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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 June 2026, with respect to claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the amendment significantly changes the scope of the claims and 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's arguments, filed 3 June 2026, with respect to claims 6 and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument against claim 6 which states Queener (US 6,343,832) does not disclose that the second configuration covers less of a door opening than in the first configuration, it is clear from Figure 3 that the carrier sub-assembly (26) covers less of a door opening than when the closure sub-assembly (12) is attached. Operating the vehicle in the second configuration is not a limitation of the claim. However, there is nothing that would prevent someone from operating a vehicle using only the carrier sub-assembly of Queener and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the argument against claim 9 which states Queener does not disclose an outer module that is a door skin having a channel that receives the inner module, it is clear from Figure 3 that there is a channel on the closure sub-assembly (12) that is the shape of the carrier sub-assembly (26). This is considered a channel and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 21-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366450 by Mizuma et al. (Mizuma hereinafter) in view of US 5,821,632 by Normann et al. (Normann hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuma discloses a vehicle assembly [see at least Figure 1, (100)], comprising: a door assembly [see at least Figure 1, (21)] having a door coil [see at least Figure 1, (61)] that is configured to interface with a vehicle coil [see at least Figure 1, (16)] to transfer power from a power supply [see at least Figure 1, (14)] on a vehicle to the door assembly [see at least paragraph 0040], the door coil and the vehicle coil being spaced and configured to interface with each other to transfer the power to the door assembly only when the door assembly is in a closed position [see at least Figure 1, door closed and (16) near (61); paragraph 0039], and to separate from each other when the door assembly is in an open position [see at least Figure 2, door open and (16) separated from (61)].
Mizuma disclose that this system can be applied to other types of vehicle doors [see at least paragraph 0075], but fails to disclose the door assembly being pivotably connected to a body of the vehicle by a hinge. However, Normann discloses a vehicle to door inductive power/data system [see at least Abstract; Claim 25] by way of a hinge [see at least Figure 17; Claim 25].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma to transfer power to a vehicle door with a hinge, as disclosed by Normann, to expand the use of the system to more common vehicle doors. Thus, offering the benefit of expanded usage and increased sales.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 1.
Normann disclose wherein the door coil is configured to interface with the vehicle coil to transmit data between the vehicle and the door assembly [see at least column 2, lines 48-64, “In this way bi-directional data transmission between door modules and the central bus control device is possible”].
Regarding claim 3, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 1.
Mizuma discloses wherein the transfer is a wireless transfer [see at least paragraph 0009, “is inductively charged with electric power of the primary energy storage device via the electric power transmitting coil and the electric power receiving coil when the electric power transmitting coil faces the electric power receiving coil”].
Regarding claim 21, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 1.
Mizuma discloses wherein the door coil is a receiver coil and the vehicle coil is a transmitter coil, and the power is transferred from the vehicle coil to the door coil by inductive coupling [see at least paragraph 0009, “is inductively charged with electric power of the primary energy storage device via the electric power transmitting coil and the electric power receiving coil when the electric power transmitting coil faces the electric power receiving coil”].
Regarding claim 22, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 1.
Mizuma discloses wherein the power supply is an accessory battery of the vehicle [see at least Figure 1, (14)].
Regarding claim 28, Mizuma discloses a vehicle assembly [see at least Figures 1 and 2, (100)], comprising: a body of a vehicle [see at least Figure 1, (10)] carrying a vehicle coil [see at least Figure 1, (16)] coupled to a power supply [see at least Figure 1, (14)]; and a door assembly [see at least Figure 1, (20)] connected for movement between a closed position [see at least Figure 1; door closed] and an open position [see at least Figure 2; door opened], the door assembly carrying a door coil [see at least Figure 1, (61)], wherein the door coil and the vehicle coil interface with each other to transfer power from the power supply to the door assembly only when the door assembly is in the closed position [see at least Figure 1, door closed and (16) near (61); paragraph 0039] and separate from each other when the door assembly is in the open position [see at least Figure 2, door open and (16) separated from (61)].
Mizuma disclose that this system can be applied to other types of vehicle doors [see at least paragraph 0075], but fails to disclose the door assembly being pivotably connected to a body of the vehicle by a hinge. However, Normann discloses a vehicle to door inductive power/data system [see at least Abstract; Claim 25] by way of a hinge [see at least Figure 17; Claim 25].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma to transfer power to a vehicle door with a hinge, as disclosed by Normann, to expand the use of the system to more common vehicle doors. Thus, offering the benefit of expanded usage and increased sales.
Regarding claim 29, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 21.
Mizuma discloses wherein the door coil and the vehicle coil are sandwiched between the door assembly and the body of the vehicle when the door assembly is in the closed position [see at least Figure 1].
Regarding claim 30, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 21.
Normann discloses wherein the door coil and the vehicle coil are further configured to interface to transmit data between the body of the vehicle and the door assembly [see at least column 2, lines 48-64, “In this way bi-directional data transmission between door modules and the central bus control device is possible”].
Claims 4-9 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366450 by Mizuma et al. (Mizuma hereinafter) in view of US 5,821,632 by Normann et al. (Normann hereinafter) in further view of US 6,343,832 by Queener et al. (Queener hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 1.
Mizuma in view of Normann fails to teach wherein the door assembly is a removable door assembly. However, Queener discloses a quick change/removable door on a vehicle [see at least Figure 3; Abstract].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma in view of Normann to utilize a removable door assembly on a vehicle, as disclosed by Queener, to allow for a driver to easily remove a vehicle door. Thus, allowing for comfort for the driver, when the door is removed, in ideal weather and protection from inclement weather when the door is attached.
Regarding claim 5, Mizuma in view of Normann teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 1.
Mizuna in view of Normann fails to disclose claim 5. However, Queener discloses a quick change/removable door on a vehicle [see at least Figure 3; Abstract] wherein the door assembly is changeable back-and-forth between a first configuration and a second configuration, in the first configuration, the door assembly is provided by an inner module coupled to an outer module [see at least Figure 1], in the second configuration, the door assembly is provided by the inner module without the outer module [see at least Figure 3].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma in view of Normann to utilize a removable door assembly on a vehicle, as disclosed by Queener, to allow for a driver to easily remove a vehicle door. Thus, allowing for comfort for the driver, when the door is removed, in ideal weather and protection from inclement weather when the door is attached.
Regarding claim 6, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Queener discloses wherein the door assembly in the first configuration is configured to cover more of a door opening than the door assembly in the second configuration [see at least Figure 1 versus Figure 3].
Regarding claim 7, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Mizuma discloses wherein the door coil and the vehicle coil are sandwiched between the inner module and a vehicle body of the vehicle when the inner module is in a closed position [see at least Figure 1].
Regarding claim 8, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Mizuma discloses wherein the door coil and the vehicle coil operatively interface with each other when the inner module is in a closed position [see at least Figure 1].
Regarding claim 9, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Queener discloses wherein the outer module is a door skin having a channel that receives the inner module when the door assembly is in the first configuration [see at least Figure 3; the channel is clearly visible in sub-assembly (12)].
Regarding claim 23, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Mizuma, when combined with Queener, discloses wherein the door coil is carried by the inner module such that the power is transferred to the inner module both in the first configuration and in the second configuration [see at least Figure 1, (16) to (61)].
Regarding claim 24, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Mizuma discloses wherein a majority of electronics of the door assembly are housed within the inner module [see at least Figure 1, (61); the only electronics of the door assembly that are disclosed is the coil].
Regarding claim 25, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Queener discloses wherein the outer module includes a window of the door assembly [see at least Figure 2, (44)].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366450 by Mizuma et al. (Mizuma hereinafter) in view of US 5,821,632 by Normann et al. (Normann hereinafter) in further view of US 6,343,832 by Queener et al. (Queener hereinafter) and US 2022/0111708 by Krapfl.
Regarding claim 10, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 5.
Queener discloses fasteners [see at least Figure 2, (46)]. Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener fails to teach further comprising at least one latch that couples the inner module to the outer module when the door assembly is in the first configuration. However, Krapfl discloses convertible vehicle doors [see at least Abstract] that uses fasteners and latches which are equivalents for connecting between door configurations [see at least paragraph 0025].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener to use latches as an equivalent replacement for fasteners, as disclosed by Krapfl for securing the outer module to the inner module to eliminate the need for tools. Thus, allowing the driver to quickly attach/remove by hand which simplifies assembly.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366450 by Mizuma et al. (Mizuma hereinafter) in view of US 5,821,632 by Normann et al. (Normann hereinafter) in further view of US 6,343,832 by Queener et al. (Queener hereinafter) and US 2022/0111708 by Krapfl and US 2013/0104459 by Patel et al. (Patel hereinafter).
Regarding claim 26, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener and Krapfl teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 10.
Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener and Krapfl fails to teach wherein the at least one latch comprises an e-latch configured to unlock the outer module from the inner module only when the vehicle is in a stationary position and in a parked gear. However, Patel discloses a locking system for a vehicle door [see at least Abstract] which uses an electrically controlled latch [see at least Figure 1, (10)] and is controlled to unlock when the vehicle is in park [see at least paragraph 0022, “powered actuator 12 may be a solenoid that is powered only when the vehicle is parked to thereby prevent inadvertent release when the vehicle is in motion”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener and Krapfl to use an electric lock which unlocks when a vehicle is parked, as disclosed by Patel, in order to prevent inadvertent release of the vehicle door when the vehicle is moving. Thus, providing the benefit of safety to the passengers of the vehicle by not allowing a vehicle door to be opened while moving.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366450 by Mizuma et al. (Mizuma hereinafter) in view of US 5,821,632 by Normann et al. (Normann hereinafter) in further view of US 6,343,832 by Queener et al. (Queener hereinafter) and US 2022/0111708 by Krapfl and US 5,183,302 by Pelachyk et al. (Pelachyk hereinafter).
Regarding claim 27, Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener and Krapfl teaches the vehicle assembly of claim 10.
Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener and Krapfl fails to teach wherein the at least one latch comprises a foot received within an aperture of a locking grid. However, Pelachyk discloses a vehicle door handle housing attachment [see at least Abstract] which uses locking feet to attach to a vehicle door [see at least Abstract; Figures 3-4, feet of locking legs (44)-(54)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Mizuma in view of Normann in further view of Queener and Krapfl to include locking feet, as disclosed by Pelachyk, in order to simplify securing the outer module to the inner module to eliminate the need for tools. Thus, allowing the driver to quickly attach/remove by hand which simplifies assembly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Joel Barnett whose telephone number is (571)272-2879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/JOEL BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights