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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed May 11, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing corrections filed October 14, 2024 and August 19, 2025 have been approved.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “radii of curvature . . . substantially remaining unchanged” on lines 35-37 of claim 1 and “radius of curvature . . . substantially remaining unchanged” on lines 37-39 of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “provided at the bottom wall at both end edges in a width direction of the bottom wall” on lines 3-4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention includes the end edges to which the applicant is referring. Note that the applicant has only defined a width direction of the bottom wall rather than positively reciting that the side walls extend from the bottom wall. It is suggested the applicant amend claim 1 to recite something similar to --an interior-side side wall and an exterior-side side wall extend from the bottom wall at respective end edges of the bottom wall-- to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “the interior side surface” on line 20 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the applicant has failed to set forth an interior side surface of the exterior-side sealing lip above and yet is using the word “the” which appears to be referring to an antecedent which has not been set forth above.
Claim 1 is objected to because “is connected at a base end portion thereof connected to” on lines 20-21 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically incorrect and confusing. Note that the applicant has two recitations of “connected” on lines 20-21 of claim 1.
Claim 1 is objected to because “come into the glass run toward the bottom wall” on line 23 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. Note that the door glass comes into the glass run and is adjacent the bottom wall.
Claim 1 is objected to because “are supported in a sliding-contact state by the top end portions of the interior-side sealing lips and the top end portion of the exterior-side sealing lip” on lines 23-25 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the interior and exterior sides of the door glass can be supported in a sliding-contact state by the top end portions of the sealing lips. See figures 3 and 4 which show the top end portions 16b, 18b and 19b being on a side of the sealing lips which is spaced away from the door glass 4. Moreover, the specification sets forth that the contact surfaces 16d (paragraph 35) and 18d and 19d (paragraph 40) contact the door glass rather than the top end portions. Thus, it is unclear how the top end portions of the sealing lips can be in sliding contact with the door glass.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the radius of curvature” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the applicant has failed to set forth a radius of curvature of the arc-shaped outer side surface above and yet uses the word “the” in what appears to be an attempt to refer to the antecedent “radius of curvature of the arc-shaped outer side surface.
Claim 6 is objected to because “the second exterior-side sealing lip has the same structure as that of the exterior-side sealing lip” on lines 4-5 and “a thinner portion provided at a base end portion of the second exterior-side sealing lip” on lines 10-11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. If the second exterior-side sealing lip has the same structure as that of the exterior-side sealing lip, why is the applicant setting forth a thinner portion provided at a base end portion of the second exterior-side sealing lip? If the second exterior-side sealing lip has the same structure as that of the exterior-side sealing lip, there would appear to be no reason for the applicant to set forth a thinner portion provided at a base end portion of the second exterior-side sealing lip.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Recitations such as “the interior side surface of the exterior-side sealing lip” on line 20 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the exterior-side sealing lip be bent toward the interior side surface of the exterior-side sealing lip? Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the exterior-side sealing lip is bent onto itself? If this is the case, then it is unclear how the exterior-side sealing lip can be bent onto itself.
Recitations such as “radii of curvature . . . substantially remaining unchanged” on lines 35-37 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what comprises the radii of curvature of the outer side surfaces of the interior-side sealing lips. In other words, it is unclear where the top end surfaces 18c and 19c of each of the interior-side sealing lips ends and the outer side surfaces/arc-shaped top end surfaces 18d and 19d of the interior-side sealing lips begins. Note that the outer side surfaces/arc-shaped top end surfaces 18d and 19d of the interior-side sealing lips appear to extend around the tip of the sealing lips 18, 19. Thus, it appears that the radii of curvature of the outer side surfaces of the interior-side sealing lips vary and can therefore not substantially remain unchanged. Also see “a radius of curvature . . . remaining unchanged” on lines 37-39.
Recitations such as “outer side surfaces” on line 35 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what comprises the outer side surfaces of the interior-side sealing lips. Is the applicant referring to the arc-shaped top end surfaces? If not what comprises the outer side surfaces of the interior-side sealing lips and how do they differ from the arc-shaped top end surfaces?
Recitations such as “substantially remaining unchanged” on line 37 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the interior-side sealing lips are unchanged from? Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the radii of curvature of the interior-side sealing lips are substantially the same whether or not the door glass engages the interior-side sealing lips? Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the radii of curvature are substantially constant? Also, it is unclear what comprises a “substantial” change. How much of a change in the radii of the surfaces is required in order to be considered a “substantial” change?
Recitations such as “an outer side surface sealing lip” on lines 37-38 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the exterior-side sealing lip or is attempting to set forth a sealing lip in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “the base end portion” on line 38 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of base portions set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “substantially remaining unchanged” on line 39 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the outer side surface sealing lip is unchanged from? Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the radius of curvature of the outer side surface sealing lip is substantially the same whether or not the door glass engages the outer side surface sealing lip? Also, it is unclear what comprises a “substantial” change. How much of a change in the radii of the surfaces is required in order to be considered a “substantial” change?
Recitations such as “a tilt angle of each of the interior-side sealing lips . . . is within a range of 65 to 75 degrees” on lines 2-7 of claim 3 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How does the tilt angle set forth on line 2 of claim 3 differ from the angle set forth on line 4 of claim 3? It appears that the tilt angle on line 2 and the angle on line 4 are the same angle, however, the recitations of the tilt angle and the angle in claim 3 implies that they are different angles. What comprises a “direction line of the door glass”? Is the applicant referring to the one of the ascending and descending directions of the door glass as set forth in claim 1? If not, how does the direction line of the door glass differ from the ascending and descending directions of the door glass? Also, “incoming toward the bottom wall” on line 3 of claim 3 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the direction line or the door glass is incoming toward the bottom wall. Also see “a tilt angle of the exterior-side sealing lip . . . within a range of 65 to 75 degrees” on line 8-13.
Recitations such as “the outer side surface of the exterior-side sealing lip” on line 2 of claim 4 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the objection of claim 6, the applicant argues that the claim language “a thinner portion” and a “top end surface of a top end portion” are not recited in claim 1. This is not found to be persuasive because claim 1 recites “a thinner portion” on line 18 and a base end portion on lines 20-21.
The applicant’s remaining comments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
It should be noted that a complete analysis of the claimed invention with respect to the teachings of the prior art could not be made at this time due to the indefinite language in claim 1.
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 J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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 J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights