DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 10/10/2024.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-12 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “said first rail extends in a plane wherein moves said second rail in such a way”. This language is grammatically incorrect. Based on the specification, examiner presumes this should read -- the first rail extends in a plane wherein the second rail moves in such a way --.
Claim 10 recites “the height of the branches”. Examiner presumes this should read – a height of the branches --.
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 1-12 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 “said first rail extends in a plane wherein moves said second rail in such a way that the connecting arm connecting the door to the guide device extends only under each of said first and second rails”. While this language appears in the specification, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “extends ONLY under each of said first and second rails”. It appears that the connecting arm (43) always extends from the mounting bracket. This is not described in the specification or shown in the drawings.
Claim 3 recites “a rail module comprising the first and second rails”. It is unclear if the rail module is anything other than the first and second rails. Examiner presumes that the rail module is the first and second rails.
Claim 7 recites “a second axis of rotation coaxial with the first axis of rotation” and “a third axis of rotation” . It is unclear where there is support in the specification for a second axis of rotation that is coaxial with the first axis of rotation or a third axis of rotation. There only appear to be two axes of rotation disclosed (R1 and R2) which are parallel not coaxial.
Claim 7 recites “each of the first and second rotation shafts”. It is unclear where there is support in claim 7 for a first and second rotation shaft, as claim 7 only recites “a rotation shaft”. It is unclear what the second rotation shaft is.
Claim 8 appears to be incomplete. Claim 8 recites “the opposite end of said connecting arm comprises a portion of substantially U-shaped cross section”. It is unclear what is U-shaped.
Claims 10 and 12 recite , “wherein each of the rollers is mounted on a rod, and wherein the height of the rollers is less than the height of parallel branches of said first and second rails, so that the gap separating the mounting plate and/or said connecting arm and/or the carriage from said first rail and/or said second rail is variable in order to make possible an adjustment of the door relative a body side opening”. It is unclear what exactly this means. Where is the gap shown in the drawings? It appears this claim just requires the height of the rollers to be less than the height of the rails.
Claim 12, line 6 recites “each of the rollers”. As claim 12 only recites “a roller”, it is unclear what “each” is referring to. Examiner presumes this should read – the roller --.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
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.
As best understood, claims 1 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isomura JP2008285964.
In regard to claim 1, Isomura ‘964 disclose a guide device for a sliding door (3, Fig. 1) of a vehicle (10, Fig. 1), comprising an axial guide comprising: a first substantially rectilinear rail (51, Fig. 4) along which a carriage (45, Fig. 3) slides, and an angular guide comprising: a second rail (52, Fig. 4), having a sloped portion (52a, Fig. 4) with respect to said first rail (51), and a connecting arm (31, Fig. 3) connecting to the door, wherein said first rail (51) extends in a plane wherein moves said second rail (41) in such a way that the connecting arm (31) connecting the door (3) to the guide device extends only under each of the first and second rails (51,52, 52a).
In regard to claim 5, Isomura ‘964 disclose wherein the carriage (45) is slidably mounted along said first rail (51) by means of a pair of rollers (48 Fig. 3)) connected to a plate (41) extending under each of the first and second rails (51,52), the plate comprising an off-centered portion on which a rotational connection (35) is positioned in relation to said angular guide (formed by 52,52a).
In regard to claim 6, Isomura ‘964 disclose wherein said angular guide (formed by 52,52a) comprises a roller (48) connected to said connecting arm (31) and mounted to slide along said second rail (52,52a) in such a way that movement of the roller (48) along the sloped portion (52a) of said second rail (52,52a) generates a rotation of said connecting arm (31) about the carriage (45) about a first axis of rotation (at 36).
As best understood, in regard to claim 7, Isomura ‘964 disclose wherein the carriage (45) is slidably mounted along said first rail (41) by means of a pair of rollers (48) connected to a plate (41) extending under each of said first (51) and second (52,52a) rails, the plate (41) comprising an off-centered portion on which a rotational connection ( at 35) is positioned in relation to said angular guide (formed by 52,52a), and wherein said connecting arm (31)(34) comprises branches (top of 31 and bottom of 34) parallel to each other, one end of said connecting arm (31,34) being connected to said axial guide by means of a second axis of rotation (at 35) parallel with the first axis of rotation (at 36) and an opposite end of said connecting arm being connected to the door (3) by means of a mounting plate (32a, bottom) connected to a rotation shaft (33) coaxial with a third axis of rotation and fastened onto the door, each of the first and second rotation shafts (at 33 and 35) extending perpendicularly through said parallel branches (33 through top of 31 and 35 through 34)).
In regard to claim 8, Isomura ‘964 discloses wherein the opposite end of said connecting arm (31,34) comprises a portion of substantially U-shaped cross-section (cross section of 31 is substantially U-shaped, but not entirely u-shaped)
In regard to claim 9, Isomura ‘964 discloses wherein the mounting plate (32a, bottom ) , said connecting arm (31,34) and the carriage (45) extend respectively in planes parallel to each other under each of said guide rails (51,52).
As best understood, in regard to claim 10, Isomura ‘964 disclose wherein the carriage (45) is slidably mounted along said first rail (41) by means of a pair of rollers (48) connected to a plate (41) extending under each of said first and second rails (51,52) , the plate (41) comprising an off-centered portion on which a rotational connection (at 35) is positioned in relation to said angular guide, wherein each of the rollers (48) is mounted on a rod (42), and wherein the height of the rollers (48) is less than the height of parallel branches of said first and second rails (51,52), so that the gap separating the mounting plate (32a, bottom)) and/or said connecting arm (31,34) and/or the carriage (45) from said first rail (51) and/or said second rail (52) is variable in order to make possible an adjustment of the door relative a body side opening.
In regard to claim 11, Isomura ‘964 discloses a vehicle (10) comprising a sliding door (3), a body side delimiting an opening (10a, Fig. 1) closed by said door, comprising a guide device according to claim 1.
In regard to claim 12, Isoumura ‘964 discloses wherein said angular guide comprises a roller (61) connected to said connecting arm (31,34) and mounted to slide along said second rail (52) in such a way that the movement of the roller along the sloped portion (52a) of said second rail generates a rotation of said connecting arm (31,34) about the carriage (45), about a first axis of rotation (at 36), wherein the roller (61) is mounted on a rod (46), and wherein the height of the roller (61) is less than the height of parallel branches of said first and second rails (51,52), so that the gap separating the mounting plate (32a, bottom) and/or said connecting arm (31,34) and/or the carriage (45) from said first rail (51) and/or said second rail (52) is variable in order to make possible an adjustment of the door relative a body side opening.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isomura JP2008285964.
In regard to claim 2, Isomura ‘964 disclose wherein said first and second rails (51,52) each comprise a rear portion (towards the top in Fig. 4).
Isomura ‘964 fails to disclose wherein said first and second rails are assembled together, by welding, at said rear portions. However, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Isomura ‘964 to assemble the rails together by welding as such is known to be a robust connection means and would help to ensure durability of the device.
In regard to claim 3, Isomura ‘964 discloses a rail module comprising said first (51) and second (52) rails wherein the rail module has a rear rail portion (towards the top in Fig. 4) with a substantially rectilinear profile.
Isomura ‘964 fails to disclose the rail module being manufactured by a folding operation of sheet steel. However, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the invention to form the rail module by folding sheet steel as steel is known for its strength. Folding is a known manner of forming sheet steel and would create a robust construction that would help increase the durability of the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isomura JP2008285964 in view of Nicolas et al EP1745958.
In regard to claim 4, Isomura ‘964 discloses wherein each of said first and second rails (51,52) comprises a substantially inverted-U-shaped profile (paragraph [0021]) with parallel branches (straight portions), and wherein one of the parallel branches of one of said first and second rails is connected indirectly (through the mounting structure above) to one of the parallel branches of the other of said first and second rails.
Isomura ‘964 fails to disclose wherein one of the parallel branches of one of said first and second rails is connected directly to one of the parallel branches of the other of said first and second rails.
With reference to Figure 2, Nicolas et al ‘958 disclose one of the parallel branches of one of said first (11) and second (12)rails is connected directly to one of the parallel branches of the other of said first and second rails.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Isomura ‘964 to connect the parallel branches directly to one another for the purpose of being able to form the rails as a unitary structure which would possibly be more rigid and strong than two separate rails.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights