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 § 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumez, et al. US 5,903,389 in view of Yamazaki, et al. US 8,348,321.
Regarding claim 1, Rumez, et al. teaches a gutter feature (Fig. 1 below) positioned on the quadrant cover (Fig. 1 annotated below), wherein the gutter feature includes a first gutter (Fig. 1) positioned adjacent to the A-pillar and a second gutter (Fig. 1) positioned to be spaced apart from the A-pillar.
PNG
media_image1.png
763
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Rumez, et al. does not a structure of a quadrant cover of a vehicle the structure comprising: an A-pillar positioned and configured without a step difference with an adjacent windshield glass; a quadrant cover adjacent to the A-pillar and fixed to a front door.
However, Yamazaki, et al. teaches a structure of a quadrant cover of a vehicle (8 and S2, Fig. 2 annotated below), the structure comprising: an A-pillar (2, Fig. 2) positioned and configured without a step difference with an adjacent windshield glass (7, Fig. 2); a quadrant cover adjacent to the A-pillar and fixed to a front door (11, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it 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 pertains to construct a gutter feature positioned on the quadrant cover of Rumez, et al. to include an A-pillar positioned and configured without a step difference with an adjacent windshield glass and a quadrant cover adjacent to the A-pillar and fixed to a front door taught by Yamazaki, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success so that because with no gap there’s an aerodynamic benefit.
PNG
media_image2.png
684
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rumez, et al. teaches a surface contour (Fig. 1 annotated above) on an outer surface positioned between the first gutter (Fig. 1) and the second gutter (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Rumez, et al. discloses the claimed invention including that the surface contour has a change in height in a width direction of a vehicle across the quadrant cover.
However, Rumez et al. does not explicitly disclose exact change in height to be of 5mm to 10 mm.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the surface contour of Rumez et al. to have a change in height of 5 mm to 10 mm with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, surface contour of the quadrant cover of US 5,903,389 would not operate differently with the surface contour having a change in height of 5 mm to 10 mm.
Regarding claim 4, Rumez, et al. teaches the surface contour (Fig. 1 above) is configured to protrude to have a curvature in a width direction (green circle, in Fig. 1) of a vehicle across the quadrant cover (blue line in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Rumez, et al. discloses the claimed invention including that the first gutter and the second gutter protrude to have height in a width direction of a vehicle relative to the outer surface of the quadrant cover.
However, Rumez et al. does not explicitly disclose exact change in height to be at least 5mm.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first and second gutter of Rumez et al. to have a change in height of at least 5 mm with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the first and second gutter of Rumez, et al US 5,903,389 would not operate differently with the first and second gutter having a change in height of at least 5 mm.
Regarding claim 8, Rumez, et al. teaches a gutter feature (Fig. 1) positioned on the quadrant cover (blue line, Fig. 1), wherein the gutter feature includes a first gutter (Fig. 1) positioned adjacent to the A-pillar and protruding in a width direction of the vehicle, and a second gutter (Fig. 1) positioned to be spaced apart from the A-pillar and protruding in the width direction of the vehicle.
However, Rumez, et al. does not a structure of a quadrant cover of a vehicle the structure comprising: an A-pillar positioned and configured without a step difference with an adjacent windshield glass; a quadrant cover adjacent to the A-pillar and fixed to a front door.
However, Yamazaki, et al. teaches an A-pillar (2, Fig. 2 shown above) positioned without a step difference with a windshield glass (7, Fig. 2); a quadrant cover adjacent to the A-pillar and fixed to a front door (11, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it 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 pertains to construct a gutter feature positioned on the quadrant cover of Rumez, et al. to include an A-pillar positioned and configured without a step difference with an adjacent windshield glass and a quadrant cover adjacent to the A-pillar and fixed to a front door taught by Yamazaki, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success so that because with no gap there’s an aerodynamic benefit.
Regarding claim 9, Rumez, et al. teaches a surface contour (Fig. 1) of an outer surface positioned between the first gutter (Fig. 1) and the second gutter (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Rumez, et al. discloses the claimed invention including that the surface contour is configured to have a change in height in the width direction of the vehicle across the quadrant cover.
However, Rumez et al. does not explicitly disclose exact change in height to be of 5mm to 10 mm.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the surface contour of Rumez et al. to have a change in height of 5 mm to 10 mm with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, surface contour of the quadrant cover of US 5,903,389 would not operate differently with the surface contour having a change in height of 5 mm to 10 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Rumez teaches the surface contour (Fig. 1 above) is configured to protrude to have a convex curvature (see Fig. 1 above) in the width direction (red line in Fig. 1 above) of the vehicle across the quadrant cover (blue line in Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Rumez, et al. discloses the claimed invention including that the protruding first gutter and second gutter have a height of at least 5 mm in the width direction of the vehicle relative to the outer surface of the quadrant cover.
However, Rumez et al. does not explicitly disclose exact change in height to be at least 5mm.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first and second gutter of Rumez et al. to have a change in height of at least 5 mm with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the first and second gutter of Rumez, et al US 5,903,389 would not operate differently with the first and second gutter having a change in height of at least 5 mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“Configured to be (“fastened” or “connected”) to a door frame molding of the front door” in claims 5 and 12 are not taught in the prior art. For example, Rumez, et al. in modification of Yamazaki, et al. teaches first gutter and second gutter assembly however not the upper ends of the two gutters to be configured to be fastened to a door frame molding of the front door. It would not be obvious to incorporate fastening the upper ends of the gutters to mold onto the front door.
“Decreases in a height direction of the vehicle” in claims 7 and 14 are not taught in the prior art. For example, Rumez, et al. in modification of Yamazaki, et al. teaches first and second gutter assembly however not the upper ends of the two gutters to be configured to protrude an amount in the width direction of the vehicle that decreases in a height direction of the vehicle. It would not be obvious to configure the gutters to protrude an amount in the width direction of the vehicle that decrease in a height direction of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Husek, et al. US20220266766 discloses an A-pillar fixed to the windshield.
Kanada, et al. US 7988227 discloses a panel fixed between the side of the door and window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma D Schuster whose telephone number is (571)272-8938. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-6:30pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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 (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.
/Alma D. Schuster/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612