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 9, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed April 9, 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.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because “A-A’” on line 1 of paragraph 28 should be changed to agree with the drawing changes. Note that other occurrences of “A-A’” in the specification should also be amended to agree with the drawing changes, i.e., the change of the section line to figure 4 from “A-A’” to --6-6--.
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 9-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun et al. (US 2016/0059907).
With respect to claim 9 Braun et al. discloses a vehicle (not shown, but set forth on line 2 of paragraph 48) comprising:
a body (not shown, but set forth on line 3 of paragraph 65);
a door (not shown, but set forth on line 3 of paragraph 48) disposed on the body; and
a door driving system configured to drive the door, wherein the door driving system includes:
a first bracket (labeled below),
a second bracket (labeled below),
a hinge portion (labeled below) connecting the first bracket to the second bracket,
a driving portion 1 disposed on the first bracket and coupled to the hinge portion, wherein the driving portion comprises a power shaft 20 configured to transmit rotation power, and wherein the power shaft 20 and the hinge portion are forcedly fitted to be fixedly coupled (see lines 6-7 of paragraph 53 which sets forth applying a force to the driving portion 1 to couple the driving portion 1 to the hinge portion), and
a connecting portion 11 having a first side (labeled below) coupled to the second bracket and a second side (labeled below) connected with the driving portion 1 in a configuration to support rotation of the first bracket relative to the second bracket.
With respect to claim 10, the first bracket is coupled to the door via the hinge portion and the second bracket, and wherein the second bracket is coupled to the body via the hinge portion and the first bracket. It should be noted that “coupled to” is a rather broad limitation which allows intermediate elements to be present between the elements which are coupled to one another.
With respect to claim 11, the first bracket comprises: a first plate (labeled below); a second plate (labeled below) connected to the second bracket through the hinge portion; and an extension portion (labeled below) connecting the first plate to the second plate, wherein the first plate and the second plate are spaced apart along an axial direction of the hinge portion and are coupled to the door via the hinge portion and the second bracket.
With respect to claim 12, the first plate and the second plate are disposed such that a virtual surface (labeled below) extending from one surface of the first plate intersects a virtual surface (labeled below) extending from one surface of the second plate and are each coupled to the door via the hinge portion and the second bracket.
With respect to claim 21, the driving portion 1 comprises a motor (not shown, but set forth on line 1 of paragraph 49) and a reducer (not shown, but set forth as the gear unit on line 2 of paragraph 49), and wherein the reducer is configured to rotate the hinge portion at a lower rotational speed and a higher rotational torque than the motor.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 2016/0059907) in view of Elie et al. (US 9879465).
With respect to claim 1, Braun et al. discloses a door driving system comprising:
a first bracket (labeled below);
a second bracket (labeled below);
a hinge portion (labeled below) connecting the first bracket to the second bracket;
a driving portion 1 disposed on the first bracket and coupled to the hinge portion, wherein the driving portion 1 comprises a power shaft 503 configured to transmit rotation power; and
a connecting portion 11 having a first connecting-portion side (labeled below) coupled to the second bracket and a second connecting-portion side (labeled below) connected to the driving portion 1 in a configuration to support rotation of the first bracket relative to the second bracket.
Braun et al. is arguably silent concerning the power shaft and the hinge portion being forcedly fitted to be fixedly coupled.
However, Elie et al. discloses a first element 80 and a second element 36A being forcedly fitted to be fixedly coupled as set forth on lines 54-57 of column 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the power shaft 20 and the hinge portion Braun et al. with a forcedly fitted connection, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the machining costs for manufacturing the system by removing the need of the splined connection between the power shaft and the hinge portion while still preventing unwanted rotation of the power shaft relative to the hinge portion.
With respect to claim 2, Braun et al. discloses that the first bracket comprises: a first plate (labeled below); a second plate (labeled below) connected to the second bracket through the hinge portion; and an extension portion (labeled below) connecting the first plate to the second plate, wherein the driving portion 1 is coupled to the second plate.
With respect to claim 3, the first plate and the second plate are disposed such that a virtual surface (labeled below) extending from one surface of the first plate intersects a virtual surface (labeled below) extending from one surface of the second plate.
With respect to claim 4, the first bracket is provided with a first coupling portion 631 connected to the hinge portion, and the first coupling portion 631 is disposed to be spaced apart from the connecting portion 11 along an axial direction of the hinge portion.
With respect to claim 5, a first hinge-portion side 631 of the hinge portion is coupled to the power shaft 20 and a second hinge-portion side 632 of the hinge portion is coupled to the second bracket, and wherein the second bracket is configured to rotate by rotation of the hinge portion.
With respect to claim 6, the connecting portion 11 is provided with a hole through (not shown, but comprising the hole through which the power shaft 20 passes) which the power shaft 20 passes, and a clearance is formed between an inner circumferential surface of the hole and an outer circumferential surface of the power shaft since the power shaft 20 rotates relative to the connecting portion 11.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. in view of Elie et al. as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Frauenglass (US 3625875). Frauenglass discloses an adhesive for connecting a mounting adapter to a drive unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Braun et al., as modified above, with an adhesive, as taught by Frauenglass, between the power shaft and the hinge portion of Braun et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely connect the power shaft to the hinge portion.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. as applied to claims 9-12 and 21 above, and further in view of Kawanobe (US 2025/0034931). Kawanobe discloses a vehicle V comprising a link portion 3 connecting a body 1 and the door 2, wherein the link portion 3 is disposed to be spaced apart from a door driving system 5 in a width direction of the body 1 as shown in figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Braun et al. with a link portion, as taught by Kawanobe with a reasonable expectation of success to provide additional support to the door as the door pivots between opened and closed positions.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 2016/0059907) in view of Elie et al. (US 9879465).
With respect to claim 14, Braun et al. discloses a door drive system comprising:
a first bracket (labeled below);
a second bracket (labeled below);
a hinge shaft 503 connecting the first bracket to the second bracket at a hinge coupling location (labeled below) such that the first bracket can pivot relative to the second bracket about a hinge axis 8 of the hinge shaft 503;
a drive portion 1 disposed on the first bracket and coupled to the hinge shaft 503, wherein the drive portion 1 is configured to drive a pivotal movement of the first bracket relative to the second bracket via the hinge shaft 503, wherein the drive portion 1 comprises a power shaft 20 configured to transmit rotation power to the hinge shaft 503; and
a connection portion 11 having a first connection-portion side (labeled below) fixedly coupled to the second bracket via the hinge coupling location and a second connection-portion side (labeled below) pivotably coupled to hinge shaft via the first bracket, wherein the connection portion 11 is disposed between the drive portion 1 and the hinge coupling location.
Braun et al. is arguably silent concerning the power shaft and the hinge shaft being forcedly fitted to be fixedly coupled.
However, Elie et al. discloses a first element 80 and a second element 36A being forcedly fitted to be fixedly coupled as set forth on lines 54-57 of column 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the power shaft 20 and the hinge portion Braun et al. with a forcedly fitted connection, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the machining costs for manufacturing the system by removing the need of the splined connection between the power shaft and the hinge portion while still preventing unwanted rotation of the power shaft relative to the hinge portion.
With respect to claim 15, a main body portion (labeled below) of the connection portion 11 is spaced apart from the hinge coupling location as shown in figure 2a.
With respect to claim 16, the first bracket comprises: a first plate (labeled below); a second plate (labeled below); and an extension portion (labeled below) connecting the first plate to the second plate, wherein the drive portion 1 is coupled to the second plate as shown in figure 2a, wherein the second plate is also coupled to the first plate via the drive portion 1 and the hinge shaft 503 (note that the distal end of the second plate is connected to the hinge shaft 503 which is connected to the drive portion 1 which is connected to the connection portion 11 which is connected to the first plate), and wherein the first bracket is pivotably coupled to the hinge shaft 503.
With respect to claim 17, the first plate and the second plate are disposed such that a virtual surface (labeled below) extending from one surface of the first plate intersects a virtual surface (labeled below) extending from one surface of the second plate.
With respect to claim 18, a first hinge-shaft side (labeled below) of the hinge shaft 503 is fixedly coupled to the power shaft 20 and a second hinge-shaft side (labeled below) of the hinge shaft 503 is fixedly coupled to the second bracket as set forth on lines 5-6 of paragraph 61, wherein the second bracket is configured to pivot by rotation of the hinge shaft 503, and wherein the second connection-portion side is pivotably coupled to hinge shaft 503 via the power shaft 20.
With respect to claim 19, the connection portion 11 has a hole (not numbered, but comprising the hole through which the power shaft 20 passes) through which the power shaft 20 passes, and a clearance is formed between an inner circumferential surface of the hole and an outer circumferential surface of the power shaft 20 since the power shaft 20 is able to rotate relative to the connection portion 11.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. as applied to claims 9-12 and 21 above, and further in view of Kawanobe (US 2025/0034931).
Kawanobe discloses a lift device 22 (fig. 2) disposed on each side of a door 2, as set forth in paragraph 35, and configured to facilitate opening and closing of the door 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Braun et al. with lift devices, as taught by Kawanobe, with a reasonable expectation of success to aid in opening the door so as to reduce the amount of energy needed to open the door.
PNG
media_image1.png
1658
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1656
1118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1652
1114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Elie et al. teaches anchoring the drive shaft 80 to a fixed hinge portion 36A and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use the press fit connection to connect an output shaft of a motor to a moving hinge element. This is not found to be persuasive because Elie et al. is merely being used for the teaching of using a force fitting to fixedly couple two elements of a driven hinge assembly together. The fact that the force fitting connection is used to connect a drive shaft to a fixed hinge element would not deter one of ordinary skill in the art from connection a drive shaft to a movable hinge element using the force fitting connection.
The applicant next argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Braun et al. and Elie et al. The applicant states that the machined press fit connection taught by Elie et al. is a permanent connection and would destroy the releasable splined connection taught by Braun et al. This is not found to be persuasive because a press fit connection is not a permanent connection. Press fit connections can be non-destructively disassembled by merely press fitting the elements so as to separate them. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Braun et al. and Elie et al. to reduce the machining costs for manufacturing the system by removing the need of the splined connection between the power shaft and the hinge portion while still preventing unwanted rotation of the power shaft relative to the hinge portion.
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