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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request filed on January 16, 2026 for a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 is acceptable and an RCE has been established. Any previous finality is hereby withdrawn and a new action on the merits follows. Any newly-submitted claims have been added. An action on the RCE follows.
Drawings
The drawing corrections filed October 14, 2024 and August 19, 2025 have been approved.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “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.
Claim 1 is objected to because “linearly protrude” on line 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the interior side sealing lips protrude linearly. See figures 3 and 4 which shows the interior side sealing lips 18 and 19 extending along a curvilinear path.
Claim 1 is objected to because “the least two” on line 9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically incorrect and confusing. Did the applicant mean to recite --the at least two--?
Claim 1 is objected to because “an exterior-side sealing lip having higher rigidity as compared to a portion of the interior-side side wall” on lines 13-14 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What comprises the “portion of the interior-side side wall”? It appears that the interior-side side wall is thicker than the exterior-side sealing lip and, thus, would have a higher rigidity as compared to the exterior-side sealing lip.
Claim 1 is objected to because “linearly protrudes” on line 15 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the exterior side sealing lip protrudes linearly. See figures 3 and 4 which shows the exterior side sealing lip 16 extending along a curvilinear path.
Claim 1 is objected to because “both of” on line 20 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. It is suggested the applicant delete “both of” on line 20 of claim 1 to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “defined in ascending and descending directions of the door glass” on lines 30-31 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How do the ascending and descending directions define the line contact state? Note that it appears that the line contact state is defined by the contact between the sealing lips and the door glass at the points “P” as shown in figure 4.
Claim 3 is objected to because “an incoming direction line of the door glass” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the incoming direction line of the door glass differs from the ascending direction of the door glass as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 3 is objected to because “at which the interior-side sealing lips stand up from the inner side surface of the interior-side side wall” on lines 3-5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. The phrase “at which the interior-side sealing lips stand up from the inner side surface of the interior-side side wall” implies that the applicant is referring to the angle between each of the interior side sealing lips and the interior side side wall. However, the use of the phrase “an incoming direction line of the door glass” and the angles shown in figure 3 implies that the angle, to which the applicant is referring, is other than the angle between each of the interior side sealing lips and the interior side side wall. Also see “at which the exterior-side sealing lip stands up from the inner side surface of the exterior-side side wall” on lines 11-12 of claim 3.
Claim 3 is objected to because “surfaceof” on line 12 and “lipis” on line 13 appear to be typographical errors.
Claim 4 is objected to because “a contact surface” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the contact surface is different from the arc-shaped top end surface. It appears that the applicant is referring to the same surface of the invention.
Claim 4 is objected to because “contact surfaces” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the contact surfaces differ from the arc-shaped top end surfaces. It appears that the applicant is referring to the same surfaces of the invention.
Claim 4 is objected to because “are formed into an arc shape” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the both the contact surfaces of the interior-side sealing lips are formed into a single arc shape or if each of the contact surfaces of interior-side sealing lips is formed into a separate arc shape.
Claim 4 is objected to because “the contact surfaces” on lines 11-12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the contact surfaces include the contact surface of the exterior side sealing lip.
Claim 5 is objected to because “a range of 35 to 45” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth since the applicant has failed to provide units for the range of 35 to 45. Is the applicant referring to 35 to 45 mm or 35 to 45 centimeters?
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. Also see “a top end surface of a top end portion of the second exterior-side sealing lip” on lines 12-13.
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 “with the top end portions remaining straight without being curved and with substantially linear shapes of the interior-side sealing lips and the exterior-side sealing lip remaining” on lines 29-30 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How do the top end portions remain straight? See figures 3 and 4 where it appears that the top end portions 16b, 18b and 19b appear to be curvilinear. Additionally, the top end portions 16b, 18b and 19b appear to be curved in both figure 3 and figure 4 rather than having “substantially linear shapes” as set forth in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claim language “with the top end portions remaining straight without being curved, and with substantially linear shapes of the interior-side sealing lips and the exterior-side sealing lip remaining” is definite. It should first be pointed out that the “top end portions” 16b, 18b and 19b appear to be bottom end portions of the sealing lips as illustrated in figures 3 and 4. Note that the lead lines for reference characters 16b, 18b and 19b end at a lower portion of the respective sealing lip with respect to the inward movement direction of the door glass. Additionally, the top end portions 16b, 18b and 19b appear to be curvilinear regardless of the position of the door glass. What are the portions of the sealing lips that remain straight without being curved and what structure of the sealing lips has the substantially linear shapes remaining?
PNG
media_image1.png
750
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should 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
THIS ACTION IS NOT MADE FINAL.
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