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 .
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8, filed 9 April 2026 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 9-13 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, 9, and 10 recite the limitation "…having an interior side surface that faces a compartment space of the vehicle…" and "…including a non-overlapping portion that has the interior side surface facing the compartment space…". As the claims are only drawn to a vehicle door and not to a combination of vehicle and vehicle door, these claims should be amended to "…configured to face a compartment space…" or “…configured to face the compartment space…” as appropriate.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 recite the limitation “…to cover an other section…”. The examiner believes this is a typographical error and the claims should instead recite “…to cover another section…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano (U.S. 11,407,291).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano teaches a vehicular door comprising: an outer panel (8) having an external side surface that is configured as an outer wall surface of a vehicle (column 2 lines 43-46); and an inner panel (7) disposed on a vehicular interior side (see fig 2) with respect to the outer panel (8) and having an interior side surface that faces a compartment space of the vehicle (as seen in fig 2, the inner panel of the door would face a compartment space of the vehicle), the inner panel (7) including at least a first panel member (10) and a second panel member (9), and each of the first panel member (10) and the second panel member (9) including a non- overlapping portion that has the interior side surface facing the compartment space (as seen in figs 2, panel members 9 and 10 only overlap around the side and bottom edges of the opening in 10, where they are spot welded together as per column 4 lines 38-41, and the rest of the panels are non-overlapping portions) and an exterior side surface directly facing the outer panel (see fig 2, the exterior surfaces of panels 9 and 10 face the outer panel 8) without having any panels between the non-overlapping portion (as defined above) and the outer panel (8, as seen in fig 2, there are no panels between the non-overlapping portion and the outer panel), wherein the first panel member (10) includes a first panel body portion including the non-overlapping portion and a hole (see fig 2), the hole (defined by walls 19, 20, 23a, 21) being spaced apart from an outer periphery of the first panel body portion (see fig 2, the hole is spaced apart from the outer periphery of panel 10), a front wall portion (19) that extends from a front edge of the first panel body portion toward a vehicular exterior side (see fig 2), and a rear wall portion (20) that extends from a rear edge of the first panel body portion toward the vehicular exterior side (see fig 2), and the second panel member (9) is mounted on the first panel member (10) on the vehicular interior side (see fig 2) with respect to the first panel member (10) to cover the hole of the first panel body portion (such as seen in fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Hirano further teaches comprising a reinforcing member (25) disposed on the vehicular exterior side (see fig 2) with respect to the inner panel (7) and extending in a vehicular front-rear direction from the front wall portion to the rear wall portion (as seen in fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Hirano further teaches wherein the inner panel (7) is fixed to a vehicle body via a hinge (as described in column 2 lines 39-42) such that the vehicular door (2) is opened and closed with moving around the hinge, and the outer panel (8) is mounted on the inner panel (7) so as to be detachable from the inner panel (7, outer panel 8 is coupled to inner panel 7 by being folded the edge, which could be detached by unfolding, described in column 4 lines 22-25) with the inner panel being fixed to the vehicle body (via hinge described above).
Regarding claim 7, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Hirano further teaches wherein the second panel member (9) is mounted on the first panel member (10) on a vehicular interior side (as seen in fig 2) with respect to the first panel member (10) to cover the hole (defined by walls 19, 20, 23a, 21) of the first panel body portion (10) and the overlapping portion of the second panel member (9) is opposite the outer panel (8) via the hole (as defined above) of the first panel body portion (10, as seen in fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Hirano further teaches wherein an upper edge portion (23a) of the first panel member (10) above the hole (upper edge of hole defined by walls 19, 20, 23a, 21) is configured as the non-overlapping portion (as seen in fig 2, there is space between panels 9 and 10 at the upper edge of the hole at member 23a).
Regarding claim 9, Hirano teaches a vehicular door comprising: an outer panel (8) having an external side surface that is configured as an outer wall surface of a vehicle (column 2 lines 43-46); and an inner panel (7) disposed on a vehicular interior side (see fig 2) with respect to the outer panel (8) and having an interior side surface that faces a compartment space of the vehicle (as seen in fig 2, the inner panel of the door would face a compartment space of the vehicle), the inner panel (7) including at least a first panel member (10) and a second panel member (9), and each of the first panel member (10) and the second panel member (9) including a non- overlapping portion that has the interior side surface facing the compartment space (as seen in figs 2, panel members 9 and 10 only overlap around the edges of the opening in 10 and the rest of the panels are non-overlapping portions) and an exterior side surface directly facing the outer panel (see fig 2, the exterior surfaces of panels 9 and 10 face the outer panel 8) without having any panels between the non-overlapping portion (as defined above) and the outer panel (8, as seen in fig 2, there are no panels between the non-overlapping portion and the outer panel), wherein the first panel member (10) includes a first panel body portion having a plate shape (see fig 2), the first panel body portion (10) including a front portion (19), an upper edge portion (23a), a rear portion (20), a lower portion (21), and a hole (as seen in fig 2), the hole being defined by the front portion (19), the upper edge portion (23a), the rear portion (20) and the lower portion (21), the front portion (19) and the upper edge portion (23a) of the first panel body portion (10) are configured as the non-overlapping portions (as seen in figs 2 and 4), and the second panel member (9) is mounted on the first panel member (10) on the vehicle interior side (see fig 2) with respect to the first panel member (10) to cover the hole of the first panel body portion (such as seen in fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 9. Hirano further teaches wherein the first panel body portion (10) has a plate shape (see fig 2) and includes a front portion (19), an upper edge portion (23a), a rear portion (20), and a lower portion (21), the hole, in the first panel body portion, is defined by the front portion (19), the upper edge portion (23a), the rear portion (20) and the lower portion (21), and the front portion (19) and the upper edge portion (23a) of the first panel body portion (10) are configured as the non-overlapping portions (as seen in figs 2 and 4).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (U.S. 11,407,291) in view of Migaki (U.S. 10,814,802).
Regarding claim 3, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. While Hirano teaches wherein the second panel member (9) covers a lower section of the first panel body portion (10), it is silent as to an upward space between the interior surface of the first panel body portion and the second panel member.
Migaki teaches a similar vehicular door, where, as seen in fig 2, a second panel member includes a pocket opening 11, which is a space that opens upwards.
Hirano and Migaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicular doors. 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 Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Migaki and provide a space between the interior side surface of the first panel body portion and the second member where the space opens upward. Doing so would allow for a pocket to be located in the interior door panel for convenience of the user.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (U.S. 11,407,291) in view of Mittermeier (U.S. 2005/0212324).
Regarding claim 5, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Hirano teaches the first panel is made of a steel plate with a hot forming process.
Mittermeier teaches a similar vehicular door, where the panel members are made of diecast aluminum ([0020]).
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 Mittermeier with teaching of Hirano since the combination of the two 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 aluminum diecast material of Mittermeier for the hot formed steel plate of Hirano. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Doing so would utilize a cost effective material and process to form the panel member.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (U.S. 11,407,291) in view of Matsumoto (U.S. 8,534,738).
Regarding claim 10, Hirano teaches a vehicular door comprising: an outer panel (8) having an external side surface that is configured as an outer wall surface of a vehicle (column 2 lines 43-46); and an inner panel (7) disposed on a vehicular interior side (see fig 2) with respect to the outer panel (8) and having an interior side surface that faces a compartment space of the vehicle (as seen in fig 2, the inner panel of the door would face a compartment space of the vehicle), the inner panel (7) including at least a first panel member (10), and a second panel member (9) and each of the first panel member (10), the second panel member (9) including a non- overlapping portion that has the interior side surface facing the compartment space (as seen in figs 2, panel members 9 and 10 only overlap around the edges of the opening in 10 and the rest of the panels are non-overlapping portions) and an exterior side surface directly facing the outer panel (see fig 2, the exterior surfaces of panels 9 and 10 face the outer panel 8) without having any panels between the non-overlapping portion (as defined above) and the outer panel (8, as seen in fig 2, there are no panels between the non-overlapping portion and the outer panel), wherein the first panel member (10) includes a hole (defined by 19, 20, 21, and 23a), the second panel member (9) is mounted on the first panel member (10) to cover a section of the hole of the first panel member (as seen in fig 2).
While Hirano teaches work holes 14 in the second panel member, it is silent as to a panel covering the work holes 14. Matsumoto teaches a panel 1, which covers access holes made in an inner panel of a door. The combination of Hirano and Matsumoto would made the work hole panel 1 of Matsumoto the third inner panel of the assembly. The third panel also includes an overlapping and non-overlapping portion as seen in fig 2 of Hirano and fig 2 of Matsumoto. The combination of Hirano and Matsumoto would see the third panel, 1 of Matsumoto, mounted on the first panel member (10, via connection to second panel member 9) cover another section of the hole in the first panel 10 of Hirano that is not covered by the second panel member 9 of Hirano (access cover hole 1 would cover the access hole 14 in panel 9).
Hirano and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle doors. 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 Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto and provide a work hole cover on the inner panel, which would be third panel in the vehicle door assembly. Doing so would cover the work holes when not being used to create a smooth aesthetic and prevent unwanted objects from entering the work holes.
Regarding claim 12, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. While Hirano teaches an inner panel with first and second panel members, as well as work holes 14 in the second panel member, it is silent as to a third inner panel member to cover the work holes 14. Matsumoto teaches a panel 1, which covers access holes made in an inner panel of a door. The combination of Hirano and Matsumoto would made the work hole panel 1 of Matsumoto the third inner panel of the assembly. The combination of Hirano and Matsumoto would see the third panel, 1 of Matsumoto, mounted on the first panel member (10, via connection to second panel member 9) cover another section of the hole in the first panel 10 of Hirano that is not covered by the second panel member 9 of Hirano (access cover hole 1 would cover the access hole 14 in panel 9).
Hirano and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle doors. 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 Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto and provide a work hole cover on the inner panel, which would be third panel in the vehicle door assembly. Doing so would cover the work holes when not being used to create a smooth aesthetic and prevent unwanted objects from entering the work holes.
Regarding claim 13, Hirano teaches the vehicular door of claim 9. While Hirano teaches an inner panel with first and second panel members, as well as work holes 14 in the second panel member, it is silent as to a third inner panel member to cover the work holes 14. Matsumoto teaches a panel 1, which covers access holes made in an inner panel of a door. The combination of Hirano and Matsumoto would made the work hole panel 1 of Matsumoto the third inner panel of the assembly. The combination of Hirano and Matsumoto would see the third panel, 1 of Matsumoto, mounted on the first panel member (10, via connection to second panel member 9) cover another section of the hole in the first panel 10 of Hirano that is not covered by the second panel member 9 of Hirano (access cover hole 1 would cover the access hole 14 in panel 9).
Hirano and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle doors. 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 Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto and provide a work hole cover on the inner panel, which would be third panel in the vehicle door assembly. Doing so would cover the work holes when not being used to create a smooth aesthetic and prevent unwanted objects from entering the work holes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to incorporate the limitations from canceled claim 2, and also add the limitation “…the hole being spaced apart from an outer periphery of the first panel body portion…”. As the prior art of record was drawn to a U-shaped hole, a further prior art search was done which discovered the art of Hirano. Hirano teaches an inner panel assembly where the inner panel is constructed of multiple panel portions, including overlapping parts and non-overlapping parts. Hirano therefore teaches the claims as amended.
Applicant has added additional claims to further claim a third panel. The examiner combined the prior art of Matsumoto with the art of Hirano to teach an inner panel for a vehicle door assembly with three panels.
As applicant’s arguments are related to the previous prior art rejections, they are now moot.
Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection from the non-final office action and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights