CTNF 18/894,899 CTNF 77320 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-6 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 is not clearly understood and believed to be incorrect because it states “by sliding the door opening in a vehicle front-rear direction”. The door slides in the vehicle front-rear direction, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Juga et al. (US 2010/0308624) . Juga et al. discloses a slide door device including a slide door (20) that opens and closes a door opening (14) formed at a side face of a vehicle body by sliding the door (20) in a vehicle front-rear direction, as shown in Figure 16 and disclosed in paragraph [0038]. The device comprises a striker (40) fixed to an opening edge of the door opening (14) and a first latch (10,30) that is fixed to an end of the slide door (20) facing the opening edge, as shown in Figure 16. The first latch (10,30), when the door (20) is fully closed, is pressed by the striker (40) to rotate when the slide door (20) is fully closed, as shown in Figures 4A-10 and 16. The first latch (10,30) is engageable with a leg of the striker in a direction from a vehicle interior side toward a vehicle exterior side. The exterior side can be towards the roof, the floor, the front, the rear, or a lateral side . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juga et al. (US 2010/0308624) in view of Narayana et al. (US 2011/0099913) . Juga et al. discloses the latch (10,30) interacts with a rear striker (50) located at a rear end of the door opening, as shown in Figure 16. However, Juga et al. does not disclose a second latch on another side of the door that engages the rear striker. Narayana et al. teaches providing a first latch (62) at a front end of a sliding door engaging a front striker (40) and a second latch (60) at a rear end of the door engaging a rear striker (41) to help retain the sliding door in the closed position, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The second latch (60) interacts with a rear striker (41), as shown in Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second latch on the rear end of the sliding door of Juga et al., as taught by Narayana et al., with a reasonable expectation resulting in rear latch interacting with the rear striker in the closed position and the front latch interacting with the rear striker in the open position to reduce rattling in the closed position while maintaining the latching feature of the sliding door in the open position . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30. 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP Primary Examiner Art Unit 3612 /GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 May 29, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/894,899 Page 2 Art Unit: 3612
Prosecution Insights