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Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/12/26. These drawings are accepted.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 58a for the elected Species A. That is, only the second (non-elected) embodiment (Species B, FIGS. 19-22) shows the bent portion 58a.
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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bickerstaff.
For claim 1, Bickerstaff (4575967) discloses a vehicle door assembly (FIG.1), comprising:
a vehicle body structure (door 10) defining an opening (window opening 12);
a window (24/24a) movably connected to the vehicle body structure, the window being configured to move between a closed position (24a, dash-dot lines of FIG. 2) at least partially closing the opening and an open position (24, solid lines of FIG.2) exposing the opening such that the window is at least partially disposed between a body member of the vehicle body structure and a trim element of the vehicle body structure; and
a movement mechanism having a movable member (44, FIGS. 2-5) and a glass attachment structure (50,54,56) attached to the movable member for pivotal movement with respect thereto,
the movement mechanism being installed (in cavity 60) between the trim element (64) and the body member (62) and being configured to move the movable member and the window between the closed position and the open position,
the glass attachment structure including a bent portion (54; the bracket 54 as seen in cross-section (FIG.2) is generally U-shaped where the legs of the “U” are bent relative to the base of the “U” shape) to accommodate the window,
the vehicle body structure includes a guide assembly (66,94), and
the window travels along the guide assembly 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, and
the movement mechanism includes a track member (46) defining a second travel path such that the movable member moves along the second travel path between the closed position and the open position.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
782
277
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The guide assembly (66,94) is one of a plurality of guide assemblies located at opposite sides of the opening such that the window travels along the guide assemblies between the closed and open positions.
The trim element is a door trim panel and the body member is a door panel of a door attached to the vehicle body structure for pivotal movement with respect thereto.
For claim 18, the track member is rigidly fixed to the body member.
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, 4-9, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lathers (3567209) in view of Bickerstaff (4575967).
For claim 1, Lathers discloses a vehicle door assembly, comprising:
a vehicle body structure (10) defining an opening (12; FIG.1);
a window 3211492 (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_image3.png
520
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
449
media_image4.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 Bickerstaff.
Bickerstaff (4575967) teaches a vehicle door assembly (FIG.1), comprising:
a vehicle body structure (door 10) defining an opening (window opening 12);
a window (24/24a) movably connected to the vehicle body structure, the window being configured to move between a closed position (24a, dash-dot lines of FIG. 2) at least partially closing the opening and an open position (24, solid lines of FIG.2) exposing the opening such that the window is at least partially disposed between a body member of the vehicle body structure and a trim element of the vehicle body structure; and
a movement mechanism having a movable member (44, FIGS. 2-5) and a glass attachment structure (54) attached to the movable member for pivotal movement with respect thereto,
the movement mechanism being installed (in cavity 60) between the trim element (64) and the body member (62) and being configured to move the movable member and the window between the closed position and the open position,
the glass attachment structure including a bent portion (54; the bracket 54 as seen in cross-section (FIG.2) is generally U-shaped where the legs of the “U” are bent relative to the base of the “U” shape) to accommodate the window,
the vehicle body structure includes a guide assembly (66,94), and
the window travels along the guide assembly 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, and
the movement mechanism includes a track member (46) defining a second travel path such that the movable member moves along the second travel path between the closed position and the open position.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
782
277
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The guide assembly (66,94) is one of a plurality of guide assemblies located at opposite sides of the opening such that the window travels along the guide assemblies between the closed and open positions.
The trim element is a door trim panel and the body member is a door panel of a door attached to the vehicle body structure for pivotal movement with respect thereto.
For claim 18, Bickerstaff further teaches the track member (46) being rigidly fixed to the body member (FIG.2).
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 with a movement mechanism for a retractable window known from Bickerstaff as an obvious expedient to achieve the same predictable result of moving the window and in order to allow the window to be flush.
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 claims 5 and 6, the guide assembly (66,94 of Bickerstaff) is one of a plurality of guide assemblies located at opposite sides of the opening such that the window travels along the guide assemblies between the closed and open positions.
Lathers, as modified above, provides the curved shape of the window and therefore in combination with Bickerstaff, discloses the first travel path has a substantially curved shape corresponding to the curved shape of the window.
For claim 7, the shape of the second travel path is different from the shape of the first travel path such that with the window in the closed position the movable member (44 of Bickerstaff) is a first distance away from an adjacent portion of the first travel path and with the window in the open position the movable member is a second distance away from an adjacent portion of the first travel path, the first distance being different from the second distance (this is evident from FIG.2 of Bickerstaff showing the distance between 44 and the location of the window when the window is in the closed position being different than the distance between 44 and the location of the window in the opened position).
For claim 8, the glass attachment structure (54 of Bickerstaff) pivots relative to the movable member (44 of Bickerstaff) as the window is moved between the open position and the closed position (see FIG.3 of Bickerstaff showing the pivots 52 and 56).
For claim 9, the track member (46 of Bickerstaff) is positioned between (as seen in FIG. 1) the guide members (66,94 of Bickerstaff) (the guide members 66,94 are provided on either lateral side of the window whereas the track member 46 is provided in the middle/center portion of the window).
For claim 13, the glass attachment structure (54 of Bickerstaff) pivots relative to the movable member (44 of Bickerstaff) 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lathers, as modified with Bickerstaff above and further in view of Cicala (2009/0113802).
For claim 10, the glass attachment structure (54 of Bickerstaff) includes a first element (not numbered but seen in FIG.3, marked-up below) and a second member (not numbered, FIG.3) attached to opposite ends of the movable member.
Lathers, as modified, fails to provide the attachment of the respective elements via respective hinges.
PNG
media_image5.png
490
486
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cicala teaches two separate attachments as seen in FIGS. 3 and 14 for a window.
PNG
media_image6.png
484
536
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
782
745
media_image7.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 separate hinges such as taught by Cicala in place of the one single hinge of Lathers, as modified (as seen in FIG.3 of Bickerstaff) since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPT 177, 179.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lathers, as modified above, in view of the well known prior art.
For claims 11 and 16, Lathers, as modified, shows the window having an arcuate shape but fails to provide the window having a substantially curved shape as viewed from upper and lower ends thereof or 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_image8.png
438
432
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
249
474
media_image9.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.
Because applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
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, 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 3612B
Prosecution Insights