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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-15,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamara et al. US 6893084 in view of Brock et al. US 5466508.
Tamara et al. have glass panel 4, window frame 6, groove 9, and planar surface on the outer surface of 6 above the groove, figure 2.. Tamara et al. have seal 7, abutting part above the groove and abutting the planar surface, and buckling part 7b extending upwardly and downwardly to lock the seal to the frame with the direction of the groove and 7b perpendicular to the planar surface .
Tamara et al. lack a block flange extending from the frame and increasing seal retention to the frame, taught by Brock et al. at 25 and 27, figures 2 and 4, respectively. The block flange and assembly of Tamara et al. are both within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in this art a graduate engineer or experienced window/sunroof designer.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Tamara et al. the block flange taught by Brock et al. for the stated reason.
Claim 2, 11, the part 7b and a main horizontal body in the groove and latching hook extending both upwardly and downwardly from the main body at its inner end, and a reserved hook extending upwardly to engage the latching hook.
Claim 3, 12, the seal 7 is semi-circular and hollow, claim 8, 17.
Claim 4,13 Tamara et al. have installing slot at the inner edge of 6 with glass panel and the block flanges of Brock et al. extend away from the panel.
Claim 5, 14,6,15, Brock et al. shows a ninety degree including angle, claim 6, 15 and an angle less than ninety degrees, claims 5 and 14. An angle less than 90 degrees is deemed to be an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill to enhance sealing engagement.
Claim 10, Tamara et al. have a sunroof seat 2, and the abutting part abuts the planar surface and the block flange of Brock et al. and the seal abuts the inner of the seat opposite the abutting part.
Claim(s) 7,9, 16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamara et al. in view of Brock et al. as applied to claims 1,10 above, and further in view of Brandner et al. US 6099779
Claims 7 and 16, The combination above lacks a gliding inclined surface at the groove having a vertical surface. Prior to the filing of applicant, a gliding inclined surface at a frame/seal groove was known in this art as disclosed by Brandner et al. at surface of frame 8 below the groove at 10, figure 2 configured to enhance seal engagement with the frame on possible misalignment. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in the combination above a guiding inclined surface as taught by Brandner et al. for that reason.
Claim 9, 18, the buckling part 7b of Tamara et al. is solid. Brandner et al. teaches a hollow buckling part 6/11 deemed to enhance engagement to the groove as the hollow is compressed as the latching hooks engage the groove. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in the combination above a hollow buckling part as taught by Brandner et al. for that reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8182025 details another block flange engaging a sunroof seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS H PEDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6667. The examiner can normally be reached 4:30-1pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5550. 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.
/Dennis H Pedder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
DENNIS H. PEDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3612
DHP
8/22/2025