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”.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/25.
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 1-2, 4-5, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lathers (3567209) in view of Wozena et al. (3211492).
For claim 1, Lathers discloses a vehicle door assembly, comprising:
a vehicle body structure (10) defining an opening (12; FIG.1);
a window (18) movably connected to the vehicle body structure, the window being configured to move between a closed position (FIGS.1-2) at least partially closing the opening and an open position (FIG.3) exposing the opening such that the window is at least partially disposed between a body member (22) of the vehicle body structure and a trim element (headlining 24) of the vehicle body structure; and
PNG
media_image1.png
520
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
370
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a movement mechanism (“any operating means”, Col 2, lines 26-30) configured to move the window between the closed position and the open position,
the vehicle body structure includes a guide assembly (tracks 20, Col 2, lines 20-26; secured to the pillar structures 16), the window (18) travels along the guide assembly (tracks) between the closed and open positions, the guide assembly defining a first travel path, the first travel path having a same shape of at least a portion of the window (as seen in FIGS.2-3).
Lathers additional provides the guide assembly being one of a plurality of guide assemblies (where two tracks 20 are located one on each of the pillar structure 16) at opposite sides of the opening such that the window travels along the guide assemblies between the closed and open positions, and the first travel path has a substantially curved shape (FIGS.2-3) corresponding to the curved shape of the window (claim 5).
Lathers lacks the specific movement mechanism, a feature disclosed by Wozena et al.
Wozena et al. ‘492 teaches a window as disclosed above (FIGS.1-2) having a movable member (40) and a glass attachment structure (32,34) attached to the movable member for pivotal movement with respect thereto, the movement mechanism being installed between a trim element and a body member of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image3.png
319
513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
383
480
media_image4.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 provided the movement mechanism of Wozena et al. for use with the window of Lathers as an obvious expedient to achieve the same predictable result of moving the window.
For claim 2, the trim element is a headliner (24) and the body member is a roof panel (22).
For claim 4, the window has a curved shape (FIG.3) as viewed from sides thereof.
For claim 13, the glass attachment structure (32,34 of Wozena) pivots relative to the movable member (40 of Wozena) as the window is moved between the open position and the closed position.
For claim 14, Lathers further comprising
a lower door (tailgate 26) movably connected to the vehicle body structure,
the lower door being configured to move between an upper closed position (FIGS.1-2) and a lower open position (FIG.3) such that with both the lower door and the window in their respective closed positions a lower end of the window contacts an upper end of the lower door.
For claim 15, the window and the lower door are independently movable.
For claim 17, an overall height of the vehicle body structure is not increased when the window is located in the open position relative to the window being in the closed position.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lathers, as modified above, in view of the well known prior art.
For claim 16, Lathers, as modified, shows the window having an arcuate shape but fails to provide the arcuate shape being compound as recited.
The examiner takes official notice that compound arcuate shaped windows are well known in the prior art for use in vehicles as evidenced by at least Leflet, Jr. et al. (3364005) (FIGS.2-3); Maynard (2002/0108324) ([0018]); Golightly (3264082) (Col 1, lines 23-34); and WO9707377 (describing modern aerodynamic vehicles having windows with compound curves as seen in FIGS.20A-20B (as seen below).
PNG
media_image5.png
438
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
249
474
media_image6.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 provided the window of Lathers, as modified, with a compound curve as taught by the well known prior art in order to allow the vehicle to be more aerodynamic.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are allowed.
Claims 6-9 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the specific track member rigidly fixed to the body member, the track member being separate and distinct from the guide assemblies, the track member defining a second travel path separate and distinct from the first travel path, such that the movable member moves along the second travel path between the closed position and the open position in combination with the other elements recited which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 3614