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 § 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 (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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0233018).
Tanaka et al. discloses a pillar garnish assembly for a vehicle comprising a pillar garnish (50,54,56) provided on a front surface of a vehicle pillar (30,40), as shown in Figures 1-3. The pillar garnish (50,54,56) comprises an inner pillar garnish structure (54,56) adapted to be engaged with the pillar (30,40), as shown in Figure 3. The inner pillar garnish (54,56) has a first portion connected to the pillar by adhesive (52) and covering the front surface of the pillar, as shown in Figure 3. A second portion (56) extends in a lateral direction from the first portion and is arranged at a vertical offset from the first portion defining a step therebetween, as shown in Figure 3. The second portion includes a free edge that extends over a front windshield (18) of the vehicle and defines a chamfer, as shown in Figure 3. An outer garnish (50) overlaps and is supported by at least a portion of the first portion of the inner garnish structure, as shown in Figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 2 and 7, the outer garnish (50) extends from the step in a direction opposite to the extension of the second portion from the step, as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claims 3 and 8, the upper surface of the second portion (56) is aligned with the upper surface of the outer garnish (50), as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claims 4 and 9, a gasket is arranged underneath the inner garnish structure and engaged with the inner garnish structure, as shown in Figure 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
197
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 5 and 10, a first structure of the gasket extends along and connected to the first portion of the inner garnish structure from the step, as shown in Figure 3. The second structure of the gasket extends along the second portion of the inner garnish structure from the step. A free edge contacts the front windshield of the vehicle, as shown in Figure 3.
PNG
media_image3.png
332
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 6, the vehicle comprises a pair of pillars, as disclosed in paragraph [0027]. A windshield (18) is arranged between the pillars, as disclosed in paragraph [0026]. Each pillar is provided a pillar garnish (50,54,56) on its front surface, as shown in Figure 3. The remaining limitations duplicate the limitations of claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0233018) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2013/0076065).
Tanaka et al. discloses the vehicle has a roof, as disclosed in paragraphs [0025].
However, Tanaka does not disclose the side panels and drip moldings.
Inoue et al. discloses a pair of side panels (11b) arranged on both sides of a roof (11a) and extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, as shown in Figures 1-4. Drip moldings (2) extend in the longitudinal direction along the roof and arranged between the roof (11a) and the side panels (11b), as shown in Figure 4. Each drip molding (2) is arranged between the roof (11a) and the associated side panel (11b) such that a gap is defined between the drip molding (2) and the associated side panel (11b), as shown in Figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide side panels and drip moldings along the roof of Tanaka et al., as taught by Inoue et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to manage flow of rain and improve vehicle aerodynamics to lower fuel consumption.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0233018) and Inoue et al. (US 2013/0076065), as applied to claim 11.
Tanaka et al. does not disclose the claimed widths.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the drip molding with a width equal to the width of the second portion of the inner garnish structure of Tanaka et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious design choice to improve aesthetics so the visible portions of the drip moldings and the second portion appear continuous from the windshield to the rear of the roof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 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.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 15 is the width of the space defined between the step and the outer garnish structure is equal to a width of the gap defined between the associated drip molding and the associated side panel, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 March 4, 2026