DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendments to claims 8 and 18, filed 15 January 2026 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (U.S. 11,498,402).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a window panel assembly, comprising: a glass panel (16, column 5, line 23 defines 15 as a glass plate); a window frame (20), installed on the glass panel (16), comprising an abutment seat (32) extended outward from a portion of an outer perimeter thereof (see fig 5), the abutment seat (32) comprising a connecting portion (support groove 39) and an elastic arm portion (37), the connecting portion (39) connected to the window frame (20, via inner vertical wall 57) and the elastic arm portion (37), the elastic arm portion (37) comprising an abutment surface (outer surface of 37, as seen in fig 5), the abutment seat (32) comprising a pair of blocking surfaces (top and side of 32A) arranged at two sides of the abutment surface (top and side of 32A are associated with top and side of abutment surface 37), and a buffer space (internal to 37, see fig 5) defined between the elastic arm portion (37) and the window frame (20); and a sealing strip (36), arranged on the outer perimeter of the window frame (20), and one end of the sealing strip (36) abutting against one of the blocking surfaces (side of 32A, see fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi further teaches wherein the elastic arm portion (37) is a semi-circle plate (as seen in fig 5, 37 is semi-circular).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi further teaches wherein when the abutment surface (outer portion of 37) is compressed, the elastic arm portion (37) is configured to generate an elastic deformation to retract toward the buffer space (when 37 is compressed, it will deform into the buffer space internal to 37, seen in fig 5).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 3. Takahashi further teaches wherein the abutment surface (outer portion of 37) is arranged on one side of the elastic arm portion (37) opposite from the buffer space (internal to 37).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi further teaches wherein the abutment seat (32) is two in number (column 6, line 41 recites 2 of element 32), two ends of the sealing strip (36) abut against the blocking surfaces (top and side of 32A, see fig 9) of the abutment seats (32) respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi further teaches wherein the sealing strip (36) is two in number (column 6, line 41 recites 2 of element 32, and 36 is an element of 32), one end of each the sealing strip (36) abuts against each the blocking surface (top and side of 32A, see fig 9) of the abutment seat (32).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi further teaches wherein a thickness of the abutment seat (32) is tapered from the connecting portion (39) toward the abutment surface (outer portion of 37, as seen in fig 5).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi further teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the elastic arm portion (37) is wider than an area of the abutment surface (area of 37 is greater than the area of the outer portion of 37, see fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi teaches an automotive sunroof apparatus, comprising: a car body (2), comprising a window opening (3); and a window panel assembly (see fig 1), arranged on the window opening (3), comprising a glass panel (16), a window frame (20) and a sealing strip (36), the window frame (20) installed on the glass panel (16), the window frame comprising an abutment seat (32) extended outward from a portion of an outer perimeter thereof (see fig 5), the abutment seat (32) comprising a connecting portion (support groove 39) and an elastic arm portion (37), the connecting portion (39) connected to the window frame (20, via inner vertical wall 57) and the elastic arm portion (37), the elastic arm portion (37) comprising an abutment surface (outer surface of 37, as seen in fig 5), the abutment seat (32) comprising a pair of blocking surfaces (top and side of 32A) arranged at two sides of the abutment surface (top and side of 32A are associated with top and side of abutment surface 37), and a buffer space (internal to 37, see fig 5) defined between the elastic arm portion (37) and the window frame (20), the sealing strip (36), arranged on the outer perimeter of the window frame (20), and one end of the sealing strip (36) abutting against one of the blocking surfaces (side of 32A, see fig 6) wherein when the window panel assembly (as seen in fig 1) closes the window opening (3), a lateral side of the sealing strip (36) and the abutment surface (outer surface of 27) press an inner edge of the window opening (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi further teaches wherein the elastic arm portion (37) is a semi-circle plate (as seen in fig 5, 37 is semi-circular).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi further teaches wherein when the abutment surface (outer portion of 37) is compressed, the elastic arm portion (37) is configured to generate an elastic deformation to retract toward the buffer space (when 37 is compressed, it will deform into the buffer space internal to 37, seen in fig 5).
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 13. Takahashi further teaches wherein the abutment surface (outer portion of 37) is arranged on one side of the elastic arm portion (37) opposite from the buffer space (internal to 37).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi further teaches wherein the abutment seat (32) is two in number (column 6, line 41 recites 2 of element 32), two ends of the sealing strip (36) abut against the blocking surfaces (top and side of 32A, see fig 9) of the abutment seats (32) respectively.
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi further teaches wherein the sealing strip (36) is two in number (column 6, line 41 recites 2 of element 32, and 36 is an element of 32), one end of each the sealing strip (36) abuts against each the blocking surface (top and side of 32A, see fig 9) of the abutment seat (32).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi further teaches wherein a thickness of the abutment seat (32) is tapered from the connecting portion (39) toward the abutment surface (outer portion of 37, as seen in fig 5).
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi further teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the elastic arm portion (37) is wider than an area of the abutment surface (area of 37 is greater than the area of the outer portion of 37, see fig 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. 11,498,402) in view of Kirchner (U.S. 10,427,505).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi teaches components of the window panel assembly are molded but is silent as to the window frame (20) and abutment seat (32) being integrally formed by plastic injection molding.
Kirchner teaches a similar window panel assembly where a frame and abutment seat are integrally formed by plastic injection molding (column 2, lines 1-4).
Takahashi and Kirchner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle window panel assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Kirchner and integrally form the window frame and abutment seat by plastic injection molding. Doing so would utilize a single process to form the two components and ensure they have a snug fit and reduce manufacturing costs. Further, the claim limitation “integrally formed by plastic injection molding” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 7 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches the window panel assembly of claim 1. Takahashi teaches components of the window panel assembly are molded but is silent as to the window frame (20) and abutment seat (32) being integrally formed by plastic injection molding with polyurethane.
Kirchner teaches a similar window panel assembly where a frame and abutment seat are integrally formed by plastic injection molding with polyurethane (column 2, lines 1-4 and 10-11).
Takahashi and Kirchner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle window panel assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Kirchner and integrally form the window frame and abutment seat by plastic injection molding with polyurethane. Doing so would utilize a single process to form the two components and ensure they have a snug fit and reduce manufacturing costs. Polyurethane is cost effective, lightweight, and easily formed. Further, the claim limitation “integrally formed by plastic injection molding” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 8 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 17, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi teaches components of the window panel assembly are molded but is silent as to the window frame (20) and abutment seat (32) being integrally formed by plastic injection molding.
Kirchner teaches a similar automotive sunroof apparatus where a frame and abutment seat are integrally formed by plastic injection molding (column 2, lines 1-4).
Takahashi and Kirchner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automotive sunroof assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Kirchner and integrally form the window frame and abutment seat by plastic injection molding. Doing so would utilize a single process to form the two components and ensure they have a snug fit and reduce manufacturing costs. Further, the claim limitation “integrally formed by plastic injection molding” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 17 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 18, Takahashi teaches the automotive sunroof apparatus of claim 11. Takahashi teaches components of the window panel assembly are molded but is silent as to the window frame (20) and abutment seat (32) being integrally formed by plastic injection molding with polyurethane.
Kirchner teaches a similar automotive sunroof apparatus where a frame and abutment seat are integrally formed by plastic injection molding with polyurethane (column 2, lines 1-4 and 10-11).
Takahashi and Kirchner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automotive sunroof assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Kirchner and integrally form the window frame and abutment seat by plastic injection molding with polyurethane. Doing so would utilize a single process to form the two components and ensure they have a snug fit and reduce manufacturing costs. Polyurethane is cost effective, lightweight, and easily formed. Further, the claim limitation “integrally formed by plastic injection molding” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 18 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the buffer space and abutment seat of the claimed invention is different than that of the prior art, and therefore the prior art of Takahashi does not read on the claimed invention. However, Takahashi reads on the claim language as it is currently presented. The examiner instead urges the applicant to amend the claims to more distinctly define the claimed subject matter, as there does appear to be a difference between the instant invention and the prior art of record. Applicant further argues that the prior art of Takahashi not suitable for injection molding. However, as stated above, the term injection molded is a product-by-process limitation and the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not its method of production.
Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the claim objections from the non-final office action and the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s replacement drawing has overcome the drawing objection from the non-final office action and the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631