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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
In the information disclosure statement filed 06 February 2025, Examiner has modified the recitation for foreign patent document Cite No. A119 to fix a typographical error.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests adding “is” into the phrase “wherein the first door slidably coupled”, so as to read --wherein the first door is slidably coupled-- (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,807,134. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 11 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,246,623. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,807,134. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,807,134 read on and include all limitations of claims 1-4, 10, 12, and 19 of the present application.
Claims 1-4, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,623 read on and include all limitations of claims 1-4, 10, 12, and 19 of the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-3, 8, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 7726723 B2). Takahashi discloses a vehicle (passenger car) comprising:
(claims 1, 19) a chassis (including frame of passenger car; figures 1-4);
a body (#1) supported by the chassis, the body defining a driver compartment (front compartment) having a cab opening (opening at front compartment) and a cargo compartment (rear compartment) having a cargo opening (opening at rear compartment; figures 1-4);
a door assembly (including front door #2, rear door #3) coupled to the body (#1) and providing selective access into the driver compartment (front compartment) and the cargo compartment (rear compartment) through the cab opening (opening at front compartment) and the cargo opening (opening at rear compartment; column 4; figures 1-4);
wherein the door assembly (#2, 3) includes a first door (front door #2) and a second door (rear door #3), the first door being movable between a first position (figures 2, 3) extending across the cab opening (opening at front compartment) and a second position (figure 1) extending at least partially across a portion of the cargo opening (opening at rear compartment), the second door positioned extending across the cargo opening (figure 1) and being movable relative to the first door (figures 1-4);
(claim 2) wherein the first door (#2) slidably coupled (via rails) to the body (#1) and movable between the first position (figures 2, 3) and the second position (figure 1) along a first axis positioned laterally inward from the second door (#3; figures 1-15; columns 4-8);
(claim 3) a guide rail (including upper front guide rail #8a) coupled to the body (#1) and extending above the cab opening (opening at front compartment) and the cargo opening (opening at rear compartment), the guide rail defining a first track (track of upper front guide rail #8a) receiving a first roller assembly (slider) coupled to the first door (#2; figures 1-4; columns 5-6);
(claim 8) wherein the vehicle further comprises a stop (locking of supporting arms in rails) positioned within the guide rail, the stop configured to define the second position (figure 1) for the first door (#2; column 4, line 45-column 6, line 12);
(claim 19) the first door (#2) slidably coupled (via rails) to the body (#1) and the second door (#3) slidably coupled (via rails) to the body (figures 1-4; columns 4-8);
wherein the first door (#2) and the second door (#3) are moveable across the cab opening (opening at front compartment) and the cargo opening (opening at rear compartment; figures 1-4);
wherein the first door (#2) is configured to slide along a first axis and the second door (#3) is configured to slide along a second axis, and wherein at least one of (a) the first axis is positioned laterally outside the second axis, (b) or the second axis is positioned laterally outside the first axis (figures 1-15; columns 4-8);
(claim 20) wherein the first door (#2) is in a closed position when the first door extends across the cab opening (opening at front compartment; figures 2, 3), and the second door (#3) is in a closed position when the second door extends across the cargo opening (opening at rear compartment; figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 7726723 B2) in view of Chernoff (US 7097229 B1). Takahashi discloses wherein the body (#1) comprises a first pillar (front pillar) defining the cab opening (opening at front compartment; figures 1-4) with the first door (#2) extending from the first pillar across the cab opening in the first position (figures 2, 3), wherein the body includes a third pillar (rear pillar), the cargo opening (opening at rear compartment) defined by the third pillar (figure 1-4), wherein the first door (#2) extends at least partially between a central portion and the third pillar when the first door is in the second position (figure 1), and wherein the second door (#3) is positioned between the central portion and the third pillar when the second door is positioned extending across the cargo opening (figure 1), but does not specifically disclose a second pillar at the central portion. Chernoff teaches a vehicle (#8) comprising a chassis (frame), a body (#10), and two movable doors (#30, 34), wherein the body comprises a first pillar (front pillar) defining a cab opening (forward portion #120 of body opening; figures 2, 4, 5) with a first door (#34) extending from the first pillar across the cab opening in a first position (figure 1), wherein the body includes a third pillar (rear pillar), a cargo opening (rearward portion #107 of body opening) defined by the third pillar (figure 5), wherein the first door extends at least partially between a central portion and the third pillar when the first door is in a second position (figures 2, 4), and wherein a second door (#30) is positioned between the central portion and the third pillar when the second door is positioned extending across the cargo opening (figures 2, 4). Chernoff also teaches, “The vehicle body 10 depicted has one body opening 106 on the side of the body shown. With the absence of a center pillar, as shown in the FIG. 5, the vehicle body 10 enables the front seat 134 to rotate 180 degrees for "conference seating" whereby an occupant of the front seat 134 faces an occupant of rear seat 138. However, the doors 30, 34 may cooperate to obstruct more than one body opening within the scope of the claimed invention. For example, a center pillar may be employed such that the rear door obstructs a rear door opening and the front door obstructs a front door opening.” (column 5, lines 6-16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Takahashi to include a second pillar at a central portion, as taught by Chernoff, for the predictable result of adding strength and reinforcement to the side body opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13-18 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The allowable subject matter of claim 9 is wherein the stop includes a releasable locking mechanism connected to a second pillar of the body, the releasable locking mechanism configured to lock the first door in the second position, in combination with other features of preceding claims 1, 3, and 8. Neither Takahashi (US 7726723 B2) nor Chernoff (US 7097229 B1) discloses a stop positioned within the guide rail and including a releasable locking mechanism connected to a second pillar of the body to lock the first door in the second position.
The allowable subject matter of claims 13-18 is the limitations of respective claims 13, 16, and 18 in combination with the second door being movable between a third position extending at least partially across the cargo opening and a fourth position extending across a portion of the cab opening, and other features of preceding claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses vehicles with slidable and/or foldable doors. Of particular note, Lindemann et al. (US 20070062118 A1) discloses a vehicle including a cargo opening, a cab opening, and two slidable doors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights