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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the overlapping portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada (JP 6267459B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches a vehicular door comprising: an outer panel (12) having an external side surface that is configured as an outer wall surface of a vehicle (see fig 1); and an inner panel (combination of 22 and 31 which form the inner panel of the door) disposed on a vehicular interior side (see fig 3) with respect to the outer panel (12) and having an interior side surface that faces a compartment space of the vehicle (as seen in figs 1 and 3, the inner panel of the door would face a compartment space of the vehicle), the inner panel (22/31) including at least a first panel member (22) and a second panel member (31), and each of the first panel member (22) and the second panel member (31) including a non- overlapping portion that has the interior side surface facing the compartment space (as seen in figs 3, 7, and 8, panel members 22 and 31 only overlap around the edges of opening 27 and panel 31 and the rest of the panels are non-overlapping portions) and an exterior side surface directly facing the outer panel (see fig 3, the exterior surfaces of panels 22 and 31 face the outer panel 12) without having any panels between the non-overlapping portion (as defined above) and the outer panel (12, as seen in figs 3, 4, and 10, there are no panels between the non-overlapping portion and the outer panel, as the window glass panel 40 will be raised).
Regarding claim 2, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Wada further teaches wherein the first panel member (22) includes a first panel body portion (including areas 23, 24, and 25 as seen in fig 5) including the non-overlapping portion (as defined above) and a hole (27), a front wall portion (23) that extends from a front edge of the first panel body portion toward a vehicular exterior side (as seen in fig 4), and a rear wall portion (24) that extends from a rear edge of the first panel body portion toward the vehicular exterior side (as seen in fig 4), and the second panel member (31) is mounted on the first panel member (22) on the vehicular interior side with respect to the first panel member (22) to cover the hole (27) of the first panel body portion (as seen in fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 2. Wada further teaches further comprising a reinforcing member (36) disposed on the vehicular exterior side (see fig 9, which is a vehicle outside view) with respect to the inner panel (22/31) and extending in a vehicular front-rear direction from the front wall portion to the rear wall portion (as seen in fig 9).
Regarding claim 6, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Wada further teaches wherein the inner panel (22/31) is fixed to a vehicle body (4) via a hinge (29) such that the vehicular door (10) is opened and closed with moving around the hinge (described in ), and the outer panel (12) is mounted on the inner panel (22/31) so as to be detachable from the inner panel (as seen in fig 4, outer panel 12 is coupled to inner panel 22/31 by being folded the edge, which could be detached by unfolding) with the inner panel being fixed to the vehicle body (via hinge 29).
Regarding claim 7, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 1. Wada further teaches wherein the first panel member (22) includes a first panel body portion (including areas 23, 24, and 25) including the non- overlapping portion (as defined above) and a hole (27), and the second panel member (31) is mounted on the first panel member (22) on a vehicular interior side (as seen in fig 4) with respect to the first panel member (22) to cover the hole (27) of the first panel body portion (as seen in fig 4) and the overlapping portion of the second panel member (edge of panel 31) is opposite the outer panel (12) via the hole (27) of the first panel body portion (22, as seen in fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 2. Wada further teaches wherein an upper edge portion of the first panel member (upper edge of 23a and 24a of panel 22) above the hole (27) is configured as the overlapping portion (as seen in fig 5, the areas defined above overlap with panel 31).
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 Wada (JP 6267459B2) in view of Migaki (U.S. 10,814,802).
Regarding claim 3, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 2. While Wada teaches wherein the second panel member (31) covers a lower section of the first panel body portion (22), 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.
Wada 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 Wada 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 Wada (JP 6267459B2) in view of Mittermeier (U.S. 2005/0212324).
Regarding claim 5, Wada teaches the vehicular door of claim 2. While Wada teaches the first panel is made of sheet metal ([0016]), it is silent as to the type of metal used to form the first panel.
Mittermeier teaches a similar vehicular door, where the panel members are made of diecast aluminum ([0020]).
Wada and Mittermeier 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 Wada to incorporate the teachings of Mittermeier and utilize diecast aluminum to form the first panel member. Doing so would utilize a cost effective material and process to form the panel member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,407,291, US 11,089,393, US 2018/0065519 (teaches a door module with panels).
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