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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 29 October 2025 is acknowledged. As a result, claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from consideration
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a first drive body rollably received within the channel…”. However, the drive body is designed to rotate on the center axis that extends through shafts 52 and 53, and not to roll. The word “roll” refers to translating or progression of movement of the first drive body, which is inconsistent with the description of the first drive body. The examiner is suggesting a change including “…a first drive body rotatably received within the channel…”, as the first drive body rotates around an axis.
Similar corrections are required for claim 4, which recites “…wherein the rollable reception of the first drive body…”, which is suggested to be changed to “…wherein the rotatable reception of the first drive body…”, and claim 7, which recites “…wherein the first shaft segment is rollably disposed upon a distal surface of the first wall segment and the second shaft segment is rollably disposed…” which is suggested to be changed to “…wherein the first shaft segment is rotatably disposed upon a distal surface of the first wall segment and the second shaft segment is rotatably disposed…”
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “…a first shaft segment extending axially from a first axial end face of the first drive body and a second shaft segment extending axially from a second axial end face of the first drive body…”. The “axial” limitation in claim 7 is inconsistent with the axial direction defined by independent claim 1 from which claim 7 depends upon. Claim 1 describes the axial direction as extending along the channel and also the direction in which the door structure translates linearly. The direction in claim 7 claimed to be “axial” is perpendicular to the axial direction defined. It is suggested that the instances of “axial” in claim 7 be changed to “lateral”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (FR2237477A5) in view of Ido (U.S. 2011/0059685).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann teaches a sliding assembly comprising: a channel (14) formed in a structure, the channel (14) extending longitudinally in an axial direction of the structure (see figs 1 and 2); a first rotary drive structure (combination of 17, 13, and 12) configured for selective rotation about an axis of rotation thereof (13), the first rotary drive structure (17/13/12 combination) including a first drive body (12) rollably (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) received within the channel (14) of the structure (see fig 2); and an engagement feature (15/16) configured to transfer rotational motion of the first drive body (12) about the axis of rotation of the first rotary drive structure (along shaft 13) to linear translation (via linear translation of 7 and 8) of the structure along the axial direction thereof and relative to the axis of rotation (13) of the first rotary drive structure (17/13/12 combination).
While Baumann teaches a sliding assembly where crossmember 9 translates linearly, it is silent as to a door translating linearly.
Ido teaches a similar sliding assembly, where a rotary drive structure drives a door to translate linearly. The combination of Baumann and Ido would see the drive structure of Baumann utilized to drive the door 2 of Ido.
Baumann and Ido are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sliding assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to incorporate the teachings of Ido and provide the rotary drive structure and channel of Baumann with the door 2 of Ido. Doing so would utilize a proven rotary drive structure to translate a door to allow selective access through the door when desired.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. The claim limitation “extrusion process or pultrusion process” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 2 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 2. As noted above, the claim limitation “extrusion process or pultrusion process” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 3 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the channel 14 of Baumann can be formed with a process that includes extrusion or pultrusion.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. Baumann and Ido further teach wherein the rollable reception of the first drive body (12 Baumann) within the channel (14 Baumann) prevents movement of the door structure (2 Ido) with respect to a lateral direction of the door structure arranged perpendicular to the axial direction thereof and parallel to the axis of rotation of the first rotary drive structure (shaft 13 as well as channel 14 and rounded nature of the engagement features 15 of Baumann would prevent movement of the door structure laterally).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. Baumann does not teach that the channel is centrally located on the structure. However, Ido teaches that it is known for a drive body to be centrally located on the door structure (2), and combination then of Baumann and Ido would see the channel centrally located on the door structure. Doing so would allow for a single drive body to translate the door instead of multiple drive bodies on either side, reducing complexity of the assembly.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. Baumann and Ido further teach wherein the channel (14 Baumann) is formed between a first wall segment and a second wall segment of the door structure (2 Ido), wherein each of the first wall segment and the second wall segment projects outwardly from the door structure with respect to a thickness direction of the door structure (as seen in figs 2 and 3 of Baumann- bracket 14 comprises a first and second wall segment projecting outwardly).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 6. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Baumann further teaches wherein the first rotary drive structure (17/13/12 combination) further includes a first shaft segment (shaft 13 on right side of 12, see fig 1) extending axially from a first axial end face of the first drive body (12) and a second shaft segment (shaft 13 on left side of 12, see fig 1) extending axially from a second axial end face of the first drive body (12), wherein the first shaft segment is rollably (rotatably, see above) disposed upon a distal surface (aperture on one side of bracket 14) of the first wall segment (see fig 1) and the second shaft segment is rollably (rotatably, see above) disposed upon a distal surface of the second wall segment (aperture in bracket 14 on opposite side of bracket, see fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. The claim limitation “injection molding process” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 8 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. Baumann and Ido further teach wherein the engagement feature (15/16 Baumann) comprises the first drive body (12 Baumann) having a plurality of radially outwardly projecting teeth (15 Baumann) formed on an outer circumferential surface thereof (as seen in figs 1, 2, and 3 Baumann) and the door structure (2 Ido) having a plurality of teeth receiving openings (16 Baumann) formed along the channel (see fig 1 Baumann) with each of the teeth receiving openings (16 Baumann) configured to receive a corresponding one of the teeth (15 Baumann) of the first drive body (12 Baumann) therein during rotation of the first rotary drive structure (17/13/12 combination of Baumann) about the axis of rotation (along shaft 13 of Baumann) thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 9. Baumann and Ido further teach wherein the teeth receiving openings (16 Baumann) are provided as one of indentations formed by deformation of the door structure or though-holes formed by penetration of the door structure (as seen in fig 3 of Baumann).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 1. Baumann and Ido further teach wherein the engagement feature (15/16 Baumann) comprises an engagement element (16 Baumann) that is one of disposed circumferentially around an outer circumferential surface of the first drive body or disposed along the channel with respect to the axial direction of the door structure (holes 16 are disposed along the channel of bracket 14)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly of claim 11. Baumann and Ido disclose the claimed invention except for the engagement element (16 Baumann) is formed from an elastomeric material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the engagement element from an elastomeric material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (FR2237477A5) in view of Ido (U.S. 2011/0059685) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okumura (U.S. 6,955,338).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Baumann and Ido teaches the sliding door assembly according to claim 1. Neither Baumann nor Ido teaches a drive belt looped around the first drive body and a second drive body.
Okumura teaches a similar sliding door assembly comprising a drive belt (27) looped around each of the first drive body (28b) of the first rotary drive structure and a second drive body (28a) of a second rotary drive structure spaced apart from the first rotary drive structure with respect to the axial direction of the door structure (see fig 9A), the drive belt (27) configured to engage the door structure (as seen in fig 9A, gear belt engages gear teeth to translate the door. The combination would see drive body 28 in place of 12 of Baumann and therefore the teeth of the gear belt would engage the openings 16 of Baumann to translate the door 2 of Ido) along the channel (14 Baumann) thereof.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Okumura with the teaching of Baumann since the combination of the references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the dual drive bodies connected by drive belt of Okumura for the dual drive bodies connected by a shaft of Baumann. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Baumann, Ido and Okumura teaches the sliding door assembly according to claim 13. Baumann, Ido, and Okumura further taches wherein the engagement feature further includes the drive belt (27 Okumura) having a plurality of outwardly extending teeth formed on an outer surface thereof (see fig 9A Okumura) and the door structure (2 Ido) including a plurality of teeth receiving openings (16 Baumann) formed therein along the channel (see fig 1 Baumann) with each of the teeth receiving openings (16 Baumann) configured to receive a corresponding one of the teeth of the drive belt (teeth of drive belt 27 Okumura) therein during rotation of the first rotary drive structure about the axis of rotation (shaft 13 Baumann) thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0081896, US 2013/0008203, US 2009/0120002, US 6,019,156, US 5,918,418 (teach a sliding door assembly).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631