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 § 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 11 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.
Claim 11 is not clearly understood because “the mounting portion” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
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 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2014/0306480).
Sasaki, in reference to claim 14, the pillar garnish assembly comprises a pillar structural member (14) extending along a side edge of the windshield (13) and a garnish member (17-20,39) is secured to the structural member along the side edge of the vehicle windshield (13), as shown in Figure 9. The garnish member (17-20,39) defines an open trough (41) with an open side thereof facing laterally inwardly, as shown in Figure 9. The garnish member (17-20,39) includes a base portion, at reference number (41), defining a base side of the open trough (41) with a lateral fluid channel (42) extending through the base portion to direct fluids received in the open trough therethrough, as shown in Figure 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The base portion has at least one fluid channel (42) extending through the base to direct fluid received in the open trough into a closed pillar channel disposed behind the garnish member (17-20,39), as shown in Figure 9. The collected fluid is discharged into the closed pillar channel enables a reduced trough size and greater design flexibility for the garnish member.
In reference to claim 15, the garnish member (17-20,39) defines a closed pillar channel disposed behind the garnish member (17-20,39) along the side edge of the vehicle windshield (13) which is fluidly connected to the open trough (41) by the at least one fluid channel (42), as shown in Figure 9.
In reference to claim 17, the garnish member (17-20,39) includes a mounting portion (18) secured to the pillar structural member, as shown in Figure 2, and an overlap portion extending from the mounting portion laterally and overlapping a front side of the vehicle windshield (13) to define the open trough (41) together with the windshield, as shown in Figure 9.
However, Sasaki does not disclose the lateral fluid channel extends obliquely in the embodiment shown in Figure 9.
Sasaki teaches forming a lateral fluid channel (31) at an oblique angle, as shown in Figure 4.
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 lateral fluid channel of Sasaki at an oblique angle, as taught by Sasaki, with a reasonable expectation for success to effectively drain the lateral fluid channel.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2014/0306480), as applied to claim 15, in view of Nakai et al. (US 2016/0129771).
Sasaki, as modified does not disclose more than one lateral fluid channel.
Nakai et al. teaches providing a plurality of spaced holes (36h) in a windshield molding (30), as shown in Figures 3 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional, spaced apart lateral fluid channels in the pillar garnish of Sasaki, as modified, as taught by Nakai et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide improved drainage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12, 19, and 20 are allowed.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 1/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 under Sasaki (US 2014/0306480), embodiment of Figure 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sasaki (US 2014/0306480), embodiment of Figure 4.
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 February 10, 2026