DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on
Status of claims: claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn; claims 1-17 and 20 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 15, 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I pertaining to claims 1-17 and 20 in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 1 – “a vehicle door” should be amended to “the vehicle door”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9180758 to Klein.
Klein discloses a vehicle door comprising:
an outer panel; (see annotated figure below)
an inner panel provided inside of the outer panel;
a door trim 9 attached to the inner panel and finishing the inner panel; and
a plastic film seal 12 (see figure below and col. 3) provided between the inner panel and the door trim. (claim 1)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer panel)][AltContent: textbox (Inner panel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
362
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Klein further discloses wherein the plastic film seal comprises a wiring receptacle convex 14,15 toward the door trim and configured to receive a wiring 13. (see FIGS. 1-4) (claim 10)
Klein further discloses wherein the plastic film seal is capable of being formed by vacuum molding a plastic film. (Note, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” (See MPEP 2113 – Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Thus, note that claim 15 does not require that the plastic film seal is formed by vacuum molding, but only that the structure be capable of being made by vacuum molding.) (claim 15)
Klein further discloses wherein the plastic film seal is formed in a shape conforming to a shape of the inner panel. (see FIG. 1 above) (claim 16)
Klein further discloses a vehicle including a vehicle door of claim 1. (see Background) (claim 20)
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of DE 60205361.
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal is attached to the inner panel by an adhesive tape.
DE 60205361 teaches of a sealing plate 12 of a vehicle door attached to an inner panel 10 by an adhesive tape 22.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an adhesive tape along the circumference of the Klein plastic film seal, as taught by DE 60205361 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthen the connection between the plastic film seal and the inner panel. (claim 2)
Klein, as applied above, further discloses wherein the plastic film seal comprises an adhesion guide configured to receive the adhesive tape. (Note, the examiner has interpreted the edge and surface near and along the circumference of the plastic film seal to read on an adhesion guide.) (claim 5)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of DE 60205361, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of US 5906072 to Feige et al. (hereinafter “Feige”).
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the inner panel comprises a tape-receiving groove configured to receive the adhesive tape.
Feige teaches of an inner panel 6 that comprises a seal-receiving groove configured to receive the seal 37. (see FIGS. 6 and 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Klein inner panel with a tape-receiving groove, as taught by Feige, in order to facilitate application of the adhesive tape on the inner panel and maintain the tape on the inner panel. (claim 3)
Klein, as applied above, further discloses wherein the tape-receiving groove forms a closed curve surrounding a predetermined area on the inner panel. (see col. 4 and FIG. 6) (claim 4)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of DE 60205361 in view of Feige, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of DE 202007001999U1.
Klein, as applied above, discloses wherein the adhesion guide extends along a periphery of the plastic film seal, but fails to disclose wherein the adhesion guide forms a closed curve extending along a periphery of the plastic film seal.
DE 202007001999U1 teaches of a guide (housing element 30; see FIGS. 1A, 1B) that forms a closed curve extending along a periphery of a vehicle door interior lining 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Klein adhesion guide with a closed curved extending along a periphery of the plastic film seal, as taught by DE 202007001999U1 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate engagement of the adhesive tape with the plastic film seal and maintain the tape on the plastic film seal. (claim 6)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20210300161 to Fortin.
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the inner panel comprises a mounting reference protrusion protruding into a compartment of a vehicle, and the plastic film seal comprises a mounting reference hole allowing the mounting reference protrusion to penetrate therethrough.
Fortin teaches of wherein the inner panel 18 comprises a mounting reference protrusion 78 protruding into a compartment of a vehicle, and a seal comprises a mounting reference hole 76 allowing the mounting reference protrusion to penetrate therethrough. (see FIG. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mounting reference protrusion and mounting reference hole with Klein, as taught by Fortin, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate positioning and engagement between the inner panel and plastic film seal. (claim 7)
Claims 8, 9 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 7753435 to Hanna.
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal comprises reinforcement ribs in a form of a grid.
Hanna teaches of a seal 18 comprising reinforcement ribs 32 in a form of a grid. (see FIG. 4 and definition of grid below)
PNG
media_image2.png
116
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
American Heritage Dictionary Entry: grid
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Klein plastic film seal with reinforcement ribs, as taught by Hanna, with a reasonable expectation of success in order “to maintain desired stiffness” with the plastic film seal. (claim 8)
Klein, as applied above, further discloses wherein the reinforcement ribs are provided at a predetermined position and in a predetermined area on the plastic film seal. (see at least FIG. 4 of Hanna) (claim 9)
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal comprises an embossed surface.
Hanna teaches of a seal 18 that comprises an embossed surface 32.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Klein plastic film seal with an embossed surface, as taught by Hanna, with a reasonable expectation of success in order “to maintain desired stiffness” with the plastic film seal. (claim 17)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20180079289 to Yamashita et al. (hereinafter “Yamashita”).
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal comprises a wiring slit allowing a wiring to extend therethrough.
Yamashita teaches of a vehicle door seal 50 comprising a wiring slit 51K allowing a wiring to extend therethrough. (see [0038] and FIG. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wiring slit with the Klein plastic film seal, as taught by Yamashita, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for wiring to pass through the plastic film seal while minimizing any dirt, debris, or water from passing through the plastic film seal at the location of the wiring extending through the plastic film seal. (claim 11)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of CN 108454359 A
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal comprises a first drain guide protruding toward an outside of a vehicle, with a width thereof increasing in a downward direction so that moisture flows by bypassing the first drain guide.
CN 108454359 A teaches of vehicle door interior plate 3 comprises a first drain guide 20 protruding toward an outside of a vehicle, (see at least FIG. 1) with a width thereof increasing in a downward direction (see FIG. 6) so that moisture flows by bypassing the first drain guide. (see FIGS. 1, 2, and 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Klein plastic film seal with a first drain guide, as taught by CN 108454359 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct water flow along and away from the plastic film seal in a direction away from the interior of the door and toward an outside of the door; thus minimizing moisture buildup within the vehicle door. (claim 12)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of US 11820208 to Nguyen et al. (hereinafter “Nguyen”).
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal comprises a second drain guide provided below the first drain guide and configured to guide moisture to flow downward for discharge.
Nguyen teaches of a drain guide 350 provided below an opening 502 and configured to guide moisture to flow downward for discharge. (see FIG. 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a provide a second drain guide below the Klein first drain guide, as taught by Nguyen, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further direct water flowing along and over the Klein first drain guide in a direction away from the interior of the door and toward an outside of the door; thus minimizing moisture buildup within the vehicle door. (claim 13)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20080265613 to Hockenberry et al. (hereinafter “Hockenberry”).
Klein, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the plastic film seal is made of polyethylene.
Hockenberry teaches of a seal 12 made of polyethylene. (see [0029])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Klein plastic film seal out of polyethylene, as taught by Hockenberry, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the plastic film seal out of a durable, inexpensive, and strong material as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. (claim 14)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights