DETAILED ACTION
The Final Office Action, mailed 04/26/2026, is to be vacated and replaced with this Final Office Action. The period of reply is to be maintained from the now vacated/replaced Final Office action, mailed 04/26/2026.
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) 1-6, 9-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabura et al. (US 2013/0160374 A1) in view of Marchlewski et al. (Patent No. 10,967,913).
Re: claim 1, Kuwabura et al. teaches a quarter window assembly for use on an automobile (Fig. 4) having a door sheet metal (13), said quarter window assembly comprising a fixed glass (12) having a side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) and a bottom edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – bottom edge); a guide rail (15) having a groove (Fig. 7 & 8 - 18A, 19A) and a fixing portion (18b) disposed close to the groove (See Fig. 7); a sealing member (Fig. 4 – 14) snapped into the groove (See Fig. 4 & 5) wherein the side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) of the fixed glass (12) is fixed on the fixing portion (18b) and abuts against the sealing member (14); and a fixing assembly including a member (21) and a fixing bracket (Paragraph 0058); and wherein the fixing bracket (See Paragraph 0058) is disposed on the guide rail (15) and is suitable for fixing on the door sheet metal (See Paragraph 0058). Kuwabara fails to teach wherein the member is fixed on the bottom edge of the fixed glass and is suitable for being fixed on the door sheet metal.
The examiner notes that the member (21) is disposed on the bottom edge of the fixed glass but not fixed to it.
However, Marchlewski et al. teaches wherein the member (Fig. 5 – 40) is fixed on the bottom edge of the fixed glass (See Fig. 5) and is suitable for being fixed on the door sheet metal (14).
Kuwabura et al. and Marchlewski et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s member with those of Marchlewski et al.’s member and position in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more secure and less prone to breaking (Additional points of contact for the quarter window will prevent it from bending and shattering should there only be one axis of connection).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the sealing member (Fig. 4 – 14) further comprises a first sealing strip (16) and a second sealing strip (17) connected with the first sealing strip (See Fig. 4).
Re: claim 3, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein materials of the first sealing strip (16) and the second sealing strip (17) are both elastomers (See Paragraph 0056 – Lines 8-10 – Glass run (14) is made of a thermoplastic elastomer).
Re: claim 4, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the guide rail (15) is provided with a limiting opening (Fig. 5 - 22), and wherein a snapping block snap-fitted with the limiting opening (Fig. 6 - 23) is disposed at the position of the sealing member corresponding to the limiting opening (Paragraph 0053), and wherein the snapping block limits the movement of the sealing member along a length direction of the guide rail (Paragraph 0054).
Re: claim 5, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the guide rail (15) has a supporting section (18) and a sealing section (19), wherein the sealing section (19) is suitable for slidingly mating and sealingly connecting (Paragraph 0059) with a lifting glass (11), wherein the side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) of the fixed glass (12) is fixed on the supporting section (18), and wherein the first sealing strip (16) is located on the supporting section (18) and the second sealing strip (17) is located on the sealing section (19).
Re: claim 6, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the fixing portion (Fig. 7 - 18b) is a connecting arm disposed on the supporting section (18) and adjacent to the groove (18a), and wherein the side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) of the fixed glass (Fig. 7 - 12) is bonded on the connecting arm (See Fig. 7).
Re: claim 9, Kuwabura et al. is silent on wherein the member and the fixing bracket each are provided with connecting holes for screws to pass through.
However, Marchlewski et al. teaches wherein the member (Fig. 5 - 40) and the fixing bracket (22) each are provided with connecting holes (34 & 42) for screws to pass through. Kuwabura et al. and Marchlewski et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s fixing bracket with those of Marchlewski et al.’s holes in order to provide for a more secure and replaceable system (i.e., Being able to remove connections from a bracket would allow for an easier time replacing anything that breaks, instead of having to replace the whole 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.).
Re: claim 10, Kuwabura et al. teaches an automobile (Paragraph 0039 – lines 1-2) comprising: a door sheet metal (13); and a quarter window assembly (Fig. 4) said quarter window assembly comprising: a fixed glass (12) having a side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) and a bottom edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – bottom edge); a guide rail (15) having a groove (Fig. 7 & 8 - 18A, 19A) and a fixing portion (18b) disposed close to the groove (See Fig. 7); a sealing member (Fig. 4 – 14) snapped into the groove (See Fig. 4 & 5) wherein the side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) of the fixed glass (12) is fixed on the fixing portion (18b) and abuts against the sealing member (14); and a fixing assembly including a member (21) and a fixing bracket (Paragraph 0058); and wherein the fixing bracket (See Paragraph 0058) is disposed on the guide rail (15) and is suitable for fixing on the door sheet metal (See Paragraph 0058). Kuwabara fails to teach wherein the member is fixed on the bottom edge of the fixed glass and is suitable for being fixed on the door sheet metal.
The examiner notes that the member (21) is disposed on the bottom edge of the fixed glass but not fixed to it.
However, Marchlewski et al. teaches wherein the member (Fig. 5 – 40) is fixed on the bottom edge of the fixed glass (See Fig. 5) and is suitable for being fixed on the door sheet metal (14).
Kuwabura et al. and Marchlewski et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s member with those of Marchlewski et al.’s member and position in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more secure and less prone to breaking (Additional points of contact for the quarter window will prevent it from bending and shattering should there only be one axis of connection).
Re: claim 11, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the sealing member (Fig. 4 – 14) further comprises a first sealing strip (16) and a second sealing strip (17) connected with the first sealing strip (See Fig. 4).
Re: claim 12, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein materials of the first sealing strip (16) and the second sealing strip (17) are both elastomers (See Paragraph 0056 – Lines 8-10 – Glass run (14) is made of a thermoplastic elastomer).
Re: claim 13, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the guide rail (15) is provided with a limiting opening (Fig. 5 - 22), and wherein a snapping block snap-fitted with the limiting opening (Fig. 6 - 23) is disposed at the position of the sealing member corresponding to the limiting opening (Paragraph 0053), and wherein the snapping block limits the movement of the sealing member along a length direction of the guide rail (Paragraph 0054).
Re: claim 14, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the guide rail (15) has a supporting section (18) and a sealing section (19), wherein the sealing section (19) is suitable for slidingly mating and sealingly connecting (Paragraph 0059) with a lifting glass (11), wherein the side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) of the fixed glass (12) is fixed on the supporting section (18), and wherein the first sealing strip (16) is located on the supporting section (18) and the second sealing strip (17) is located on the sealing section (19).
Re: claim 15, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the fixing portion (Fig. 7 - 18b) is a connecting arm disposed on the supporting section (18) and adjacent to the groove (18a), and wherein the side edge (Annotated Fig. 4 – side edge) of the fixed glass (Fig. 7 - 12) is bonded on the connecting arm (See Fig. 7).
Re: claim 18, Kuwabura et al. is silent on wherein the member and the fixing bracket each are provided with connecting holes for screws to pass through.
However, Marchlewski et al. teaches wherein the member (Fig. 5 - 40) and the fixing bracket (22) each are provided with connecting holes (34 & 42) for screws to pass through. Kuwabura et al. and Marchlewski et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s fixing bracket with those of Marchlewski et al.’s holes in order to provide for a more secure and replaceable system (i.e., Being able to remove connections from a bracket would allow for an easier time replacing anything that breaks, instead of having to replace the whole 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.).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabura et al. and Marchlewski et al. in view of Svending et al. (WO 02/058951 A1).
Re: claim 7, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the fixed glass (12) and the member (21) are bonded and fixed by adhesive (Paragraph 0058 – Lines 1-4 – “The fixing may be obtained by using an adhesive or fasteners such as screws”). Kuwabara et al. is silent on the adhesive being structural glue.
However, Svending et al. teaches the use of glue for bonding the glass, car body, and fixture (Page 4 – Lines 16-25).
Kuwabura et al., Marchlewski et al., and Svending et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s adhesive with those of Svending et al.’s glue in order to provide for a more secure and lightweight system (i.e., See Svending et al. Page 4 – Lines 20-25).
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.).
Re: claim 16, Kuwabura et al. teaches wherein the fixed glass (12) and the member (21) are bonded and fixed by adhesive (Paragraph 0058 – Lines 1-4 – “The fixing may be obtained by using an adhesive or fasteners such as screws”). Kuwabara et al. is silent on the adhesive being structural glue.
However, Svending et al. teaches the use of glue for bonding the glass, car body, and fixture (Page 4 – Lines 16-25).
Kuwabura et al., Marchlewski et al., and Svending et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s adhesive with those of Svending et al.’s glue in order to provide for a more secure and lightweight system (i.e., See Svending et al. Page 4 – Lines 20-25).
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.).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabura et al. and Marchlewski et al. in view of Charge et al. (US 2020/0031213 A1).
Re: claim 8, Kuwabura et al. is silent on wherein the fixing bracket and the guide rail are fixed by riveting or welding.
However, Charge et al. teaches wherein the fixing bracket (Fig. 2 - 123) and the guide rail (112) are fixed by riveting or welding (Paragraph 0041).
Kuwabura et al., Marchlewski et al., and Charge et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s bracket and guide rail with those of Charge et al.’s riveting in order to provide for a more secure and lightweight system (i.e., Rivets are vibration-resistant and are meant to be permanent connections).
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.).
Re: claim 17, Kuwabura et al. is silent on wherein the fixing bracket and the guide rail are fixed by riveting or welding.
However, Charge et al. teaches wherein the fixing bracket (Fig. 2 - 123) and the guide rail (112) are fixed by riveting or welding (Paragraph 0041).
Kuwabura et al., Marchlewski et al., and Charge et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle windows. 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 Kuwabura et al.’s bracket and guide rail with those of Charge et al.’s riveting in order to provide for a more secure and lightweight system (i.e., Rivets are vibration-resistant and are meant to be permanent connections).
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.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 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