DETAILED ACTION
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 Group 1, Species 2, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 will be examined hereafter.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Klug (US 5,335,880).
Regarding claim 1, Klug discloses a vehicle comprising: a body (Figure 7, element 1) forming a door opening (Figure 7, element 6); a first hinge (element 8) coupled to the body; a door (element 7A) coupled to the body at the door opening and movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the door comprises: a first door portion (element 7B) comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is coupled to the first hinge and [configured to rotate in a first direction in the open position]* and the second end is coupled to a second hinge (element 7C); and a second door portion (element 7D) coupled to the second hinge and [configured to rotate at an angle to the first door portion in the open position and form a single surface with the first door portion in the closed position]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a vehicle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the vehicle disclosed by Klug is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Klug discloses wherein the rotation of the second door portion occurs simultaneously with the rotation of the first door portion (See at least column 5, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 9, Klug discloses wherein a length of the second door portion is less than a length of the first door portion (See Figure 7).
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2013/0097940) (hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a vehicle comprising: a body (See at least Figures 1 and 4-7) forming a door opening (See Figures 1 and 4-7); a first hinge (element 302) coupled to the body; a door (element 101) coupled to the body at the door opening and movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the door comprises: a first door portion (element 201) comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is coupled to the first hinge and [configured to rotate in a first direction in the open position]* and the second end is coupled to a second hinge (considered structure for allowing rotation between elements 201 and 203 via hinge axis 303, See at least paragraph [0034]); and a second door portion (element 203) coupled to the second hinge and [configured to rotate at an angle to the first door portion in the open position and form a single surface with the first door portion in the closed position]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a vehicle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the vehicle disclosed by Brown is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Brown discloses wherein the rotation of the second door portion occurs simultaneously with the rotation of the first door portion (See at least Figures 4-7).
Regarding claim 3, Brown discloses wherein a rate of rotation of the second door portion is determined by one or more sensors located on the second door portion (See at least paragraphs [0070] and [0075].
Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses an alert signal configured to indicate to a user when the door is closing or opening (See at least paragraph [0064], “controller 1201 may be programmed to activate warning indicator 1221 whenever the door is in motion, thus warning passengers and by-standers to be aware of the door's movement. Typically in this scenario an audible warning (e.g., a low volume series of beeps) is preferred with the warning sound emitted in the general vicinity of the moving door.”).
Regarding claim 6, Brown discloses wherein the indication comprises at least one of an audible indication, a visual indication, or an audible and visual indication (See at least paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Brown discloses wherein the first door portion further comprises a window [configured to be an emergency exit]* (See Figure 1, a window is explicitly shown).
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO2022/118908 (US 2024/003178 for US equivalent, hereinafter Takaoka).
Regarding claim 1, Takaoka discloses a vehicle comprising: a body (See Figure 2B) forming a door opening (element 100a); a first hinge (element 2a) coupled to the body; a door (element 1) coupled to the body at the door opening and movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the door comprises: a first door portion (element 1a) comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is coupled to the first hinge and [configured to rotate in a first direction in the open position]* and the second end is coupled to a second hinge (element 2b)]*; and a second door portion (element 1b) coupled to the second hinge and [configured to rotate at an angle to the first door portion in the open position and form a single surface with the first door portion in the closed position]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a vehicle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the vehicle disclosed by Takaoka is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Takaoka discloses wherein the rotation of the second door portion occurs simultaneously with the rotation of the first door portion (See at least Figures 4A-11A).
Regarding claim 4, Takaoka discloses a cable (element 14) coupled to the second door portion, [wherein as the first door portion rotates in the first direction the cable pulls on the second door portion to cause the second door portion to rotate]*.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gobart et al. (US 5,992,918) (hereinafter Gobart).
Regarding claim 1, Gobart discloses a vehicle comprising: a body (See Figure 1) forming a door opening (elements 12 and 14); a first hinge (element 34) coupled to the body; a door (elements 28 and 30) coupled to the body at the door opening and movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the door comprises: a first door portion (element 28) comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is coupled to the first hinge and [configured to rotate in a first direction in the open position]* and the second end is coupled to a second hinge (element 32)]*; and a second door portion (element 30) coupled to the second hinge and [configured to rotate at an angle to the first door portion in the open position and form a single surface with the first door portion in the closed position]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a vehicle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the vehicle disclosed by Gobart is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Gobart discloses wherein the rotation of the second door portion occurs simultaneously with the rotation of the first door portion.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tolinski (US 6,454,341)
Regarding claim 1, Tolinski discloses a vehicle comprising: a body (element 10) forming a door opening (See Figures 2A-2D); a first hinge (element 36) coupled to the body; a door (element 30) coupled to the body at the door opening and movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the door comprises: a first door portion (element 32) comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is coupled to the first hinge and [configured to rotate in a first direction in the open position]* and the second end is coupled to a second hinge (element 40); and a second door portion (element 34) coupled to the second hinge and [configured to rotate at an angle to the first door portion in the open position and form a single surface with the first door portion in the closed position]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a vehicle, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the vehicle disclosed by Tolinski is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Tolinski discloses wherein the rotation of the second door portion occurs simultaneously with the rotation of the first door portion.
Regarding claim 7, Tolinski discloses wherein the first door portion further comprises a window (element 52) [configured to be an emergency exit]*.
Regarding claim 8, Tolinski discloses wherein the window spans more than one row of seating disposed within the vehicle (See at least Figures 1A-2D, Examiner notes that the window of Tolinski is considered to “span” every seat within the vehicle, since is spans substantially the entire width of the vehicle.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gobart et al. (US 5,992,918) (hereinafter Gobart) in view of Tolinski (US 6,454,341).
Regarding claim 7, Gobart discloses wherein the first door portion further comprises a window (See at least column 2, lines 13-14, “upper panel 28 preferably includes a transparent panel to provide a window”). Gobard gives no further details with regard to the “transparent panel” and therefore it is unclear if window is capable of serving as an emergency exit. Tolinski, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a vehicle comprising: a body (element 10) forming a door opening (See Figures 2A-2D); a first hinge (element 36) coupled to the body; a door (element 30) coupled to the body at the door opening and movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the door comprises: a first door portion (element 32) comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is coupled to the first hinge and [configured to rotate in a first direction in the open position]* and the second end is coupled to a second hinge (element 40); and a second door portion (element 34) coupled to the second hinge and [configured to rotate at an angle to the first door portion in the open position and form a single surface with the first door portion in the closed position]*, and wherein the first door portion further comprises a window (element 52) [configured to be an emergency exit]*. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the “transparent panel to provide a window” of Gobard such that the “transparent panel” is a slidable window, as taught by Tolinski, since this would enable the window of the door assembly to be lowered by the user when desired, which would be highly desirable for the purpose of ventilation, or in the event the window is needed to serve as an emergency exit. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 8, Gobart discloses wherein the window spans more than one row of seating disposed within the vehicle (See Figures 1-3, panel 28 spans door openings 12 and 14, and therefore also spans the seating in those areas).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights