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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boxtel (US 2021/0115719) in view of Zunzer et al. (US 2021/0101460).
Van Boxtel discloses a sunroof device comprises a roof (2,3’) with an opening (1), and a roof frame attached to the roof (2), as shown in Figure 1, 2, and 10-12.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The roof frame comprises a pair of sliding rails (4) separately arranged corresponding to two sides of the opening, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. An outline of the roof frame does not match an outline of the opening (1) since roof panel (3’) is a stationary panel, as shown in Figures 1 and 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0024]. The outline of the roof frame and the outline of the opening are shaped in different curves, as shown in Figures 1-3. The opening has smooth sides, while the roof frame has a front flange with a jagged edge. The outlines have different curves.
PNG
media_image2.png
321
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A window plate assembly (3) is connected to the pair of sliding rails (4) by a pair of link assemblies (5,6), as shown in Figures 2 and 3 and disclosed in paragraph [0026]. The pair of link assemblies (5,6) correspond to the pair of sliding rails (4), as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Each link assembly (5,6) is connected to the window plate assembly (3), as disclosed in paragraph [0026]. Each link assembly (5,6) is disposed on each sliding rail (4) and slides along each sliding rail (4), as shown in Figures 3 and 5-9. Each link assembly (5,6) is connected to the window plate assembly (3), as disclosed in paragraph [0026]. However, Van Boxtel does not disclose a weather strip connected to a periphery of the window plate.
In reference to claim 3, the window plate assembly (3) comprises a glass plate, as disclosed in paragraph [0025].
In reference to claim 11, each sliding rail (4) has a sliding trough (17), as shown in Figure 11 and disclosed in paragraph [0030]. Each link assembly (5,6) is connected to a corresponding sliding trough (17), as shown in Figure 9.
Zunzer et al. teaches providing a weatherproof strip (10) on a periphery of a cover plate (6) to abut against an inner edge (4) of an opening, as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claim 2, the waterproof strip (10) is a hollow tubular shape, as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claim 3, the window plate assembly comprises a frame body (5) disposed around the periphery of the cover plate (6) such that the waterproof strip (10) is attached on an outer edge of the frame body (5), as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
In reference to claim 5, a channel trough is disposed on the outer edge of the frame body (5) and extends along the outer edge of the frame body (5), as shown in Figure 5. The waterproof strip (10) is disposed in the channel trough, as shown in Figure 5.
PNG
media_image3.png
406
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 6, an embedding groove is defined in the channel trough and an embedding strip (12) is disposed protrusively on a side of the waterproof strip (10) and engaged in the embedding groove, as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claim 7, the embedding strip is of a hollow tubular shape, as shown in Figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a frame body attached waterproof strip along the outer edge of the glass plate of Van Boxtel, as taught by Zunzer et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a securely attached weather strip to prevent leaks in the vehicle cabin.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Boxtel (US 2021/0115719) and Zunzer et al. (US 2021/0101460), as applied to claim 1,
Van Boxtel, as modified, discloses each link assembly (5,6) is connected to a bracket fixed to the longitudinal sides of the window plate, as shown in Figures 2, 3, and 5-9 are disclosed in paragraph [0025]. However, Van Boxtel, as modified, does not explicitly state the brackets are part of the frame body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the brackets of Van Boxtel, as modified, as an integral part of the frame body with a reasonable expectation for success to reduce parts and simplify assembly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Boxtel (US 2021/0115719) and Zunzer et al. (US 2021/0101460), as applied to claim 1, in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0377013).
Van Boxtel, as modified, does not disclose the roof frame and sliding rails are spaced from the opening.
Li et al. teaches forming sliding rails (6) and the roof frame (22) are spaced from the opening (3a), as shown in Figures 1B and 3A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sliding rails of Van Boxtel, as modified, spaced from the opening, as taught by Li et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Boxtel (US 2021/0115719) and Zunzer et al. (US 2021/0101460), as applied to claim 1, in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0377013).
Van Boxtel, as modified, does not disclose the roof frame is spaced from the opening.
Li et al. teaches forming sliding rails (6) and the roof frame (22) are spaced from the opening (3a), as shown in Figures 1B and 3A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the roof frame of Van Boxtel, as modified, spaced from the opening, as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient space for various components like additional seals and electrical wiring.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Boxtel (US 2021/0115719) and Zunzer et al. (US 2021/0101460), as applied to claim 1, in view of Grimaldo et al. (US 2022/0258579).
Van Boxtel, as modified, discloses each sliding rail (4) has a drain trough, as shown in Figure 11. The claim does not require a drain in the trough.
PNG
media_image4.png
173
333
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Grimaldo et al. teaches forming a frame body with a guiding plate disposed and extending to a drain trough, as shown in Figure 10.
PNG
media_image5.png
442
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a guiding plate on the frame body of Van Boxtel, as modified, that extends to the drain trough, as taught by Grimaldo et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to increase strength and rigidity of the frame body to better support the glass plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued Van Boxtel does not disclose the outlines of the roof frame and the opening have different curvatures. The examiner disagrees and has provided an annotated drawing in the rejection of claim 1 to specifically point to a difference between the two outlines. Applicant appears to be argue the curvatures are the same in a side view. This is not claimed. Further, Van Boxtel discloses the roof frame can be straight or have a curve that matches the curvature of the roof, see paragraph [0025]. The straight version would not match the curvature of the roof in a side view.
Applicant has argued the rejection of claim 5 by stating Zunzer discloses an opening of the embedding groove rather than the channel trough. The claim requires the waterproof strip to be disposed in the channel trough. This limitation is met by the structure of Zunzer as the waterproof strip is disposed in the area defined as the channel trough.
Conclusion
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 GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights