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 Amendment
The amendment filed 01-13-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, after “substantially” insert --straight--.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 claim 20, lines 14-17, the phrase “is configured to pivot about one of the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation to allow the closure panel to substantially rotate solely about the one of the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation from the partially open position to the open position during a secondary stage of movement” appears contradictory and is thus unclear with respect how many axes are involved in the second stage of movement. The applicant accurately argues on page 12 of the reply, the closure panel “is configured to pivot about one of the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation to allow the closure panel to substantially rotate solely about the one of the first axis of rotation or the second axis of rotation from the partially open position to the open position during a secondary stage of movement.”. The applicant further accurately argues, “…followed by a secondary stage of movement, during which the closure panel moves in rotation about an axis.”.
The following change would receive favorable consideration:
Claim 20, line 16, change “and” to --or--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-19 are allowed (note the above objection of claim 1).
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 20, and as indicated above, the following change would receive favorable consideration:
Claim 20, line 16, change “and” to --or--.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 was amended to overcome the prior 112(b) rejection and to include the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 2 (now canceled).
Regarding claim 11, Elliott et al. (US#2009/0072582) in view of Kohut et al. (US#6183039) represents the closest prior art of record. Elliott discloses a hinge system 200 for moving a closure panel 216 relative to a vehicle body 222 of a motor vehicle 212 between open (Figs. 4-5) and closed (Fig. 1) positions, comprising: a closure panel bracket 236 configured for attachment to the closure panel; a mount bracket 232 configured for attachment to the vehicle body; a hinge member 226 pivotably coupled to the closure panel bracket and to the mount bracket; and a link 270 pivotably coupled to the hinge member ([0042]), the link coupled for movement relative to the mount bracket and for movement relative to the closure panel bracket.
Regarding claim 11, Elliott fails to disclose a power actuator having a drive member moveable to an extended position and a retracted position. However, as evidenced by Kohut, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see hinge system for moving a closure panel of a motor vehicle, and col. 1, lines 65-67, wherein “A further advantage of the present invention is that the pivot and slide door system can have a manual or powered operation.”. Therefore, as evidenced by Kohut, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott by including a power actuator having a drive member moveable to an extended position and a retracted position. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a power actuator having a drive member moveable to an extended position and a retracted position would facilitate automated (powered) movement of the closure panel.
Regarding claim 11, Elliott discloses wherein the hinge member is configured to allow the closure panel to move away from the closed position during a primary stage of movement having a first direction motion (Fig. 4, see closure panel moved in a direction away from the vehicle body), and is configured thereafter to move during a secondary stage of movement having a second direction motion (Fig. 5, see closure panel moved toward the vehicle body) different than the first direction motion. However, Elliott as modified by Kohut fails to disclose or suggest the collective following: wherein the hinge member is moveable from a first position corresponding to the closed position of the closure panel to a second position corresponding to the open position of the closure panel, wherein during a primary stage of movement of the hinge member from the first position toward the second position, the hinge member pivots relative to the closure panel bracket, causing the closure panel to move from the closed position along a first path, and during a secondary stage of movement of the hinge member from the first position toward the second position, after the primary stage of movement, the hinge member and the closure panel bracket move conjointly with one another, causing the closure panel to move along a second path to the open position, the first and second paths being geometrically different.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant’s arguments filed 01-13-2026 are accurate and persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive, less the above 112(b) rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights