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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first vehicle body portion including a door pillar and a second vehicle body portion including a door (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Renke (US 7,937,894).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Renke discloses a vehicle, comprising: a first vehicle body portion (not shown); a second vehicle body portion (10), wherein the first vehicle body portion and the second vehicle body portion cooperate to define a window opening (not shown); a window (16) that has window surface (Fig. 1); bracket assemblies (22) that are connected to the window; guide structures (20) that are in engagement with the bracket assemblies so that the bracket assemblies are movable with respect to the guide structures to allow movement of the window between a closed position and an open position; and a stabilizer (24) that is connected to the second vehicle body portion (Fig. 1) and engages the window surface of the window when the window is in the open position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 19, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the stabilizer (24) includes a contact member (26) that is biased toward engagement with the window surface of the window when the window is in the open position (Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 3, 14 and 20, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the guide structures (20) include a first guide structure and a second guide structure, wherein the stabilizer is located between the first guide structure and the second guide structure (col. 2, lines 23-27).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the second vehicle body portion defines an interior space (Figs. 1 and 2), the guide structures are located inside the interior space of the second vehicle body portion, the stabilizer is located inside the interior space of the second vehicle body portion, and the window is located inside the second vehicle body portion when the window is in the open position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 21, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the guide structures each include a first guide and a second guide, and the bracket assemblies each include a first follower that is movable along the first guide and a second follower that is movable along the second guide (col. 2, lines 24-25 “one of the regulator rails”).
Regarding claim 6, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the first guide and the second guide of each of the guide structures are tracks (“regulator rails 20”).
Regarding claim 7, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first vehicle body portion is an upper portion of a door (not shown) and the second vehicle body portion is a lower portion of the door (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Renke discloses the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising: an actuation assembly (22) that is configured to cause movement of the window between the closed position and the open position (col. 2, lines 20-22).
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.
Claims 9, 11, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renke in view of JP H0578621 U.
Renke discloses the vehicle of claims 1-7, 10, 12-16 and 18-21 as explained above.
Renke does not disclose the edge structure of the window panel.
JP H0578621 U discloses a vehicle window structure in which the window glass (6) includes a seal (see annotate Fig. 4 below) which engages with the body structure and the window is flush with the body structure when the window in in the closed position. JP H0578621 U further discloses that the window is movable from the open to closed position using rails and brackets.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Renke and JP H058621 U are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e., vehicle windows.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include seals along the edge of the windows which allow the window to seal against and be flush with the vehicle structure when the window is in the closed position. JP H058621 teaches that the seals along the edge of the window is a known sealing structure for vehicle windows. Therefore it would have been a simple substitution of one known sealing method for another known sealing method for vehicle windows.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine JP H058621 U with Renke to obtain the invention as specified in claims 9, 11, 17 and 22 .
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renke in view of Brisette (US 3,328,918).
Renke discloses the vehicle of claims 1-7, 10, 12-16 and 18-21 as explained above.
Renke does not disclose that the first vehicle body portion includes a door pillar.
Brisette discloses that it is known to have vehicle doors without upper frame members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the door system of Renke for vehicle structures in which the upper door does not include a window frame. In a vehicle without an upper door frame, the second vehicle body portion would be a door pillar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L ENGLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 am-4 pm.
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, Scott Boalick can be reached at 571-272-8138. 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.
/Patricia L Engle/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3991