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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 13, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the claim amendments overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the previous rejections. A new rejection under 112(b) has been added with respect to new claim 31. Note: Regarding the 112(b) rejection, applicant argued that the phrase “extending upwardly from” the inner beltline region implies a structural relationship, and the phrase “arranged in” the outer beltline region merely implies a spatial relationship (Remarks, Page 8). Examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument, and is interpreting both limitations in the same manner, requiring only a spatial relationship. Examiner does not agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “extending upwardly from” and “arranged in” with the same nuance that applicant has applied.
Regarding the prior art, applicant has argued that claim 11 is patentable over Sugie. Applicant argues that “the examiner’s obviousness rationale—that it would have been obvious to extend the flange connection along the entire longitudinal length of the reinforcing structure ‘in order to provide as much joined surface area as possible’ and for ‘aesthetic benefit’—is conclusory and fails to account for the manufacturing reality described in the specification. Applicant submits that the specification explains why extending the flange into the corner regions is a non-trivial problem that is specifically solved by the claimed two-part construction. As described in paragraph [0020] of the specification, ‘the outer door skin could thus not be folded or flanged or welded in the edge region of the outer door skin without spacing apart the flange or the welded joint from the frame of the door bodyshell in a motor vehicle width direction to such an extent that the flanging tool or the welding tool no longer collides with the frame in this region.’ As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0020]. In other words, in a conventional one-piece door construction, the flanging tool would collide with the frame in the corner regions where the vertically extending parts of the frame structure are arranged. The Examiner has not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Sugie's hemmed connection to extend into the corner regions where the door frame is arranged, particularly when Sugie's door frame 36 is a separate component that would present the same tool-collision problem. The modification is not a mere design choice-it requires the specific two-part assembly approach that Sugie does not teach or suggest” (Remarks, Pages 11-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has rendered the modification to Sugie as being more significant than it actually is. What is known from Sugie is that the reinforcing element 42 extends along the entire longitudinal length of the door. This is clear from Fig. 1. It is also known that the outer door skin 34 is flanged to the reinforcing element 42 at least at the point of the cross-section taken along the plane indicated by “2-2” in Fig. 1 (corresponding to the section view in Fig. 2). The modification proposed is merely to extend the flanged connection all along the length of the reinforcing member 42. The proposed modification does not “fail to account for the manufacturing reality” as alleged by applicant. There is no additional “manufacturing reality” related to extending the flanged connection 34T to the ends of the reinforcing member 42 beyond what challenges are already present in creating the flanged connection at the location indicated by “2-2” in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 indicates that the flanged connection 34T gets formed at location 2-2 despite whatever manufacturing challenges may exist. Examiner is not persuaded that any additional challenges are presented by extending the flanged connection 34T along the length of reinforcing member 42. Additionally, the motivation to “provide as much joined surface area as possible” is not a “conclusory” statement but is rooted in basic engineering principles.
Furthermore, while applicant alleges that the proposed modification to Sugie “fails to account for the manufacturing reality described in the specification,” examiner asserts that the discussion in applicant’s specification is not relevant to Sugie. Applicant’s specification compares applicant’s invention to “conventional one-piece door construction” (Remarks, Page 12, line 5), and refers to the manufacturing challenges encountered in such “conventional” construction. Examiner is not persuaded that such a comparison is relevant to Sugie, because Sugie’s door appears to be formed from two pieces (Paragraph 0049, “the terminal portion of the door outer panel 34…and the terminal portion of the door inner panel 32 are hemmed together”).
Regarding claim 21, applicant applies the same reasoning as referred to above with respect to claim 11 (Remarks, top of Page 13). Thus, examiner also maintains the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 17, applicant argues—responding to examiner’s assertion that the previous arguments attacked Hirano individually—that “the deficiency [in the rejection] is not an individual attack on Hirano—it is that the proposed combination does not result in adhesive being applied to connect the inner door panel to the assembly, as claim 17 requires. Hirano's adhesive connects components within what the Examiner maps as the ‘assembly,’ not between the assembly and the inner door panel” (Remarks, bottom of Page 13). Again, examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 recites “applying an adhesive to the inner door panel and/or the assembly…” Thus, the claim only requires applying adhesive to the assembly, not “between the assembly and the inner door panel.” The rejection is maintained.
Finally, regarding claims 22 and 29, applicant has argued that the flange angle of “less than 60 degrees” is non-obvious. Applicant states that the “Examiner has alleged this would be obvious as ‘a matter of design choice and routine optimization,’ relying on Watanabe's figures as ‘appear[ing] to show an angle of approximately 45 degrees.’ See Office Action, pages 25, 28. However, Watanabe (US 2015/0291232) is directed to a tailgate spoiler assembly, not a door beltline structure, and the angles discussed in Watanabe relate to the acute angle between spoiler portions-not a beltline flange angle relative to a horizontal plane. See Watanabe, paragraph [0034]. Relying on visual estimation from schematic figures of an unrelated structure does not establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the beltline flange angle to less than 60°. Moreover, the Examiner has not established the flange angle as a result-effective variable or explained what technical benefit would drive optimization to the specific range of less than 60°” (Remarks, Page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, examiner apologizes for a typographical error in the rejection. Examiner’s intent was to rely on Sugie’s figures to show the angle of approximately 45 degrees. Examiner asserts that Sugie’s figures are analogous to claimed structure and are not particularly schematic, but would “reasonably teach” one skilled in the art that the final dimensions of the assembly would at least be similar to what is pictured (MPEP 2125, section II). Furthermore, while Sugie may not identify the specific angle of the flange as a result-effective variable, it is also noted that applicant’s disclosure does not demonstrate any particular criticality of the claimed angle range. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 31, it is unclear what is meant by “bent upwardly around the reinforcing structure.” This phrase is not present in the original disclosure, and thus it is unclear what it intends to mean. It appears that the specification teaches a movement that is opposite what is claimed (see Fig. below). The limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 11, 12, 14-16, 24, 25, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie (US 2017/0136856).
With regard to claim 11, Sugie discloses (see primarily Figs. 2 and 4) a door bodyshell of a framed door of a motor vehicle, comprising:
an inner door panel (32) comprising an inner beltline region (proximate numeral 38) and a peripheral frame structure (i.e. every part of element 32 below the beltline region), which is connected to the inner beltline region (all components of the door are “connected” to each other), for a motor vehicle side window (40), wherein the peripheral frame structure comprises vertically extending parts extending upwardly from the inner beltline region (see Fig. provided below, note that the phrase “extending upwardly” from an inner beltline region is interpreted to mean a spatial relationship, in the same manner that the phrase “arranged in” a region implies a spatial relationship); and
PNG
media_image2.png
400
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an assembly (34, 42), which is fastened to the inner door panel (all elements of the door are “fastened” to each other, at least indirectly), having a reinforcing structure (42), which is arranged level with the inner beltline region (see Fig. 2, which shows the inner beltline region proximate numeral 38 being level with the reinforcing structure 42), and an outer door skin (34), which is connected to the reinforcing structure level with the inner beltline region via a flange (42A), wherein the flange comprises a portion of the outer door skin (34T) bent around the reinforcing structure (42A), wherein,
in a state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is inclined level with the inner beltline region in the direction of a motor vehicle interior such that the flange and a horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 90° (see attached Fig. provided below), and
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, (see annotated Fig. provided below, which shows the reinforcing structure being located as far as the corners of the door), in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction, of an outer beltline region of the door bodyshell in which the vertically extending parts of the frame structure are arranged (see annotated Fig. provided below. Note: The vertically extending parts are “arranged” in both the inner and outer beltline regions of the door, and they also “extend upwardly” from both the inner and outer beltline regions).
PNG
media_image3.png
186
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
310
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sugie fails to teach explicitly that the flange extends into the corner of the door bodyshell. Sugie does teach that the reinforcing portion 42 extends into the corner, as shown in the annotated Figure above, but this does not necessarily imply that the flange 42A/34T extends into the corner as well.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie such that the flange connection 34T/42A extended along the entire longitudinal length of the reinforcing structure 42, in order to provide as much joined surface area as possible between the reinforcing structure 42 and the outer door skin 34. Additionally, doing so would provide a continuous upper boundary of the door bodyshell with no gaps, giving an aesthetic benefit. See annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
278
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, Sugie teaches that, in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the outer door skin upwardly delimits the outer beltline region in a motor vehicle vertical direction (the bend in the outer door skin in Fig. 2 of Sugie is the uppermost visible portion of the beltline), and/or
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is shorter than the outer door skin in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction (the annotated Fig. below shows that the reinforcement material 42 is shorter in the longitudinal direction than the door skin).
PNG
media_image6.png
270
316
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 14, Sugie discloses a production method for a door bodyshell, the method comprising:
providing an inner door panel (32) comprising an inner beltline region (proximate numeral 44A) and a peripheral frame structure (see Fig. 4, which shows the complete door), which is connected to the inner beltline region, for a motor vehicle side window (40);
providing an assembly (34, 42) having a reinforcing structure (42), which is arrangable level with the inner beltline region (see elements 42A and 34T, which are level with beltline region 44A in Fig. 2), and an outer door skin (34), which is connected to the reinforcing structure level with the inner beltline region via a flange (34T) or a welded joint; and
fastening the assembly to the inner door panel (the complete door is shown in Fig. 4) such that:
in a state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is inclined level with the inner beltline region in the direction of a motor vehicle interior such that the flange or the welded joint and a horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 90 (see Fig. below), and
PNG
media_image3.png
186
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
270
316
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sugie fails to teach explicitly that the flange extends into the corner of the door bodyshell. Sugie does teach that the reinforcing portion 42 extends into the corner, as shown in the annotated Figure above, but this does not necessarily imply that the flange 42A/34T extends into the corner as well.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie such that the flange connection 34T/42A extended along the entire longitudinal length of the reinforcing structure 42, in order to provide as much joined surface area as possible between the reinforcing structure 42 and the outer door skin 34. Additionally, doing so would provide a continuous upper boundary of the door bodyshell with no gaps, giving an aesthetic benefit. See annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
278
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Sugie fails to teach that the assembly is pre-assembled as a unit separate from the inner door panel, and wherein the flange or the welded joint is formed in the assembly before the assembly is fastened to the inner door panel. However, Sugie does at least teach that, once the inner and outer doors are assembled together, there is very little working space left between them (see Fig. below).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie such that the reinforcing structure (42) and the outer door skin (34) were pre-assembled before joining them to the inner door panel (32), as the working space to make such a connection is greatly reduced after assembly of the inner and outer door panels (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image7.png
368
607
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, Sugie teaches that providing of the assembly comprises flanging the outer door skin around the reinforcing structure (see connection between elements 34T and 42A) to form the flange or welding the outer door skin to the reinforcing structure with the formation of the welded joint.
With regard to claim 16, Sugie discloses that providing of the assembly comprises providing a flanged edge fixing (the connection between elements 42A and 34T can be considered a “flanged edge fixing,” and other connections can be considered the same, such as indicated by numeral 52A).
With regard to claim 24, Sugie, as modified, teaches that the flange extends into both outer corners, in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction, of the outer beltline region of the door bodyshell (see Sugie’s Fig. 1, which shows the reinforcing structure 42 extending to both corners of the door).
With regard to claim 25, Sugie teaches that the portion of the outer door skin is (34T) bent through at least 180 degrees around the reinforcing structure (42A—Fig. 2 shows the 180-degree bend).
With regard to claim 28, Sugie teaches connecting a lower edge of the assembly to the inner door panel by flanging (see the lowermost point of Fig. 4). However, Sugie is silent regarding the front and rear edges of the assembly. In other words, Sugie teaches flanging the upper and lower edges, but is silent about the front and rear.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by utilizing flanged connections at the front and rear of the door, in the same manner as the upper and lower edges, with a reasonable expectation of success given that this connection method is already used in multiple places in Sugie’s door, and thus continuing to utilize such a connection throughout the door would reduce the complexity of the manufacturing operation.
With regard to claim 29, Sugie fails to teach that the flange and the horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 60 degrees. Sugie is simply silent as to the actual angle of the flange.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie such that the angle of the flange was less than 60 degrees, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Watanabe’s figures already appear to show an angle of approximately 45 degrees, and because such an angle would be a matter of design choice and routine optimization depending on the desired aesthetic characteristics of the door bodyshell.
With regard to claim 30, Sugie teaches that the flanging comprises bending the outer door skin through at least 180 degrees around the reinforcing structure (see Fig. 2, where element 34T turns 180 degrees to wrap around element 42A).
With regard to claim 31, as best understood, Sugie teaches that the outer door skin is bent upwardly around the reinforcing structure in the motor vehicle vertical direction (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image8.png
276
434
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Renault S.A.S. (FR 3051731 A1, hereinafter Renault).
With regard to claim 13, Sugie fails to teach a seal which can be brought into sealing contact with a window pane, and, in the state in which the seal is in sealing contact with the window pane, closes a window well in the outer beltline region.
Renault discloses a framed door similar to that of Sugie, which has a seal (4, 8) that seals with a window pane (31) and closes a window well in the outer beltline region (i.e. letter “J” in Fig. 1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the seal of Renault, in order to prevent water ingress into the internal mechanisms of the door.
With regard to claim 32, Sugie in view of Renault teaches that the seal has an inner and outer part, given that Renault’s seal (which has been incorporated into Sugie) has both inner (8) and outer (4) parts.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Hirano et al. (US 11,407,291.
With regard to claim 17, Sugie fails to teach that the connection of the inner door panel to the assembly comprises:
applying an adhesive to the inner door panel and/or the assembly.
Hirano teaches a flanged door panel (Fig. 4) similar to that of Sugie, in which an adhesive (16) is provided between the outer door skin (8) and a door reinforcement (25a1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the adhesive connection of Hirano between the outer door skin and reinforcement element, in order to increase the strength of the door.
With regard to claim 18, Sugie, as modified by Hirano, teaches that the joining comprises one-sided joining (Fig. 4 of Hirano teaches a “one-sided joining,” given that only one side of the reinforcement element 25a1 is joined to the outer door skin via the adhesive 16). However, Sugie fails to teach that the inner door panel has at least one opening sized such that a joining device for the one-sided joining is reachable through the at least one opening.
Hirano teaches an inner door panel (9) having openings (14) sized that the joining is “reachable” through the opening (Fig. 2).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the openings in the inner door panel taught by Hirano, in order to “allow access to a door hollow portion” (Hirano, column 2, lines 60-62).
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0291232, hereinafter Watanabe).
With regard to claim 21, Sugie discloses a door bodyshell of a framed door of a motor vehicle (primarily Figs. 2 and 4), comprising:
an inner door panel (32) comprising an inner beltline region (proximate numeral 38) and a peripheral frame structure (i.e. every part of the inner door panel 32 that is located below the inner beltline region), which is connected to the inner beltline region (all parts of the door are broadly “connected”), for a motor vehicle side window (40), wherein the peripheral frame structure comprises vertically extending parts extending upwardly from the inner beltline region (see Fig. provided below, note that the phrase “extending upwardly” from an inner beltline region is interpreted to mean a spatial relationship, in the same manner that the phrase “arranged in” a region implies a spatial relationship); and
PNG
media_image2.png
400
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an assembly (34+42), which is fastened to the inner door panel (see Fig. 4, which shows the inner and outer door panels being connected to form the door bodyshell), having a reinforcing structure (42), which is arranged level with the inner beltline region (see Fig. 2), and an outer door skin (34), which is connected to the reinforcing structure level with the inner beltline region (note connection between elements 34T and 42A), wherein,
in a state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is inclined level with the inner beltline region in the direction of a motor vehicle interior such that the welded joint and a horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 90 degrees (see annotated Fig. below), and
PNG
media_image3.png
186
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the (annotated Fig. below shows that the reinforcing structure 42 extends along substantially the entire longitudinal direction of the door bodyshell) in which the vertically extending parts of the frame structure are arranged (see annotated Fig. provided below. Note: The vertically extending parts are “arranged” in both the inner and outer beltline regions of the door, and they also “extend upwardly” from both the inner and outer beltline regions).
PNG
media_image4.png
310
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sugie teaches a flanged, hemmed joint between the reinforcing structure (42) and the outer door skin (34) rather than a welded joint.
Watanabe teaches a vehicle panel that can be connected in a number of ways “e.g. hemmed, fused, welded, or brazed” (see paragraph 0011). In other words, Watanabe teaches the functional equivalence of welded and hemmed connections in auto body applications.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing a welded joint, rather than a hemmed connection, between the reinforcing structure 42 and the door skin 34, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Watanabe teaches the functional equivalence of hemmed and welded connections in automotive applications. Therefore, such a modification would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known connection means for another in order to achieve a predictable result.
Sugie, as modified by Watanabe, fails to teach explicitly that the welded joint extends into the corner of the door bodyshell. Sugie does teach that the reinforcing portion 42 extends into the corner, as shown in the annotated Figure above, but this does not necessarily imply that the welded joint at the location of 42A/34T extends into the corner as well.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie in view of Watanabe such that the welded connection between the reinforcing portion 42 and the door panel 34 extended along the entire longitudinal length of the reinforcing structure 42, in order to provide as much joined surface area as possible between the reinforcing structure 42 and the outer door skin 34.
With regard to claim 22, Sugie in view of Watanabe fails to teach that the flange and the horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 60 degrees. Sugie is simply silent as to the actual angle of the flange.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie in view of Watanabe such that the angle of the flange was less than 60 degrees, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Sugie’s figures already appear to show an angle of approximately 45 degrees, and because such an angle would be a matter of design choice and routine optimization depending on the desired aesthetic characteristics of the door bodyshell.
With regard to claim 26, Sugie teaches that, in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the outer door skin upwardly delimits the outer beltline region in a motor vehicle vertical direction (Fig. 2 clearly shows that the bend in the door skin 34, proximate numeral 44A represents the upward limit of the outer beltline region), and/or in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is shorter than the outer door skin in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Warmington et al. (US 2023/0118935, hereinafter Warmington).
With regard to claim 23, Sugie fails to disclose a seal arranged in a window well formed between the inner door panel and the assembly, wherein the seal is arranged below the flange such that the seal is not visible from outside the motor vehicle.
Warmington discloses an automotive door bodyshell provided with a seal (130) that seals against a window glass (22). The seal (130) is arranged below a flange (48) such that the seal is not visible from outside the vehicle.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the seal of Warmington beneath Sugie’s flange, in order to prevent water ingress into the internal mechanisms of the door (Warmington, Paragraph 0004) while hiding the seal from view for aesthetic reasons (Warmington, Paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Watanabe as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Renault.
With regard to claim 27, Sugie, as modified by Watanabe, fails to teach a seal which can be brought into sealing contact with a window pane, and, in the state in which the seal is in sealing contact with the window pane, closes a window well in the outer beltline region.
Renault discloses a framed door similar to that of Sugie, which has a seal (42) that seals with a window pane (31) and closes a window well in the outer beltline region (i.e. letter “J” in Fig. 1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie in view of Watanabe by providing the seal of Renault, in order to prevent water ingress into the internal mechanisms of the door.
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 ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights