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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a vehicle” in line 3 should be “the vehicle.” 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 10 and 21 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "and the tongue from the striker bolt by moving"; it is unclear what this means. Apparently, the limitation is missing a verb before “the tongue.” Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite “and release the tongue from the striker bolt by moving”, which is supported by page 8 lines 21-23 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "and the tongue from the striker bolt by moving"; it is unclear what this means. Apparently, the limitation is missing a verb before “the tongue.” Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite “and release the tongue from the striker bolt by moving”, which is supported by page 8 lines 21-23 of Applicant’s specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn et al. (US 6827391 B1) in view of Lewis et al. (US 20180229588 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kohn discloses a tailgate (Kohn, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Kohn, 2 in Fig. 1) comprising: a door envelope (Kohn, 4 in Fig. 1), and a rear window assembly (Kohn, 7 in Fig. 1) including a window frame (Kohn, see annotated Fig. 15) and a window mounted in said window frame (Kohn, see annotated Fig. 15), and wherein said rear window assembly has a latch (Kohn, 21 in Fig. 16 or 61 in Fig. 15) that secures a connection with said door envelope (Kohn, Fig. 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 15 from Kohn
Kohn fails to teach glass.
Lewis teaches glass (Lewis, paragraph 67 and Fig. 16; PVC glass).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Kohn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tailgate as taught by Kohn to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a glass window panel in the window frame. Doing so provides a transparent panel that provides lighting and view; also allows using PVC glass when other materials are not in stock to save cost and time.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kohn and Lewis teaches the tailgate of claim 1 further comprising: a connection belt (Kohn, 65 in Fig. 16) connected to the door envelope; a latch plate (Kohn, 23 in Fig. 16 for latch 21 or 63 in Fig. 15 for latch 61) connected to the connection belt, and a lower skirt (Kohn, 67/15 in Fig. 15-16) of the rear window assembly that contacts the connection belt to hold the rear window assembly onto the door envelope (Kohn, Fig. 15-16), wherein the latch is connected to the lower skirt and the latch contacts and locks onto the latch plate (Kohn, Fig. 16, 21 locks onto 23; or 61 locks onto 63 in Fig. 15) when the rear window assembly is connected to the door envelope.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kohn and Lewis teaches the tailgate of claim 2 wherein the latch and latch plate connection is located adjacent a lateral center (Kohn, Fig. 15, latch 61 and latch plate 63; Fig. 1 shows that cross section of Fig. 15 is adjacent a lateral center) of said window assembly.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kohn and Lewis teaches the tailgate of claim 2 wherein the latch has a hook (Kohn, latch 21 in Fig. 16 has a hook) that engages a lip (Kohn, Fig. 16, 23 has a lip) on the latch plate to secure the latch to the latch plate.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 1 further comprising: a forwardly inclined flange surface (Kohn, 23 in Fig. 16) formed on the door envelope; an outer subframe (Kohn, 67/15 in Fig. 16) of the window frame that extends outwardly over the forward incline flanged surface (Kohn, Fig. 16) of the door envelope.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews (US 20200070634 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (US 20180229588 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mathews discloses a rear corner window assembly (Mathews, Fig. 6) for connection to a vehicle (Mathews, Fig. 1) comprising: a window mounted in a window frame (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6), the window frame includes a bottom edge, a top edge, a side portion extending in a longitudinal direction (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6) and a rear portion (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6, also shown in Fig. 1) that curves and extends away from the side portion, and a latch (Mathews, 42 in Fig. 6) located on an inside surface (Mathews, Fig. 6 shows the inside surface) of the rear portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 6 from Mathews
Mathews fails to teach glass.
Lewis teaches glass (Lewis, paragraph 67 and Fig. 16; PVC glass).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Mathews to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a glass window panel in the window frame. Doing so provides a transparent panel that provides lighting and view; also allows using PVC glass when other materials are not in stock to save cost and time.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mathews in view of Lewis teaches the rear corner window assembly of claim 7 wherein the bottom edge has a protruding surface extending from an inside surface of the respective side portion and forms a ledge while a portion of the inside surface extends downward past the bottom edge (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 5A).
PNG
media_image3.png
385
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 Annotated Fig. 5A from Mathews
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mathews in view of Lewis teaches the rear corner window assembly of claim 8 further comprising: a forward edge (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6) of the window frame; a forward flange (Lewis, 146 in Fig. 10) extending from the forward edge used to align and secure the forward edge (Lewis, Fig. 10, secure to rail 148).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Mathews to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a forward flange. Doing so provides secured connection at the front edge of the window, prevents unintentional detachment of the window, and enhances vehicle sealing to protect against elements.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mathews in view of Lewis teaches the rear corner window assembly of claim 7 further comprising: a forward edge (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6) of the window frame; a forward flange (Lewis, 146 in Fig. 10) extending from the forward edge used to align and secure the forward edge (Lewis, Fig. 10, secure to rail 148).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Mathews to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a forward flange. Doing so provides secured connection at the front edge of the window, prevents unintentional detachment of the window, and enhances vehicle sealing to protect against elements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mathews in view of Lewis as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210156183 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mathews in view of Lewis teaches the rear corner window assembly of claim 7, but fails to teach a handle that rotates about a pivot to unlock the latch from a striker body; a shaft connected to and rotated by the handle; a tongue connected to and rotates with the shaft, wherein the tongue engages a striker bolt on the striker body to releasably lock the latch to the striker body.
Kim teaches a handle (Kim, 310 in Fig. 8A) that rotates about a pivot (Kim, Fig. 8A-8B) to unlock the latch from a striker body (Kim, 133 in Fig. 9A); a shaft (Kim, 350 in Fig. 9A) connected to and rotated by the handle (Kim, Fig. 9A-9B); a tongue (Kim, 351 in Fig. 9A) connected to and rotates with the shaft (Kim, Fig. 9A-9B), wherein the tongue engages a striker bolt (Kim, 135/125 in Fig. 10A-10B; engage through 330/320 and 322) on the striker body to releasably lock (Kim, Fig. 9A-9B) the latch to the striker body.
Kim is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window latch as Mathews in view of Lewis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Mathews in view of Lewis to incorporate the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success and use the latch of Kim such that the latch has a handle, a shaft, and a tongue. Doing so provides easy operation of the latch since a user can operate a handle to control both upper end and lower end of the latch; also provides spring to help securing the latch.
Claims 13-15, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews (US 20200070634 A1) in view of Kohn et al. (US 6827391 B1) and Lewis et al. (US 20180229588 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mathews discloses an arrangement for a tailgate and rear corner window assembly (Mathews, Fig. 1) of a vehicle (Mathews, Fig. 1) comprising: a door envelope (Mathews, Fig. 2, tailgate) for attachment to a vehicle; a rear window assembly (Mathews, Fig. 7) including a window frame (Mathews, Fig. 7, frame around perimeter of the window) and a window (Mathews, Fig. 7) mounted in said window frame; wherein said rear window assembly has a latch (Mathews, 48 in Fig. 7) that secures a connection (Mathews, Fig. 1, at least indirectly) with said door envelope; at least one rear corner window assembly (Mathews, Fig. 1) for connection to the vehicle having a window mounted in a window frame (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6), the window frame includes a bottom edge, a top edge, a side portion extending in a longitudinal direction (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6) and a rear portion (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6, also shown in Fig. 1) that curves and extends away from the side portion, and a latch (Mathews, 42 in Fig. 6) located on an inside surface (Mathews, Fig. 6 shows the inside surface) of the rear portion of the at least one rear corner window assembly.
Mathews fails to teach the door envelope has pivotal attachment to the vehicle, and glass.
Kohn teaches pivotal attachment (Kohn, see annotated Fig. 1, two hinges on one side).
PNG
media_image4.png
281
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 Annotated Fig. 1 from Kohn
Kohn is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Mathews to incorporate the teachings of Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success and have hinges on the door such that the door envelope is in pivotal attachment to the vehicle. Doing so provides support for the door and allows user to open or close the door with ease.
Lewis teaches glass (Lewis, paragraph 67 and Fig. 16; PVC glass).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews in view of Kohn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Mathews in view of Kohn to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a glass window panel in the window frame. Doing so provides a transparent panel that provides lighting and view; also allows using PVC glass when other materials are not in stock to save cost and time.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 13 further comprising: a connection belt (Kohn, 65 in Fig. 16) connected to the door envelope; a latch plate (Kohn, 23 in Fig. 16 for latch 21 or 63 in Fig. 15 for latch 61) connected to the connection belt, and a lower skirt (Kohn, 67/15 in Fig. 15-16) of the rear window assembly that contacts the connection belt to hold the rear window assembly onto the door envelope (Kohn, Fig. 15-16), wherein the latch is connected to the lower skirt and the latch contacts and locks onto the latch plate (Kohn, Fig. 16, 21 locks onto 23; or 61 locks onto 63 in Fig. 15) when the rear window assembly is connected to the door envelope.
Kohn is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Mathews to incorporate the teachings of Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success and replace the rear panel with Kohn’s rear window assembly. Doing so provides quick and easy operation (Kohn, Col. 1 lines 66-67) and allows user to operate the window assembly in a situation where the key to the latch of Mathews is lost.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 14 wherein the latch and latch plate connection is located adjacent a lateral center (Kohn, Fig. 15, latch 61 and latch plate 63; Fig. 1 shows that cross section of Fig. 15 is adjacent a lateral center) of said window assembly.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 14 wherein the latch has a hook (Kohn, latch 21 in Fig. 16 has a hook) that engages a lip (Kohn, Fig. 16, 23 has a lip) on the latch plate to secure the latch to the latch plate.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 13 further comprising: a forwardly inclined flange surface (Kohn, 23 in Fig. 16) formed on the door envelope; an outer subframe (Kohn, 67/15 in Fig. 16) of the window frame that extends outwardly over the forward incline flanged surface (Kohn, Fig. 16) of the door envelope.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 13 wherein the bottom edge has a protruding surface extending from an inside surface of the respective side portion and forms a ledge while a portion of the inside surface extends downward past the bottom edge (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 19 further comprising: a forward edge (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6) of the window frame; a forward flange (Lewis, 146 in Fig. 10) extending from the forward edge used to align and secure the forward edge (Lewis, Fig. 10, secure to rail 148).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews in view of Kohn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Mathews in view of Kohn to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a forward flange. Doing so provides secured connection at the front edge of the window, prevents unintentional detachment of the window, and enhances vehicle sealing to protect against elements.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the arrangement of claim 13 further comprising: a forward edge (Mathews, see annotated Fig. 6) of the window frame; a forward flange (Lewis, 146 in Fig. 10) extending from the forward edge used to align and secure the forward edge (Lewis, Fig. 10, secure to rail 148).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle soft top as Mathews in view of Kohn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Mathews in view of Kohn to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a forward flange. Doing so provides secured connection at the front edge of the window, prevents unintentional detachment of the window, and enhances vehicle sealing to protect against elements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210156183 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis teaches the rear corner window assembly of claim 13, but fails to teach a handle that rotates about a pivot to unlock the latch from a striker body; a shaft connected to and rotated by the handle; a tongue connected to and rotates with the shaft, wherein the tongue engages a striker bolt on the striker body to releasably lock the latch to the striker body.
Kim teaches a handle (Kim, 310 in Fig. 8A) that rotates about a pivot (Kim, Fig. 8A-8B) to unlock the latch from a striker body (Kim, 133 in Fig. 9A); a shaft (Kim, 350 in Fig. 9A) connected to and rotated by the handle (Kim, Fig. 9A-9B); a tongue (Kim, 351 in Fig. 9A) connected to and rotates with the shaft (Kim, Fig. 9A-9B), wherein the tongue engages a striker bolt (Kim, 135/125 in Fig. 10A-10B; engage through 330/320 and 322) on the striker body to releasably lock (Kim, Fig. 9A-9B) the latch to the striker body.
Kim is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window latch as Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Mathews in view of Kohn and Lewis to incorporate the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success and use the latch of Kim such that the latch has a handle, a shaft, and a tongue. Doing so provides easy operation of the latch since a user can operate a handle to control both upper end and lower end of the latch; also provides spring to help securing the latch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 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.
Claims 10 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to at least one groove located on the lower skirt that slide into the at least one groove on the at least one locator wedge for aligning and securing the rear window assembly to the door envelope to form the tailgate as claimed in claims 4 and 16; and a spring is positioned about the shaft and biases the shaft to rotate the tongue into engagement with the striker bolt, and the tongue from the striker bolt by moving the handle and the shaft to lift the tongue away from the striker bolt as claimed in claims 10 and 21. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Kim teaches multiple springs in paragraph 41, but none of which operates as required by claims 10 and 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle removable rear windows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612