DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a final rejection in response to the filing of the applicant’s response to the non-final rejection filed on 07/07/2026. 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 (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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harmon et al, US PG-Publication (US 2026/0257635 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Harmon et al discloses a vehicle (10) (see figs 1-7; par. [0032]-[0034]) comprising:
a body (14) (see Figs 1-7; par. [0033]-[0043]);
a removable door (14) (see Figs 1-7; par. [0033]-[0043]);
an exterior hinge (50) rotatably coupling the body (54) and the removable door (14), wherein the exterior hinge (50) comprises a first member (member in 54) fixedly coupled to the body (54) and having a first recess (see Fig 3-6 and par. [0043]-[0046]),
a second member (member in door assembly 14) fixedly coupled to the door (14) and having a second recess (see Fig 3-6 and par. [0043]-[0046] disclosing the first and second recess in the body 54 and door assembly 14),
a pin (74) coupling the first member (member in 54) and the second member (member in door assembly 14), the exterior hinge (50) comprising a first inductive coil (66) disposed in the first recess and a second inductive coil (62) disposed in the second recess and disposed adjacent to the first inductive coil (66) (see Fig 3-6 and par. [0043]-[0046] disclosing the first and second recess in the body 54 and door assembly 14),
wherein the first inductive coil (62) and the second inductive coil (62) are disposed around the pin (74) of the exterior hinge (see Figs 1-7; par. [0033]-[0043] disclosing the coils disposed around the pin in the left and right position of the pin); and
a load (electronics within the inner module of the door assembly, claim 24) coupled within the door (14) electrically coupled to the second inductive coil (62) (see Figs 1-7; paragraphs [0041]),
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
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.
Claims 1-5,9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al, US PG-Publication (US 2026/0257635 A1) in view of Herschell et al US Patent (11,325,562 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Harmon et al discloses a vehicle (10) (see figs 1-7; par. [0032]-[0034]) comprising:
a body (54) (see Figs 1-7; par. [0033]-[0043]);
a door (14) (see Figs 1-7; par. [0033]-[0043]);
a hinge (50) rotatably coupling the body (54) and the door (14), the hinge (50) comprising a first inductive coil (66) and a second inductive coil (62) adjacent to the first inductive coil (66), wherein the first inductive coil (66) and the second inductive coil (62) are disposed around a pin (74) of the hinge (50) (see Figs 1-7; par. [0033]-[0043] disclosing the coils disposed around the pin in the left and right position of the pin); and
a load (electronics within the inner module of the door assembly, claim 24) coupled within the door (14) electrically coupled to the second inductive coil (62) (see Figs 1-7; paragraphs [0041]); and
Harmon et al does not clearly discloses a current limiting circuit coupled to the first inductive coil;
However, Herschell et al is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses a wire management module (see Fig 2) for a vehicle (see Figs 1-4C) and further discloses the use of a current limiting circuit (490) coupled to the first inductive coil (456) (see Figs 1-4C; column 23, lines 8-43);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harmon et al with the teaching of Herschell et al by including a current limiting circuit coupled to the first inductive coil in order to halt or limit the flow of current through the coil hen the current sensing output is too large, thereby preventing the flow of excessive current through the coil.
Regarding claim 2, Harmon et al in view of Herschell et al discloses the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the door comprises a removable door (14) (see Harmon et al Figs 2-4; par. [0002],[0006],[0032],[0036] and claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, Harmon et al in view of Herschell et al discloses the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the hinge (50) comprises a first member fixedly coupled to the body (54), a second member fixedly coupled to the door (14), a pin coupling the first member and the second member (see structure in Harmon et al, Figs 5-7, par. [0013],[0014],[0017],[0042],[0047]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Harmon et al in view of Herschell et al discloses the vehicle of claim 3 wherein the first inductive coil (66) is coupled to the first member (member in 54) and the second member (member in door assembly 14) is coupled to the second coil (62) (see Fig 5 and par. [0043]-[0046] disclosing the first coil (66) connected to the body (54) and the second coil (62) connected to the door assembly 14).
Regarding claim 5, Harmon et al in view of Herschell et al discloses the vehicle of claim 4 wherein the first member (member in 54) comprises a first recess having the first coil (66) disposed therein and the second member (member in door assembly 14) comprises a second recess having the second coil (62) disposed therein (See Fig 5 and par. [0043]-[0046] disclosing the first and second recess in the body 54 and door assembly 14).
Regarding claim 9, Harmon et al in view of Herschell et al discloses the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the hinge (50) comprises an exterior hinge (see structure in Harmon et al, Figs 1-7, par. [0013],[0014],[0017],[0042],[0047]-[0050] disclosing an exterior hinge).
Regarding claim 10, Harmon et al in view of Herschell et al discloses the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the hinge (50) comprises an interior hinge (see structure in Harmon et al, Figs 1-7, par. [0013],[0014],[0017],[0042],[0047]-[0050] disclosing an interior hinge).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/07/2026 with respect to claims 1-5,9,10 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, and the new grounds of rejections were necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Examiner Note
8. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on (571) 270-7166. 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. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights