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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The amendment filed 6//26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 all include additional limitations that do not have support in the original disclosure. There is no mention in the specification to the upper fixed position. The specification discusses a closed configuration but not an upper fixed position. Nor does the disclosure as originally filed include mention of a “flush plane” or “a terminal end position” of either the upper or lower guide elements as newly recited. The limitation that the glass reaches the flush plane responsive to the upper protruding structure (upper corner) reaching a terminal end position of the upper guide element and the lower protruding structure (lower corner) reaching a terminal end position of the lower guide element likewise constitutes new matter. There is no support for these amendments in the disclosure as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 24 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.
In claim 24, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination and line 2 reciting a combination in that the upper guide element is formed in the pillar, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistency with this intent. For the purpose of treating the claims based upon prior art, the claims have been treated as subcombination claims. If applicant amends the claims, any indication of allowable subject matter will have to be reevaluated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 15-17, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 148 in view of Bickerstaff.
For claim 1, WO2008/059148 (WO 148) discloses an assembly for a vehicle, the assembly comprising:
an exterior door panel (15) and an interior door panel (15) forming a door body for a back door of the vehicle;
a glass (13) adapted to extend from a top of the door body in a closed configuration and be disposed within the door body in an open configuration,
wherein a lower corner of the glass comprises a lower protruding structure (32) and
an upper corner of the glass comprises an upper protruding structure (31);
an upper guide element (21) adapted to be secured to or formed in a pillar of the vehicle different than the door body and receive the upper protruding structure; and
a lower guide element (22,22b) adapted to be secured to or formed in an interior portion of the door body and receive the lower protruding structure during a vertically downward translation of the lower protruding structure (32),
wherein the lower guide element is vertically spaced apart (FIGS.5-6) from the upper guide element, and
wherein (a) the upper guide element is configured to terminate at an upper fixed position (see FIG.4) and (b) the lower guide element is configured to terminate at a lower fixed position (FIG.4) to collectively define a plane that positions the glass offset with the outer surface of the exterior door panel with the glass in the closed configuration,
the glass reaching the plane (FIG.4) responsive to the upper protruding structure reaching a terminal end position of the upper guide element and the lower protruding structure reaching a terminal end position of the lower guide element,
PNG
media_image1.png
829
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the lower guide element includes:
an upper portion that includes a curved guide piece (FIGS.5-6, see the topmost part/section between pieces 22 and 22b),
the curved guide piece (FIGS.5-6) configured to guide the lower protruding structure (32) to a glass guide element,
the curved guide piece guides the lower protruding structure (32) via an inboard translation of the lower protruding structure (see where 32 moves inward in FIG.5) and prior to the vertically downward translation of the lower protruding structure (see where 32 moves vertically downward in FIG.6).
For claim 9, WO 148 further discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a pillar; and the assembly set forth above.
PNG
media_image2.png
515
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WO 148 fails to provide the glass in a closed configuration (FIG.4) sitting flush with an outer surface of the exterior door panel as newly recited.
Bickerstaff (4575967) teaches a window glass that when in a closed configuration sits flush with an outer surface of an exterior door as seen in FIG.2 thru the use of an actuator 42 including slide 44 and pivoted link (plate) 50. The window glass when in the closed configuration is in a plane flush with the outer surface of the exterior door panel. The glass reaches the flush plane responsive to a lower structure reaching a terminal end position of an upper guide element (FIG.2).
PNG
media_image3.png
733
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the offset of the end portion of the assembly of WO 148 to allow for a flush mounting of the glass as taught by Bickerstaff thereby eliminating an external ledge and create a smooth continuation for aesthetics.
For claims 4 and 12, when the lower protruding structure (32) translates vertically upwards through the lower guide element and outboard through the curved guide piece, the upper protruding structure (31) translates vertically upwards through the upper guide element (21).
For claims 5 and 13, the pillar comprises a side portion of an exterior frame structure (FIGS.1-3) coupled to the door body and surrounding the glass or a glass opening.
For claims 7 and 15, in the closed configuration, the glass is adapted engage a seal coupled to the pillar (FIG.7).
For claims 24-25, the upper guide element (21) is formed in the pillar (FIG.7); and
The upper guide element (21) is separate from the exterior door panel (FIGS.5-6).
PNG
media_image4.png
652
439
media_image4.png
Greyscale
WO 148 inherently discloses the method recited in claims 16, 21-22 and 26.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 148 as applied above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and in view of Tiesler (4783930).
WO 148 discloses the lower guide element comprises a glass guide element disposed below the curved guide piece but fail to allow the glass guide element adapted to receive an edge of the glass as the lower protruding structure translates vertically downwards through the lower guide element.
Tiesler teaches the use and desirability of providing a glass guide element (70,71 at 82) adapted to receive an edge of a window glass (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided for use with the assembly of WO 148 a glass guide element as taught by Tiesler in order to further support and maintain the window glass during movement between the open and closed configurations.
For claims 3, 11, and 20, when at least a portion of the edge of the glass is received in the glass guide element and the upper protruding structure (31) translates vertically downwards and out of a bottom of the upper guide element (21) (as evident from FIG.6) to coincide with a space defined between the vertically spaced apart lower guide element and upper guide element, the door body is free to be opened/closed with respect to the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot.
With regard to the amendments, applicant states the response contains no new matter and that support for the added material comes from [0004-0006], [0021-0023], and FIGS.8-9.
Examiner is not persuaded by this as the paragraphs do not include the subject matter newly added. Specifically, there is no mention in the specification to the upper fixed position. The specification discusses a closed configuration but not an “upper fixed position”. Nor does the disclosure as originally filed include mention of a “flush plane” or “a terminal end position” of either the upper or lower guide elements as newly recited. The limitation that the glass reaches the flush plane responsive to the upper protruding structure (upper corner) reaching a terminal end position of the upper guide element and the lower protruding structure (lower corner) reaching a terminal end position of the lower guide element likewise constitutes new matter. There is no support for these amendments in the disclosure as originally filed.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights