overcome the objections set forth in the previous Office Action. Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn all of the previous objections.
Regarding the prior art rejection based on the Kang reference, applicant has invoked the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(c). Thus, examiner has withdrawn the rejection based on Kang.
Regarding the prior art rejection based on the Futamura reference, applicant has argued that “in Futamura, the door rail 17 is not ‘integrally formed’ with the rail member 3 but is instead a separate component that is assembled onto the rail member 3. This is structurally different from the structure of amended claim 1, which requires that the integrally formed door rail be defined by the shape of the rail member itself. Thus, even if the door rail 17 and rail member 3 in Futamura, once assembled together, are considered to form an integrated unit, Futamura does not teach or suggest that the door rail 17 is defined by the shape of the rail member 3, as required by amended claim 1” (Remarks, middle of Page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, amended claim 1 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the new language is confusing (see 112 rejection below). Given the confusion under 35 U.S.C. 112, the claim can be interpreted in two ways. Under both interpretations, Futamura reads on claim 1. If the “door rail” is interpreted as being the groove-like open space in the rail member, then Futamura discloses an analogous open space in the rail member (i.e. “slide opening 14m”). The opening 14m is cut directly into the wall of side sill 3 (analogous to the claimed rail member), meaning that the door rail is a shape cut within the rail member, and the rail member “defines” the door rail. On the other hand, if the “door rail” is interpreted as being the solid surface upon which the wheels of the door ride, then Futamura also discloses such a door rail (i.e. element 17). The door rail 17 is an integral part of the side sill 3, and is thus “integrally formed” with it. Because the door rail 17 is part of the rail member 3, then the shape of the rail member 3 defines the shape of the door rail. Contrary to applicant’s assertions in the Remarks, there is no structural requirement in the claim that requires the rail member and the door rail to be a single, monolithic piece that is manufactured from one block of material. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 9, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim 1 now recites “the door rail being defined by a shape of the rail member.” This phrase is confusing and renders claim 1 indefinite. The phrase is not actually found in the original disclosure. The original disclosure states that “the rail member may include a rail forming part configured to define the door rail” (Paragraph 0009, emphasis supplied). The specification refers to a “rail forming part” rather than the “rail member” as what defines the door rail. Thus claim 1 potentially contradicts the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
242
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it is unclear exactly what elements in Fig. 5 actually constitute the “door rail.” The lead line for element 3 points to a vertical flange which serves as one of the sides of the channel in which the door slides. However, the rail presumably includes other members, such as the horizontal surfaces upon which the door wheels may roll. Also, the door rail may include the empty space that is defined between the two vertical flanges indicated by numeral 3. Or, the door rail may consist of only that empty space. Given that it is unclear exactly which elements constitute the door rail, it is difficult to discern whether the Futamura reference teaches a door rail in the context of claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, this claim appears to contradict claim 1 by stating that the “rail forming part” defines the door rail, where claim 1 has already stated that the door rail is formed by “a shape of the rail member.”
Claims 3-14 stand rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futamura (JP 2007216916 A).
With regard to claim 1, Futamura discloses a vehicle body structure with a sliding door (8, Fig. 2), the vehicle body structure comprising:
a rail member (3, 14, 15, 16, and 17) integrally formed with a door rail (17), the door rail being defined by a shape of the rail member (given that rail 17 is an integral part of the rail member, then the shape of the door rail is also a shape of the rail member) (NOTE: it is also possible to reject claim 1 by interpreting opening 14m as the claimed “door rail,” given that the opening 14m is cut directly into the outer surface of the side sill 3, and thus a shape of the sill 3 defines the door rail 14m);
a plurality of pillars (9, 11, see annotated Figs. below) coupled to an upper side of the rail member (see Figs. below); and
a plurality of body cross members (4, see Figs. below) connected to a lateral side of the rail member (“left and right side sills 3…are connected to each other by a plurality of cross members 4”).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
361
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Futamura discloses that the rail member comprises:
a rail forming part configured to define the door rail (see Fig. below); and
a strength reinforcement part integrally provided below the rail forming part and configured to define a transverse cross-section of a vehicle body that is a closed cross-section (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
337
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 10, Futamura discloses that the plurality of pillars coupled to the rail member includes a B-pillar (9) and a C-pillar (11).
With regard to claim 12, Futamura discloses that the rail member further includes a side flange (31, Fig. 7) extending toward an inside of a vehicle and coupled to a floor longitudinal member (the “longitudinal member” is element 33, which is considered “longitudinal” because it has at least some longitudinal dimensional component).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura.
With regard to claim 8, Futamura is silent as to the rail member being coupled to a side sill and elongated in a forward/rearward direction of the vehicle body, and wherein a side sill coupling portion is provided at a front side of the rail member and coupled to the side sill while defining a closed cross-section. Instead, Futamura appears to show that the rail member is simply integrated into a continuous side sill that has a closed cross-section (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4, for example).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Futamura such that the rail member was coupled into a side sill at the front of the rail member, rather than being part of a one-piece, continuous side sill, in order to improve the repairability of the side sill. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, because making an integral element separable has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, section V.). Note, in making such a modification, the rail member of Futamura would have been coupled to the side sill in a closed cross-sectional manner, as the side sill 3 of Futamura has a closed cross-section along the majority of its length.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura in view of Chai (KR 20130033004 A).
With regard to claim 11, Futamura fails to teach that the B-pillar is excluded.
Chai teaches a vehicle having a sliding door, in which the B-pillar is excluded (“in the case of a B-pillarless vehicle as shown in Fig. 1…”).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Futamura such that the B-pillar was excluded, as taught by Chai, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Chai shows that such a configuration is known in the art, and because the elimination of the B-pillar provides for easier ingress and egress from the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claims 3-7, 9, 13, and 14 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.
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 ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights