DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 1/29/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-17 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
In line 1 of claim 7, “the receiver” is brought to applicant’s attention because claim 1 introduces at least two receivers. However in light of the drawings, examiner notes that the recitation in claim 7 is clearly referring to both receivers of the plurality of retention features therefore the scope of the claim is clear.
In lines 21-22 of claim 16, “the vibration attenuation feature is configured to directly mate with the first end of the adjacent rotatable latch to form the graspable handle” is brought to applicant’s attention because the claim recites at least two vibration attenuation features. However in light of applicant’s drawings (specifically fig. 6), the recitation is clearly referring to that the vibration attenuation feature of each adjacent rotatable latch directly mating with the first end of its respective other adjacent rotatable latch therefore the scope of the claim is clear.
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, 3-4, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Helms et al. (US 8333036) (hereinafter “Helms”).
Claim 1
(Helms discloses) A vehicle (figures 6-8; the invention of Helms is directed to vehicle see at least abstract) comprising:
a vehicle body including a movable body (the moving vehicle body to which 2024 is attached) attached thereto, the movable body defining an opening (the opening which the panel 2024 opens and closes) configured for receipt of a window system (figure 6);
the window system including:
a fixed panel (2024) that is fixed to the movable body;
a removable panel (2010) that is configured to be attached to and detached from the fixed panel (lines 46-50 of col. 5); and
a plurality of retention features (2018) that are configured to attach the removable panel to the fixed panel (figures 6-8; lines 46-50 of col. 5),
wherein the plurality of retention features each include a rotatable latch (top two 2018; Annotated figure 6 below) attached to the removable panel that is configured to engage with a receiver (2018a) to attach the removable panel to the fixed panel (lines 46-50 of col. 5); and
wherein each of the rotatable latches are L-shaped members including a first end (Annotated figure 6 below) configured to engage with the receiver when the removable panel is attached to the fixed panel (Annotated figure 6 below), and configured to directly mate with the first end of the adjacent rotatable latch (via cable 2031; Annotated figure 6 below; note that applicant’s own rotatable latches are directly mated with each other via an element in between [see applicant’s own annotated figure 7 below], therefore the limitation ‘configured to directly mate’ was also interpreted in a similar manner) to collectively form a graspable handle when the removable panel is to be detached from the fixed panel (Annotated figure 6 below), and each of the rotatable latches including a second end (Annotated figure 6 below) rotatably attached to the removable panel (Annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6
PNG
media_image2.png
464
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
applicant’s own annotated figure 7
Claim 3
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein each of the rotatable latches are configured to rotate 90 degrees (see at least figures 7-8).
Claim 4
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein each of the rotatable latches include a vibration attenuation feature (2031) at the first end that, when the first end of the rotatable latch is engaged with the receiver, attenuates vibrations experienced by the window system during operation of the vehicle (this is taught as a feature of the cable); and
when the first end of the rotatable latch is mated with the adjacent rotatable latch (figure 6), the vibration attenuation feature is configured to directly mate with the first end of the adjacent rotatable latch (figure 6).
Claim 9
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a seal (2010e; figure 4) positioned between the fixed panel and the removable panel (figure 4).
Claim 10
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the seal is attached to the fixed panel (figure 4).
Claim 11
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the seal includes a molded corner (molded corners of 2010e; figure 3) configured as an alignment feature to align the removable panel relative to the fixed panel when attaching the removable panel to the fixed panel (figure 4).
Claim 12
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the removable panel is configured to be flushly aligned with the fixed panel when the removable panel is attached to the fixed panel (Annotated figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
520
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5
Claim 13
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the removable panel is configured to be offset from the fixed panel when the removable panel is attached to the fixed panel (Annotated figure 5 above).
Claim 14
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the adjacent rotatable latches collectively form the graspable handle (2032a; figure 6), a space (the space between 2032a and panel 2010c) is provided between the graspable handle and the removable panel that is configured for receipt of an operator's hand (figure 6).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helms, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 9-14 above, in view of Randall (US 5326140).
Claim 5
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 4.
Helms is silent regarding wherein the first end of each rotatable latch includes a recess configured for receipt of the vibration attenuation feature of the adjacent rotatable latch.
(However, Randall teaches) wherein an end (at end 31 to which the cable 48 is attached; Randall figures 3 and 7) of each rotatable latch (24) includes a recess (31A) configured for receipt of a vibration attenuation feature (48) of an adjacent rotatable latch (Randall figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the respective first ends of each of the latches of Helms with the recess of Randall, with a reasonable expectation of success, for properly receiving each vibration attenuation features and securing them as such they would not snap or separate from the latches.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helms, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 9-14 above, in view of Fallis, III et al. (US 7240960) (hereinafter “Fallis”).
Claim 6
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1.
Helms is silent regarding wherein the movable body is a swing-gate including a swing-gate header that defines the opening.
(However, Fallis teaches) a movable body (42) is a swing-gate (Annotated figure 1 below) including a swing-gate header (Annotated figure 1 below) that defines an opening (Annotated figure 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the window system of Helms to a swing gate similar to the swing gate of Fallis, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide an emergency egress/ingress to the rear of the vehicle if the swing gate is jammed or blocked.
PNG
media_image4.png
437
729
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
Claim 7
(Helms, as modified above, discloses) The vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the receiver is attached to the swing-gate header (this is taught via the combination above).
Claim 8
(Helms, as modified above, discloses) The vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the fixed panel includes a plurality of locator clips (Annotated figure 5 above; note that “clip” was interpreted as -- Any of various devices for gripping or holding things together-- and ‘device’ was broadly interpreted as --An object designed and manufactured to perform one or more functions--) bonded thereto that are configured to mate with a through-hole formed in the swing-gate header (intended use; the locator clips can be mated with a through hole formed by the swing-gate header).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helms, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 9-14 above.
Claim 15
(Helms discloses) The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the removable panel is formed of glass (at least panel 2010b is a glass window).
Helms is silent regarding the fixed panel is formed of glass.
However, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fixed panel such that the fixed panel is formed of glass, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing visibility to the interior of the vehicle such that first responders are aware of any trapped passengers that requires assistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art Damboiu et al. (US 11053715) (hereinafter “Damboiu”) in view of Helms et al. (US 8333036) (hereinafter “Helms”) seems to teach most of the limitations of the independent claim 16.
However, the combination of the limitations and the amendments to define the mating of the first end of the rotatable latch with the first end of the adjacent rotatable latch further defines the claim such that the combination of prior art does not teach the limitations of claim 16.
Note that the prior office action relies on the teachings of Helms regarding the directly mating of the rotatable latches. However, as applicant noted in the remarks, filed on 1/29/2026, the end to which the rotatable latches are directly mated with each other is not the same end that is received by the receiver of the retention features. Examiner also notes that “directly mated” was interpreted similar to applicant’s invention as having an element in between (see figure labeled “applicant’s own annotated figure 7” on the office action filed on 12/16/2025).
Additionally, examiner also considered applying Helms to reject claim 16 as it seems to meet most of the limitations of claim 16 including those noted above, however the prior art fails to meet some limitations which is explained in the annotated figure of Helms below. Also note that examiner is interpreting "wherein adjacent rotatable latches are configured to rotate in a direction toward each other" such that one latch rotates clockwise and while the other latch rotates counter clockwise such that they both rotate towards each other similar to applicant's invention.
Further modifications such that any of the prior art meets the claim limitations would require hindsight and/or piecemeal rejection such that examiner finds them unreasonable to apply and reject the claims recited.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
PNG
media_image5.png
481
1046
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The responses below were directed to applicant’s arguments on the Remarks section.
Applicant argued that “While Helms also appears to teach rotatable latches that are L-shaped (see below annotated FIGS. 6 and 8), the "first end" of the L-shaped latches that are engaged with the receiver do NOT mate with each other via the cable when rotated out of engagement with the receiver”. Referring to the annotated figure 6 of Helms included by the applicant, examiner agrees that the top right and bottom right rotatable latches do not have ends that are engaged with the receiver and also mated with each other.
However, the top left and top right rotatable latches (see figure 6 of Helms) both have ends that: (i) engages with the receiver, and (ii) configured to be directly mated with the first end of the adjacent latch as required by the claims. Additionally, both top latches 2018 are also L-shaped (see note in the rejection above) as such, in light of the interpretation of ‘directly mated’ noted above, this argument was found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634