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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 09/23/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-2, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (JP2009102862) in view of Doan (US12,196,013).
Claim 1. Masuda discloses: A door support device (structure of Fig. 2-7) being applied to a vehicle (1 automobile, Fig. 1) including a vehicle body (implicit to automobile, Fig. 1) with a door opening on a side in a width direction (20 door opening for 12 slide type rear door, Fig. 1), and a slide door that opens and closes the door opening (12 slide type door, Fig. 1), wherein the slide door opens and closes the door opening by moving between a fully closed position of fully closing the door opening and a fully open position that is displaced from the fully closed position outward in the width direction and in a front-back direction and fully opens the door opening (Fig. 1-3; [0011]), the door support device comprising:
a striker unit to be installed in the vehicle body (structure of 16 striker, 17 bracket, 18 pad; Fig. 4);
a door bracket extending inward in the width direction from the slide door (structure of 4 lower arm, 60 base frame; Fig. 5); and
a lock mechanism to be supported by the door bracket (61 latch coupled to 4 and 60, Fig. 5), and
the lock mechanism restrains the slide door to the vehicle body by engaging with the striker located when the slide door is located at the fully open position (latch mechanism for holding the door fully open, [0013]).
Masuda does not disclose: the striker unit includes a striker to be displaced between a retracted position where the striker is stored against the vehicle body and a deployed position where the striker is deployed outward in the width direction from the retracted position, the striker being placed at the retracted position when the slide door is located at the fully closed position and at the deployed position when the slide door is located at the fully open position.
Doan discloses a pivotable striker system relative to the chassis for vehicle latch systems.
Doan teaches: the striker unit (structure of 530 striker, 532 axis; Fig. 5) includes a striker (530 striker, Fig. 5) to be displaced between a retracted position where the striker is stored against the vehicle body (third predetermined or cinching position, Fig. 7) and a deployed position where the striker is deployed outward in the width direction from the retracted position (first predetermined or retracted position depicted in dash lines, Fig. 5), the striker being placed at the retracted position when the slide door is located at the fully closed position (draw door close in third position; Col. 6, lines 19-20) and at the deployed position when the slide door is located at the fully open position (Fig. 5 depicts 550 in the open position and 530 is in the first predetermined position; as 550 is moved from open to close, 530 moves from first predetermined to third; Col. 6, lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the striker of Masuda with the deployable striker of Doan with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Doan because both perform the same function in similar contexts to provide a coupling connection for the latch. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 2. Masuda in view of Doan teach: The door support device according to Claim 1, wherein the striker unit includes a striker support part that rotatably supports the striker (Doan: 540 body structure is coupled to 530 and 532, Fig. 5), and the striker rotates between the deployed position and the retracted position (Doan: Fig. 5-7).
Claim 6. Masuda in view of Doan teach: The door support device according to Claim 1, wherein, when the slide door is located at the fully closed position and the striker is located at the retracted position, the striker is away from the slide door (Doan: Fig. 5-7).
Claim 7. Masuda in view of Doan teach: The door support device according to Claim 1, wherein the door bracket extends from a bottom of the slide door (Masuda: Fig. 3), and the striker unit is placed at the same height as the lock mechanism in the vehicle body (Masuda: Fig. 3).
Claim 9. Masuda in view of Doan teach: The door support device according to Claim 2, wherein, when the slide door is located at the fully closed position and the striker is located at the retracted position, the striker is away from the slide door (Doan: Fig. 7).
Claim 10. Masuda in view of Doan teach: The door support device according to Claim 2, wherein the door bracket extends from a bottom of the slide door (Masuda: Fig. 3), and the striker unit is placed at the same height as the lock mechanism in the vehicle body (Masuda: Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights