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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
Figure 10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamasa et al.
For claim 1, Yamasa et al. (2005/0003158) disclose a glass run (FIG.2) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass,
the glass run comprising: a sealing member (14) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass (3),
wherein the bottom wall (21) has a door glass lip (253) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the bottom wall, and
the door glass lip (253) is harder than the bottom wall ([0021-0022], [0110-0111]).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Murree et al.
For claim 1, Murree et al. (9027284) disclose a glass run (FIG.2) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass (14),
the glass run comprising: a sealing member (26) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass (14),
wherein the bottom wall has a door glass lip (62) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the bottom wall, and
the door glass lip (62) includes a coating of “flocking material 60” thereon which is polyethylene or another low friction material and is harder than the bottom wall (where a PHOSITA understands that polyethylene is harder than EPDM).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasa et al.
For claim 2, Yamasa et al. (2005/0003158) disclose a glass run (FIG.2) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising: a sealing member (14) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass (3).
Yamasa et al. further provide a door glass lip (253) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the bottom wall.
Yamasa et al. fail to disclose a door glass bulge interposed between the bottom wall and the door glass lip.
However, Yamasa et al. teach a door glass bulge (255) which is interposed between a side wall and a door glass lip (252), with the door glass bulge (255) is harder than the side wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a door glass bulge as taught by Yamasa et al. between the bottom wall and the door glass lip (253) in order to prevent these components from sticking and creating a noise when separated.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-93053 in view of JP 2018-192933 (JP 933).
For claim 3, JP 2006-193053 (JP 053) discloses a glass run (FIG.3) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising:
a sealing member (as seen below, left) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass, wherein the bottom wall has a door glass lip (21) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the bottom wall.
JP 053 lacks the bottom wall have a hard portion, a feature taught by JP 933 (below, right).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
308
325
media_image4.png
Greyscale
JP ‘933 teaches a glass run with a hard portion (26) at a portion in contact with the door glass lip, the hard portion being harder than the side wall.
JP 2018-192933 (JP 933) discloses a glass run (FIG.1) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising:
a sealing member (FIG.1) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass, wherein the side wall has a door glass lip (21a) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the side wall, and the side wall has a hard portion (26) at a portion in contact with the door glass lip, the hard portion being harder than the side wall except for the portion in contact with the door glass lip.
The hard portion (hard part 26) is made of hard synthetic rubber or olefin-based synthetic resin such as polypropylene or polyethylene. The hard part acts such that no collision noise is made even when a door glass is elevated or lowered and such that air resistance and wind noise are reduced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the bottom wall of JP 053 with a hard part as taught by JP 933 in order to reduce collision noise when a door glass is elevated or lowered as well as reduce wind noise.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murree et al. in view of Yamasa et al. (2005/0003158).
For claim 2, Murree et al. ‘284 disclose a glass run (FIG.2) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass (14), the glass run comprising: a sealing member (26) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass; and a door glass lip (62) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the bottom wall (FIG.2).
Murree et al. fail to disclose a door glass bulge or hard portion at the bottom wall and interposed between the bottom wall and the door glass lip.
Yamasa et al. ‘158 teach a door glass bulge (255) which is at a side wall and interposed between the side wall and a door glass lip (252), with the door glass bulge (255) is harder than the side wall.
PNG
media_image2.png
369
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
339
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a door glass bulge as taught by Yamasa et al. at the bottom wall of Murree et al. and positioned between the bottom wall and the door glass lip (62) of Murree et al. in order to prevent the lip from sticking to the bottom wall thereby reducing noise created when the lip and wall is separated.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al.
For claim 1, Shimizu et al. (2024/0208310) disclose a glass run (FIG.6) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising:
a sealing member that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass, wherein the side wall has a door glass lip (31) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the side wall, and the side wall has a hard portion (35) at a portion in contact with the door glass lip, the hard portion being harder than the side wall except for the portion in contact with the door glass lip.
Shimizu et al. further disclose a door glass lip (22) extending from the bottom wall.
Shimizu et al. lack only that the hard portion being located with the bottom wall for engagement with the bottom wall door glass lip.
PNG
media_image5.png
701
610
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the hard portion of Shimizu et al. repositioned along the bottom wall to cooperate with the bottom wall door glass lip (22) instead of the side wall as an obvious expedient and simple substitution which would perform equally well and not change the use of the device or produce an unexpected result.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-93053 in view of JP 2018-192933 (JP 933) and JP 2002-240649 (JP 649).
For claim 4, JP 2006-193053 (JP 053) discloses a glass run (FIG.3) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising:
a sealing member (as seen below, left) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass, wherein the bottom wall has a door frame lip (27) which protrudes from a door frame surface of the bottom wall.
JP 053 lacks a door frame bulge which bulges out from the door frame surface of the bottom wall interposed between the bottom wall and the door frame lip, the bulge being harder than the bottom wall. JP 933 (below, right) teaches this feature.
PNG
media_image6.png
498
384
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
308
325
media_image4.png
Greyscale
JP ‘933 teaches the use and desirability of a glass run with a hard portion (26) at a portion in contact with a lip, the hard portion being harder than the side wall.
JP 2018-192933 (JP 933) discloses a glass run (FIG.1) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising:
a sealing member (FIG.1) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass, wherein the side wall has a door glass lip (21a) which protrudes from a door glass surface of the side wall, and the side wall has a hard portion (26) at a portion in contact with the door glass lip, the hard portion being harder than the side wall except for the portion in contact with the door glass lip.
The hard portion (hard part 26) is made of hard synthetic rubber or olefin-based synthetic resin such as polypropylene or polyethylene. The hard part acts such that no collision noise is made even when a door glass is elevated or lowered and such that air resistance and wind noise are reduced.
JP 649 teaches a hard portion (rigid projection 8) which bulges outward to stiffen the structure and provide rigidity thereto to prevent deformation due to bending of the sealing unit.
PNG
media_image7.png
395
493
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
347
499
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a hard portion (26) of JP 933 bulging as taught by JP 649 for use at the door frame surface and interposed between the lip and bottom wall of JP 053 in order to provide the glass run thereof with stiffness (JP 649) and noise reduction from wind (JP 933) at that location. Substituting the hard portion at the door frame surface of the bottom wall would provide the same features of the glass run at that location and constitutes a simple substitution because it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution. Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mine in view of Yamasa et al. ‘158.
For claim 1, Mine (2012/0079772) discloses a glass run (FIG.5) having a basic framework with a bottom wall, a vehicle outer side wall, and a vehicle inner side wall, the basic framework being attached to a door frame and having an opening which receives a door glass, the glass run comprising:
a sealing member (62) that seals between a vehicle inner side and a vehicle outer side of the door glass, wherein the bottom wall has a door frame lip (100) which protrudes from a door frame surface of the bottom wall.
PNG
media_image9.png
470
544
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Mine lacks a door frame bulge which bulges out from the door frame surface of the bottom wall to the door frame, and the door frame bulge is harder than the bottom wall and interposed between the bottom wall and the door frame lip.
Yamasa et al. ‘158 teach a door glass bulge (255) which is at a side wall and interposed between the side wall and a door glass lip (252), with the door glass bulge (255) being harder than the side wall. Providing the bulge between the lip and wall allows for a reduction in noise when the lip and wall are separated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a door glass bulge as taught by Yamasa et al. at the bottom wall of Murree et al. and positioned between the bottom wall and the door frame lip (100) of Murree et al. in order to prevent the lip from sticking to the bottom wall thereby reducing noise created when the lip and wall is separated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2012-153278 discloses a glass run having hard parts (21,22, as seen below, left).
JP 4548458 discloses a glass run with a hard part (35) as a base portion (below, right).
PNG
media_image10.png
342
459
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
347
397
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B