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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10-17 and the cancellation of claims 2, 3, 6, and 9 filed November 21, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring-loaded eccentric or wedge, as recited in claim 12, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 2, the phrase “at least one electric motor-driven drive” should be changed to “first and second electric motor-driven drives,” in line 6, the phrase “the at least one electric motor-driven drive” should be changed to “the first electric motor-driven drive,” in line 7, the phrase “and additionally to” should be changed to “and the first and second drives,” and in line 12, the phrase “the at least one electric motor-driven drive” should be changed to “the first electric motor-driven drive.”
In regards to claim 5, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “wherein the at least one electric motor-driven drive comprises a first electric motor-driven drive configured” should be changed to “wherein the first electric motor-driven drive is configured,” and in lines 4 and 5, the phrase “a second electric motor-driven drive configured” should be changed to “the second electric motor-driven drive is configured.”
In regards to claim 10, the phrase “wherein the at least one electric motor-driven drive is” should be changed to “wherein each of the first and second motor-driven drives is.”
In regards to claim 12, line 2, the phrase “the locking mechanism” should be changed to “the closure device.”
In regards to claim 13, line 2, the phrase “wherein the at least one electric motor-driven drive” should be changed to “wherein the first electric motor-driven drive.”
In regards to claim 14, line 2, the phrase “wherein the at least one electric motor-driven drive” should be changed to “wherein the second electric motor-driven drive.”
In regards to claim 15, line 3, the phrase “the at least one electric motor-driven drive based” should be changed to “the first and second electric motor-driven drives.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10-17 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.
In regards to claim 1, the claim has been amended to include the rotary latch, pawl, and opening device, and therefore, these components cannot be operated by a single electric motor-driven drive, as suggested by the phrase “at least one electric motor-driven drive acts on the opening device for opening the door leaf to the predefined gap position.” It is understood from the specification and claim 5 that the motor vehicle door arrangement includes first and second electric motor-driven drives, such that the first electric motor-driven drive acts on the opening device. The current claim language suggests that the second electric motor-driven drive can act on the opening device in addition to the first electric motor-driven drive. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above and supported by the specification and claim 5. See objections to claims 1, 5, 10, and 13-15 above.
In regards to claim 12, the specification and drawings do not provide an adequate description of the "spring-loaded eccentric or wedge" of claim 12 such that one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain the structure of the eccentric or wedge and how it is incorporated into the device as fully illustrated in the drawings and fully discussed in the specification.
In regards to claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bogorats et al. (DE 102018126968 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Bogorats et al. discloses a motor vehicle door arrangement, comprising: first and second electric motor-driven drives 14 and 23 for acting on a door leaf 1, and a closure device including a rotary latch 5 and a pawl 6, and an opening device 10, 16, 20 that directly acts on a lock holder 7 (Figure 3b), wherein the opening device is separate from the rotary latch and the pawl, the first electric motor-driven drive being configured to open the door leaf into a predefined gap position (Figure 3b) in relation to a motor vehicle body 4 and the first and second electric motor-driven drives implement at least one functional position of the closure device (implement or affect positions of the closure device, as shown in Figures 2 and 3), wherein the at least one functional position of the closure device includes a safety position corresponding to an unlocked and secure position of the closure device (Figure 3a), and an open position of the closure device (Figure 4a), wherein the first electric motor-driven drive acts on the opening device for opening the door leaf to the predefined gap position (Figure 3b).
In regards to claim 4, Bogorats et al. discloses that the opening device is integrated in the closure device (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 5, Bogorats et al. discloses that the first electric motor-driven drive is configured to act on the opening device and configured to implement the safety position of the closure device (Figures 3a and 3b), and the second electric motor-driven drive is configured to act on the opening device (acts on the state of the opening device by releasing the rotary latch through movement of the pawl, Figures 2 and 3) and configured to implement the open position of the closure device (causes the movement of the pawl to release the rotary latch to the open position).
In regards to claim 10, Bogorats et al. discloses that each of the first and second motor-driven drives is a single electric motor-driven drive (Figure 2, with the second drive including a single motor of drive 23).
In regards to claim 13, Bogorats et al. discloses that the first electric motor-driven drive is integrated in the opening device (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 14, Bogorats et al. discloses that the second electric motor-driven drive is integrated in the closure device (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 16, Bogorats et al. discloses that the opening device comprises a toggle lever 16 and a slider 10 that is extended or retracted by operation of the toggle lever (component 10 is considered as a slider because it moves smoothly along the surface of the rotary latch, Figures 2-4).
In regards to claim 17, Bogorats et al. discloses an adjusting lever 20.
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.
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) 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogorats et al. (DE 102018126968 A1) in view of Reddmann (EP 1191172 A2).
In regards to claim 7, Bogorats et al. fails to disclose at least one sensor for determining a position of the door leaf. Reddmann teaches at least one sensor 11 for detecting an open position of a door leaf 5 (based on the position of the rotary latch 2, Paragraphs 20, 21, and 27 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include at least one sensor, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to monitor the position of the door leaf.
In regards to claim 8, Reddmann teaches that the at least one sensor comprises a sensor located in an opening device or a closure device (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 11, Bogorats et al. fails to disclose a sensor for determining a position of the door leaf, with the sensor being configured to detect a position of the rotary latch. Reddmann teaches a sensor 11 for detecting an open position of a door leaf 5 (based on the position of the rotary latch 2, Paragraphs 20, 21, and 27 of the Computer Generated Translation), the sensor being configured to detect a position of the rotary latch (Paragraphs 20, 21, and 27 of the Computer Generated Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a sensor, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to monitor the position of the door leaf via the position of the rotary latch.
In regards to claim 12, Bogorats et al. in view of Reddmann teaches that the closure device includes a spring-loaded eccentric or wedge (portion of the rotary latch extending towards component 19 in Figure 2 of Bogorats et al., with the eccentric or wedge being spring-loaded because the eccentric or wedge is part of the body of the rotary latch and the rotary latch can be spring-loaded, as taught by Reddmann in Paragraph 22 of the Computer Generated Translation) that is detected by the sensor to detect the position of the rotary latch (the eccentric or wedge of Reddmann, shown in Figure 1 below, is located so as to cooperate with sensor 11, Figures 1-4 and Paragraph 21 of the Computer Generated Translation, and therefore, the sensor taught by Reddmann could be located so as to cooperate with the eccentric or wedge of Bogorats et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
905
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Reddmann teaches a control unit 13 configured to process signals from the at least one sensor and to control at least one electric motor-driven drive based on the signal processing (Paragraph 21 of the Computer Generated Translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the drawing objections regarding claims 3, 6, 10, and 17 set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, the drawing objection regarding claim 12 is maintained because the eccentric or wedge is not shown in the drawings and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain to what structure is encompassed by the phrase “a spring-loaded eccentric or wedge.”
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been maintained based on the reasons set forth in Paragraph 29 above.
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 ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 March 18, 2026