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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed April 8, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed April 8, 2026 has been approved.
However, the drawings are still objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics. See annotated figure 6 below for examples.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
1534
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “in transverse direction” on lines 11-12 are grammatically incorrect and confusing. Did the applicant mean to recite “in the transverse direction”?
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Recitations such as “an opening direction” on line 5 of claim 1 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the opening direction to which the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “a transverse direction” on line 8 of claim 1 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the transverse direction is transverse relative to.
Recitations such as “a stop face” on line 5 of claim 2 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the stop face set forth above or is attempting to set forth another stop face in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “a starting wedge” on line 7 of claim 2 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear how the starting wedge differs from the deflection element. Since it appears that they are the same element of the invention, the applicant should amend the claims to make it clear that the starting wedge and the deflection element are the same element of the invention.
Recitations such as “pointing in the opening . . . arranged in the opening direction” on lines 7-8 of claim 2 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How does “as the deflection element is arranged” modify “pointing in the opening direction”?
Recitations such as “with a convex outer contour” on line 2 of claim 3 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the convex outer contour.
Recitations such as “the first position of the swivel arm” on lines 1-2 of claim 4 bring the clarity of the claims into question because they lack antecedent basis. Note that only the first position of the free end of the swivel arm has been set forth rather than a first position of the swivel arm. Also see “the second position of the swivel arm” on line 3 of claim 4.
Recitations such as “the stop face” on line 2 of claim 6 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of stop faces set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “to section” on line 5 of claim 7 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what comprises the “section”. Is the applicant referring to a section of an element of the invention?
Recitations such as “an opening direction” on lines 6-7 of claim 9 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear how the opening direction differs from the direction of an open position set forth above. It appears that the directions are the same direction.
Recitations such as “a final open position” on line 15 of claim 9 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear how the final open position differs from the open position. How do the positions differ?
Recitations such as “the open position” on line 17 of claim 9 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of open positions set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “the longitudinal axis” on line 18 of claim 9 bring the clarity of the claims into question because they lack antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarolim (US 2009/0007491).
With respect to claim 1, Jarolim discloses a system with a leaf 3 for closing an opening (labeled below), which is arranged in a frame (labeled below), the system comprising:
a swivel arm 1, 5 fixed on the frame and swivellable about a vertical
axis M2, a free end (labeled below) of the swivel arm is guided on the leaf
3 in a guide rail 4 extending along a longitudinal direction in an opening
direction and the free end is aligned in a closed position of the leaf 3, as
shown in figure 4, in a first position roughly in the longitudinal direction and
in an open position of the leaf, as shown in figure 1, in a second position
roughly in a transverse direction;
a deflection element (labeled below) on the guide rail 4, which is designed and
arranged such that the deflection element brings about a swivelling of the
swivel arm 1, 5 from the first position into the second position and a
movement of the leaf 3 in the transverse direction, when the leaf 3 is
moved out of the closed position into the open position and the free end of
the swivel arm 1, 5 contacts the deflection element; and
a stop face (labeled below) in the guide rail 4, which is designed and arranged
such that the free end of the swivel arm 1, 5 comes to bear on the stop
face when the leaf 3 moves out of the open position in the closing
direction (see figure 2) and the stop face brings about swivelling of the
swivel arm 1, 5 from the second position into the first position and a
movement of the leaf 3 in the transverse direction.
With respect to claim 2, Jarolim discloses that the swivel arm 1, 5 comprises a first roller 8 and a second roller 2, that rotate about the vertical axis M2,
the guide rail comprises a roll-off wall (labeled below) extending parallel to a main extension of the leaf 3 along the longitudinal direction and a stop face (labeled below) arranged at a front end of the guide rail 4 in the opening direction,
a starting wedge (labeled below) pointing in the opening direction as the deflection element is arranged in the opening direction at the front end of the guide rail 4 and at a rear side of the stop face (labeled below), wherein
the first roller 8 is arranged outside the guide rail 4, such that in the closed position of the leaf 3 the first roller 8 is arranged in front of the starting wedge in the opening direction as shown in figure 4,
the second roller 2 is arranged inside the guide rail 4 behind the roll off wall and rolls off on the roll-off wall,
the components of the system are arranged and aligned with one another such that, when there is a movement of the leaf 3
a. out of the closed position in the opening direction, the first roller 8 rolls off onto the starting wedge and brings about swivelling of the swivel arm 1, 5 from the first position into the second position,
b. out of the open position in the closing direction, the second roller 2 comes to bear on the stop face, as shown in figure 2, and brings about swivelling of the swivel arm 1, 5 from the second position into the first position.
With respect to claim 3, Jarolim discloses that the starting wedge is formed by the deflection element (labeled below) with a convex outer contour (labeled below).
With respect to claim 4, Jarolim discloses that in the first position of the swivel arm 1, 5, as shown in figure 4, the two rollers 8, 2 are arranged beside one another with respect to the longitudinal direction and in the second position of the swivel arm, the two rollers, as shown in figure 1, are arranged beside one another obliquely to the transverse direction.
With respect to claim 5, Jarolim discloses that the guide rail 4 forms a guide track (labeled below), in which the second roller 2 is guided, wherein the guide track comprises a groove, which is limited on a side facing the opening by the roll-off wall (labeled below) and wherein the second roller 2 is guided in the groove and rolls off on an inner side of the roll-off wall.
With respect to claim 6, Jarolim discloses that the deflection element (labeled below) forms the outer contour on an outer side and the stop face (labeled below) on an inner side, wherein in the first position of the swivel arm, as shown in figure 4, the deflection element is arranged between the two rollers 2, 8.
With respect to claim 7, Jarolim discloses that the swivel arm 1, 5 is angled with a first section 5, which in the first position runs roughly parallel to the longitudinal direction, as shown in figure 4, and transforms into a second section 1, which runs roughly in the transverse direction angled at roughly 45 degrees to section as shown in figure 4.
With respect to claim 8, Jarolim discloses that the leaf 3 is formed by a door leaf of a vehicle as set forth in paragraph 2 and the opening is formed by a door opening of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 9, Jarolim discloses a method for opening and closing an opening (labeled below) which is arranged in a frame (labeled below), the method including the following steps:
a) opening procedure
moving a leaf 3, which closes the opening, out of a closed position, as shown in figure 4, in a direction of an open position, as shown in figure 1, along a longitudinal direction, so that a guide rail 4 extending along the longitudinal direction into an opening direction with a deflection element (labeled below) arranged at a front end of the guide rail 4 in the opening direction comes to bear on a free end of a swivel arm 1, 5 fixed on the frame and swivellable about a vertical access M2 and thus, with further movement of the free end from a first position, as shown in figure 4, into a second position, as shown in figure 1, brings about a movement of the leaf 3 in a transverse direction out of the opening as shown in figure 3, and
further movement of the leaf 3 in the longitudinal direction until in a final open position as shown in figure 1,
b) closing procedure
moving the leaf 3 out of the open position in a direction of the closed position along the longitudinal axis until a stop face (labeled below) in the guide rail 4 comes to bear on the free end of the swivel arm 1, 5 and causes the swivel arm to swivel from the second position, as shown in figure 1, into the first position, as shown in figure 4, and a movement of the leaf 3 in the transverse direction in a direction of the opening as shown in figures 2 and 3, and
further movement of the leaf 3 until in a final closed position as shown in figure 4.
With respect to claim 10, Jarolim discloses that the leaf 3 is formed by a door leaf of a vehicle (see paragraph 2) and the opening if formed by a door opening of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image2.png
1642
1110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1644
1108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1646
1098
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that Jarolim fails to disclose a swivel arm because the elements 1 and 5 of Jarolim are not arm-shaped. This is not persuasive because the term “swivel arm” is not defined by the applicant and not well defined in the art and is, therefore, subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. The word “arm” is defined by Merriam-Webster on line dictionary as “a human upper limb especially: the part between the shoulder and the wrist” and “something like or corresponding to an arm” www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm. Elements 1 and 5 meet the limitations of an arm since element 5 is analogous to the humerus while element 1 is analogous to the radius and ulna. Because the elements 1 and 5 swivel about the axis M2 which is analogous to a shoulder, Jarolim discloses a “swivel arm”. It should be noted that the mere fact that element 1 of Jarolim extends beyond the pivot axis M1 in two directions, does not prevent elements 1 and 5 from disclosing an arm since elements 1 and 5 are “something like or corresponding to an arm”.
Second, the applicant argues that the roller lever 1 and the pivot lever 5 together are not aligned roughly in the longitudinal direction in the closed position of the leaf. This is not found to be persuasive because it is not supported by the claim language. See claim 1 which recites that the free end of the swivel arm “is aligned in a closed position of the leaf in a first position roughly in the longitudinal direction”. Thus, the claims do not require the roller lever 1 and the pivot lever 5 together being aligned roughly in the longitudinal direction in the closed position of the leaf, as argued by the applicant.
Finally, the applicant argues that the roller lever 1 and the pivot lever 5 together are not aligned roughly in the transverse direction in the open position of the leaf. This is not found to be persuasive because it is not supported by the claim language. See claim 1 which recites that the free end of the swivel arm “is aligned in an open position of the leaf in a second position roughly in a transverse direction”. Thus, the claims do not require the roller lever 1 and the pivot lever 5 together being aligned roughly in the transverse direction in the open position of the leaf, as argued by the applicant.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights