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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed March 31, 2026.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Recitations such as “with respect to” on line 2 of claim 1 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what spatial relationship the applicant is attempting to set forth. What is meant by “with respect to”? Does it mean that the first pivot coupling points are merely adjacent the vehicle body?
Recitations such as “the coupling length variable . . . and a linear-shaped track” on lines 15-16 of claim 1 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear how the opening and closing motion track can be changed between an arc-shaped track and a linear-shaped track when the arc-shaped track and the linear-shaped track form the opening and closing motion track. In other words, it is unclear how the opening and closing motion track can be changed between the arc-shaped track and the linear-shaped track since the opening and closing motion track is the arc-shaped track and the linear-shaped track.
Recitations such as “a joint link mechanism” on line 2 of claim 2 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear how the joint link mechanism and the second link arm differ. It appears that the joint link mechanism and the second link arm are the same element of the invention.
Recitations such as “the first pivot coupling point” on line 3 of claim 2 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of first pivot coupling points set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “relative pivoting of the vehicle-body-side link and the door-side link” on lines 5-6 of claim 5 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the vehicle-body-side link and the door-side link are pivoting relative to.
Recitations such as “at” on line 3 claim 9 bring the clarity of the claims into question because they are grammatically awkward. It is suggested the applicant change “at” to --in-- to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Currently there are not double patenting rejections based on:
US Pat. No. 12,503,902
US App. No. 19/081358
US App. No. 18/451480
US App. No. 18/159144
US App. No. 18/058319
US App. No. 18/049811
US App. No. 18/049655
US App. No. 17/937627
US App. No. 17/651831
US App. No. 17/457284
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 5 and 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.
Recitations such as “a fully closed position, a component force . . . the fully closed position” on lines 3-5 of claim 5 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the component force is able to be stronger when the door is in the same fully closed position. How does one fully closed position differ from another fully closed position so as to cause one component force to be stronger?
Recitations such as “another one of the first and second link arms not provided with the coupling length variable mechanism” on lines 5-6 of claim 14 render the claims indefinite because the applicant has set forth that the second link arm includes the coupling length variable mechanism. Thus, the recitation contradicts the limitations set forth on lines 5-7 of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection and the indication of allowed claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5 and 9 are objected to.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, absent applicant’s own disclosure, fails to teach the entire combination of elements set forth in the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach a vehicle door apparatus comprising a coupling length variable mechanism configured such that a coupling length serving as a distance between the first and second pivot coupling points of the second link arm is variable; an engagement protrusion provided on the second link arm; and a cam member provided on the door, the cam member including a cam groove with which the engagement protrusion is engaged, wherein the cam groove includes an arc-shaped portion, and a linear portion, when the engagement protrusion moves in the arc-shaped portion, the door is caused to move along the arc-shaped track, and when the engagement protrusion moves in the linear portion, the door is caused to move along the linear-shaped track. See claim 1 lines 5-10 and 17-23.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights