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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 and the cancellation of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 12.
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 mechanical structure between the first electric motor-driven drive 4 and the opening device 5, such that the first electric motor-driven drive can actuate the opening device, as recited in claim 1, and the mechanical structure between the second electric motor-driven drive 18 and the opening device, such that the second electric motor-driven drive can actuate the opening device, as recited in claim 1, 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 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, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 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, it is unclear how the first electric motor-driven drive actuates the opening device. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the specification state that the adjusting lever 17 of the first electric motor-driven drive 4 has some mechanical connection to the opening device, but the specification and drawings do not provide an adequate description of the mechanical connection between the first electric motor-driven drive and the opening device such that one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how applicant intends for the opening device to be actuated by the first electric motor-driven drive.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear how the second electric motor-driven drive 18 actuates the opening device 5, since the specification and the drawings do not provide a description of the mechanical connection between the second electric motor-driven drive and the opening device such that one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how applicant intends for the opening device to be actuated by the second electric motor-driven drive.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear how a position can be “unlocked and secured” simultaneously, since the term “unlocked” suggests release and the term “secured” suggests something being held and not released. For examination purposes, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 1, the relationship between the “predefined gap position in relation to a motor vehicle body,” as recited in lines 14 and 15, and the “predefined gap position in relation to a motor vehicle body,” as recited in lines 8 and 9, is unclear from the claim language. It is assumed that the “predefined gap position” in lines 14 and 15 is equivalent to the “predefined gap position” in lines 8 and 9, and will be examined as such.
In regards to claim 4, based on the language of claim 1 that recites that the closure device has open and unlocked and secure positions, then the closure device must refer to movable components of the rotary latch and the pawl alone, and not a stationary structure into which the opening device can be integrated as recited in claim 4. For examination purposes, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claims 13 and 14, based on the language of claim 1 that recites that the closure device has open and unlocked and secure positions, then the closure device must refer to movable components of the rotary latch and the pawl alone, and not a stationary structure into which the first and second electric motor-driven drives can be integrated as recited in claims 13 and 14. For examination purposes, the claims will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 17, the claim depends from canceled claim 5. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as depending from claim 1.
In regards to claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16, 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, 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 14 and second 38 electric motor-driven drives for acting on a door leaf 1, 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, wherein the opening device is separate from the rotary latch and the pawl (Figure 2), wherein the first electric motor-driven drive is configured to both actuate the opening device to open the door leaf into a predefined gap position in relation to a motor vehicle body 4 (Figure 3b) and additionally to actuate the closure device to implement a safety position corresponding to “an unlocked and secure position” of the closure device (the safety position refers to the position of component 13 engaging with the rotary latch in Figure 5a, in which the rotary latch is unlocked because it is not completely locked as in Figure 5b, but is also “secure” because the rotary latch is held in this position by pawl 6 in Figure 5a), and wherein the second electric motor-driven drive is configured to both actuate the opening device to open the door leaf into the predefined gap position (the drive actuates element 19 back to the original state in Figure 2 to actuate or place the opening device in the state in Figure 2, such that the opening device can then be subsequently actuated by the first electric motor-driven drive) and additionally actuate the closure device to implement an open position of the closure device (Figure 4a).
In regards to claim 4, Bogorats et al. discloses that the opening device is cooperatively located relative to the closure device (Figure 2).
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 cooperatively located relative to the closure device (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 14, Bogorats et al. discloses that the second electric motor-driven drive is cooperatively located relative to 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 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
In regards to applicant’s remarks concerning the Bogorats et al. reference and the amendments to claim 1, applicant is referred to the new interpretation of the Bogorats et al. reference applied to claim 1 above and made in light of the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the drawing objections, the claim objections, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new drawing objections and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights