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
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(s) 1-11, 13-15, 20-21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guellec et al. (Patent No. 11,059,360) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 7475822 B2) in further view of Blottiau (US 2018/0141421).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
**It is noted that throughout the entire office action that any cited elements of Figure 11b are referring to the marked-up version above added for clarity and convenience.**
Re: claim 1, Guellec et al. teaches an encapsulated fixed window module (Fig. 11b) for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a fixed window pane (Fig. 11b - fixed window pane 14) having an exterior surface (Fig. 11b - exterior surface 14a), an interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b), and a peripheral edge (Fig. 11b - peripheral edge 14c) extending between said exterior (Fig. 11b - exterior surface 14a) and interior surfaces (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b),
at least one division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22) extending along at least a portion of said peripheral edge (Fig. 11b - peripheral edge 14c), said division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22) comprising a first longitudinal profile (Fig. 11b - first profile 22) which is U-shaped (See Col. 6 - Lines 56-57) in cross section, said division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22) having an exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a), an interior wall (Fig. 11b - interior wall 22b), and a lateral wall (Fig. 11b - lateral wall 22c) connecting said exterior (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) and interior walls (Fig. 11b - interior wall 22b), said first profile defining a longitudinal groove (Fig. 11b - groove 38) configured to receive a guide (Fig. 11b - guide 40) carried by a movable window pane (Fig. 11b - movable window pane 12), said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) facing said interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b), and
an over-molded material (Fig. 11b - over-molded material 42) securing said first profile to said fixed window pane (Fig. 11b - fixed window pane 14),
wherein said over-molded material (Fig. 11 - over-molded material 42) is in contact with at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2) which is located between said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) and said interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b), said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2) being elastically deformable (See Col. 7 - Lines 60-64); and a protruding lip (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2) which is located between the exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) of said division post (22) and the interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b) of said fixed window pane (14). Guellec et al. fails to teach wherein the at least one protruding lip from a first unconstrained position to a second constrained position in which said at least one protruding lip is elastically deformed, and wherein said at least one protruding lip is compressed between the exterior wall of the division post and the interior surface of said fixed window pane so as to adopt said second position.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 2 – protrusion 20g) is compressed between said exterior wall (Fig. 2 – base 20b) and said interior surface (Fig. 2 – window glass 13) so as to adopt said second position (Paragraph 0020). Yamamoto is silent on wherein the at least one protruding lip from a first unconstrained position to a second constrained position in which said at least one protruding lip is elastically deformed. Guellec et al. and Yamamoto et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle window seals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Guellec et al.’s ridges with those of Yamamoto’s protrusion in order to provide for a more positively engaged system (i.e., the ridges being compressed when pressed against would increase the seal of the system).
However, Blottiau teaches wherein the at least one protruding lip (Fig. 3 – outer protrusion 13a) from a first unconstrained position (Seen in Below Annotated Fig. 3a – The protrusion is extended and inside of the vertical trim 2a) to a second constrained position (Seen in Fig. 3) in which said at least one protruding lip is elastically deformed, and wherein said at least one protruding lip is compressed between said exterior wall (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – exterior wall) and said interior surface (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – interior surface) so as to adopt said second position (See Paragraph 0073 – “outer deformable protrusion 13a formed by a short lip wedged bearing against the outer vertical trim 2a”).
PNG
media_image2.png
195
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guellec et al. and Blottiau are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle window seals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Guellec et al.’s ridges with those of Blottiau’s outer protrusion in order to provide for a more positively engaged system (i.e., the elastically deformed contact with the interior surface would create a better seal, over the ridges, preventing fluid from entering the system). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
PNG
media_image3.png
193
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b - ridges 22a2) is carried by said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a).
Re: claim 3, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b - ridges 22a2) is carried by said fixed window pane (Fig. 11b - fixed window pane 14) and connected to said interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b).
Re: claim 4, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b - ridges 22a2) includes two, three or four adjacent protruding lips (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2), each of said adjacent protruding lips being elastically-deformable (See Col. 7 - Lines 60-64).
Re: claim 5, Guellec et al., Yamamoto, and Blottiau teach claim 1. Blottiau further teaches wherein said exterior wall (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position – exterior wall)) is located at a first distance (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position) from said interior surface (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position – interior surface)), said first distance being measured in a direction which is perpendicular to said interior surface (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position), wherein said at least one protruding lip (3 – outer protrusion 13a) has a first height in said first position (See Below Annotated Fig. 3a – First Position) and a second height in said second position (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position), said first and second heights being measured in a direction which is perpendicular to said interior surface (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position – interior surface), and wherein said second height is equal to said first distance (See Below Annotated Fig. 3 – Second Position), and said first height is greater that said second height and said first distance (See Below Annotated Fig. 3a – First Position).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
315
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
267
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 6, Guellec et al. and Yamamoto et al. fail to teach wherein said at least one protruding lip has a cross sectional curved shape and comprises a concave side which is oriented towards the lateral wall and an opposite convex side. However, Blottiau further teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip has a cross sectional curved shape (See Fig. 3 – outer protrusion 13a) and comprises a concave side (See Below Annotated Fig. 3-2 – concave side) which is oriented towards the lateral wall (See Below Annotated Fig. 3-2 – lateral wall) and an opposite convex side (See Below Annotated Fig. 3-2 – convex side).
PNG
media_image6.png
204
248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 7, Blottiau further teaches wherein said convex side (See Above Annotated Fig. 3-2 – convex side) is aligned and flush (See Fig. 3 – outer protrusion 13a – the protrusion is contacting the surface of outer trim (2a) and there is no gap, making it flush) with a convex surface (Fig. 3 – vertical edge 2a”) of said peripheral edge (Fig. 3 – outer trim 2a).
Re: claim 8, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach claim 1. Blottiau teaches wherein an empty space (See Above Annotated Fig. 3 – empty space) is defined between said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 3 – outer protrusion 13a) and said interior surface (See Above Annotated Fig. 3 – interior surface).
Re: claim 9, Blottiau further teaches wherein an empty space (See Above Annotated Fig. 3 – empty space 2) is defined between said opposite convex side (See Above Annotated Fig. 3-2 – convex side) and said interior surface (See Above Annotated Fig. 3 – interior surface).
Re: claim 10, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach claim 1. Blottiau further teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 3 - outer protrusion 13a) has a cross sectional straight shape (See Fig. 3) and extends perpendicularly to said interior surface (See Above Annotated Fig. 3 – interior surface).
Re: claim 11, Guellec et al. further teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b - ridges 22a2) comprises a securing base (Fig. 11b – first part 22aa) and at least one flexible lip extending from said securing base (Fig. 11b - ridges 22a2).
Re: claim 13, Guellec et al. further teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2) is overmolded onto said interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b) or onto said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a).
Re: claim 14, Guellec et al. further teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2) is made of a material of said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) or from one of materials of said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) (See Col. 7 – Lines 52-64 – “an elastically deformable material, such as for example EPDM or thermoplastic.” and “Each profile may have polypropylene in areas where material rigidity is needed…”).
Re: claim 15, Guellec et al. further teaches wherein said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b - ridges 22a2) is located at a first end of said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) which is opposite to said lateral wall (Fig. 11b - lateral wall 22c).
Re: claim 20, Guellec et al. further teaches wherein said division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22) is extruded (Col. 7 – lines 52-55) and said at least one protruding lip (Fig. 11b – ridges 22a2) is coextruded (Col. 7 – lines 52-55) with the division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22).
Re: claim 21, Guellec et al. further teaches wherein at least one sealing lip (Fig. 11b – second sealing lip 46) is further coextruded (Col. 7 – lines 52-55) with the division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22)
Re: claim 23, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach at least one encapsulated fixed window module of claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1). Guellec et al. further teaches a motor vehicle (See claim 21 of the prior art).
Re: claim 24, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach an encapsulated fixed window module (See Rejection of claim 1). Guellec et al. further teaches which comprises a door including a door frame (See Fig. 1 but also Col. 4 – Lines 53-55), a movable window pane (Fig. 11b - movable window pane 12), said movable window pane (Fig. 11b - movable window pane 12) having an exterior surface (Fig. 11b - exterior surface 14a), an interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b), and a peripheral edge (Fig. 11b - peripheral edge 14c) extending between said exterior (Fig. 11b - exterior surface 14a) and interior surfaces (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b), wherein said exterior surfaces (Fig. 11b - exterior surface 14a) of said encapsulated fixed window module (See Rejection of claim 1) and of said movable window pane (Fig. 11b - movable window pane 12) are substantially coplanar or flush (See fixed window pane 14 and movable window pane 12).
Re: claim 25, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach the encapsulated fixed window module of claim 1. Guellec et al. further teaches wherein both exterior surfaces (Fig. 11b - exterior surface 14a) of said encapsulated fixed window module (See Rejection of claim 1) and of said movable window pane (Fig. 11b - movable window pane 12) are further substantially coplanar or flush with a portion of a first sealing lip (Fig. 11b – sealing lip 44) interposed between both said peripheral edge (Fig. 11b - peripheral edge 14c) of said encapsulated fixed window module and of said movable window pane (Fig. 11b - movable window pane 12).
Claim(s) 16-19, 22, and 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guellec et al. (Patent No. 11,059,360), Yamamoto et al. (JP 7475822 B2), and Blottiau (US 2018/0141421) in further view of alternate embodiment of Guellec et al. (Patent No. 11,059,360).
Re: claim 16, Guellec et al., Yamamoto, and Blottiau teach claim 1. Guellec et al. (Embodiment of Figure 11b) fails to teach wherein said exterior wall carries a protruding leg which is perpendicular to said exterior wall and which is in abutment against said peripheral edge.
However, Guellec et al. (Embodiment of Figure 5) teaches wherein said exterior wall (Fig. 5 - exterior wall 22a) carries a protruding leg (Fig. 5 – second part 22ab) which is perpendicular to said exterior wall (Fig. 5 - exterior wall 22a) and which is in abutment against said peripheral edge (Fig. 5 - peripheral edge 14c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the embodiment of Figure 11b with the second part of the embodiment of Figure 5 in order to provide for a more positively engaged system (i.e., the co-extruded second part in direct abutment with the interior surface would create a better seal, over solely the ridges, preventing fluid from entering the system). Re: claim 17, Guellec et al. (Fig. 5) further teaches wherein said protruding leg (Fig. 5 – second part 22ab) carries a first sealing lip (Fig. 5 – sealing lip 44) which is configured to abut against a peripheral edge (Fig. 5 - peripheral edge 14c) of said movable window pane (Fig. 5 - movable window pane 12).
Re: claim 18, Guellec et al. and Yamamoto et al. fail to teach wherein said first sealing lip has a concave surface which is oriented outwardly and opposite to said at least one division post. However, Blottiau teaches wherein said first sealing lip (Fig. 3 – outer branch 12) has a concave surface (See Paragraph 0078 – “curved axially inward from outer apex S”) which is oriented outwardly and opposite to said at least one division post (Fig. 3 – inner branch 11).
Guellec et al. and Blottiau are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle window seals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Guellec et al.’s sealing lip with those of Blottiau’s outer branch in order to provide for a more positively engaged system (i.e., the concave branch would create a better seal with the movable window for preventing fluid from entering the system).
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 19, Guellec et al. (Fig 11b) further teaches wherein said over-molded material (Fig. 11b - over-molded material 42) comprises a first portion (Fig. 11b – first part 22aa) extending between said exterior wall (Fig. 11b - exterior wall 22a) and said interior surface (Fig. 11b - interior surface 14b). Guellec et al. (Fig. 11) fails to teach a second portion extending between said lateral wall and said interior surface, said first and second portions being connected one to the other, and wherein said second portion is in contact with said at least one protruding lip.
However, Guellec et al. (Fig. 5) teaches a second portion (Fig. 5 – second part 22ab) extending between said lateral wall (Fig. 5 - lateral wall 22c) and said interior surface (Fig. 5 - interior surface 14b), said first and second portions being connected one to the other (See Fig. 5).
Guellec et al. (Fig. 5) fails to teach wherein said second portion is in contact with said at least one protruding lip. It is noted that the second portion would be in contact with at least one protruding lip when combined with the alternate embodiment of Figure 11b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the embodiment of Figure 11b with the second part of the embodiment of Figure 5 in order to provide for a more positively engaged system (i.e., the co-extruded second part in direct abutment with the interior surface would create a better seal, over solely the ridges, preventing fluid from entering the system).
Re: claim 22, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach a glass run comprising an encapsulated fixed window module as claimed in claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1). Guellec et al. (Fig. 11b) further teaches a first (Fig. 11b – first part 22aa) extruded segment (Col. 7 – lines 52-55), said first extruded segment (Fig. 11b – first part 22aa) being parallel to said division post (Fig. 11b - first profile 22). Guellec et al. (Fig. 11b) fails to teach a second extruded segment, said second extruded segment extending between said encapsulated fixed window module and having a first end connected by overmolding to an upper end of said division post and a second end connected by overmolding to an upper end of said first extruded segment.
However, Guellec et al. (Fig. 5) teaches a second extruded segment (Col. 7 – lines 52-55) (Fig. 5 – second part 22ab), said second extruded segment (Fig. 5 – second part 22ab) extending between said encapsulated fixed window module (See Rejection of claim 1) and having a first end (See Below Annotated Fig. 5-2 – first end) connected by overmolding to an upper end of said division post (Fig. 5 - first profile 22) and a second end (See Below Annotated Fig. 5-2 – second end) connected by overmolding to an upper end of said first extruded segment (Fig. 5 – first part 22aa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the embodiment of Figure 11b with the second part of the embodiment of Figure 5 in order to provide for a more positively engaged system (i.e., the co-extruded second part in direct abutment with the interior surface would create a better seal, over solely the ridges, preventing fluid from entering the system).
PNG
media_image7.png
233
297
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 26, Guellec et al., Yamamoto et al., and Blottiau teach at least one glass run as claimed in claim 22 (See Rejection of claim 22). Guellec et al. further teaches a motor vehicle (See claim 21 of the prior art).
Re: claim 27, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding leg (Fig. 11b – second part 22ab) comprises a single securing base (22aa) and a plurality of flexible lips (22a2) connected to said single securing base.
It is noted that this would require the combination of the embodiments of Figure 5 and Figure 11b, as rejected in claim 16.
Re: claim 28, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding leg (22ab) is interposed in a gap (At top of Action – Fig. 11b – gap) between the peripheral edge (14c) of said fixed window pane (14) and the peripheral edge (12c) of said movable window pane (12).
It is noted that this would require the combination of the embodiments of Figure 5 and Figure 11b, as rejected in claim 16.
Re: claim 29, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding leg (22ab) is made of a same material as a main material of the first longitudinal profile (22) (Col. 7 – lines 54-55 & 60-62), and the first sealing lip (12) is made of a material softer than the main material (Col. 7 – lines 62-64).
Re: claim 30, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding leg (22ab) and said at least one protruding lip (22a2) are made of a same material as a main material of the first longitudinal profile (22) (Col. 7 – lines 54-55 & 60-62), and the first sealing lip (12) is made of a material softer than the main material (Col. 7 – lines 62-64).
Re: claim 31, Guellec et al. teaches wherein said at least one protruding leg (22ab) and said at least one protruding lip (22a2) are made of a first material (Col. 7 – lines 54-55 & 60-62) which is different from a second material of the division post (Col. 7 – lines 54-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 33 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 32, the cited prior arts whether in full or in combination fail to teach ore reasonably suggest at the very least wherein said second part of the exterior wall carries a protruding leg which is perpendicular to said exterior wall and which is in abutment against the peripheral edge of the fixed window pane. The examiner notes that the combination of the embodiments of Guellec (Figures 5 and 11b) would be reasonable to combine to achieve the first and second parts, however the protruding leg is carried by the first part and it would be building to specification to move the leg to be carried by the second part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re: Arguments pertaining to Yamamoto, the Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not correspond to a protruding lip that is compressed between an exterior wall and an interior surface and teaches away from it. The examiner disagrees and additionally cites from the art, “The upper end surface of the window glass 13 abuts against a protrusion 20g that protrudes downward from the underside of the base 20b, and the upward force causes the protrusion 20g to deform into a crushed shape to form a tight fit. This tight fit provides higher waterproofing”, which would fulfill the limitation of a protruding lip being compressed. The applicant also argues that this device is a mechanical cushioning device and not a sealing device, but as cited above, its purpose is for waterproofing, thus a sealing device.
Re: Arguments pertaining to Blottiau, the Applicant argues that Blottiau teaches away from the cited claim feature. The examiner disagrees in that the cited protruding lip does teach the claim limitation. Citing from Paragraph 0069, “the deformable protrusion 11b and that is designed to press sealably on an inner face”, the argued limitation is a protruding lip being elastically deformable from a first unconstrained position to a second constrained position in which said at least one protruding lip is elastically deformed, the claim does not require it to be a sealing member, however the examiner cited above showing that 11b does seal and thus so would 13a.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights