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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request filed on January 22, 2026 for a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 is acceptable and an RCE has been established. Any previous finality is hereby withdrawn and a new action on the merits follows. Any newly-submitted claims have been added. An action on the RCE follows.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on March 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 24, 2025.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed August 19, 2025 has been approved.
The drawings, however, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a cover lip extending from the inner header wall” on line 6 of claim 1, “the cover lip extends from a distal end of the inner header wall” on line 7 of claim 4, and “the cover lip extending from a distal end of the inner header wall” on line 7 of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “a cover lip extending from the inner header wall” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the cover lip can extend from the inner header wall. See figure 4C which shows the cover lip extending from the first portion 196 of the hook 118 rather than from the inner header wall 128.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a direction opposite the cover lip” on lines 7-8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What characteristic of the cover lip is the applicant referring to? Does the hook portion extend in a direction opposite to a direction in which the cover lip extends? Also see “a direction opposite the upper insert wall” on line 11 of claim 1.
Claim 4 is objected to because “the cover lip extends from a distal end of the inner header wall” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the cover lip can extend from the inner header wall. See figure 4C which shows the cover lip extending from the first portion 196 of the hook 118 rather than from the inner header wall 128.
Claim 4 is objected to because “an insert body” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the insert body set forth above or is attempting to set forth an insert body in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 5 is objected to because “a direction toward the outer header wall” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the direction toward the outer header wall set forth above or is attempting to set forth another direction in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 6 is objected to because “a direction opposite the outer header wall” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the opening can face in a direction opposite the outer header wall when the hook extends in a direction toward the outer header wall. Note that it appears that the applicant is improperly combining two different embodiments of the invention.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a direction opposite the outer header wall” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What characteristic of the outer header wall is the applicant referring to? Does the first portion extend in a direction opposite to a direction in which the outer header wall extends? Also see “a direction opposite the upper insert wall” on line 4 of claim 11 and “opposite the first portion” on line 5 of claim 11.
Claim 12 is objected to because “a direction opposite the upper insert wall” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What characteristic of the upper insert wall is the applicant referring to? Does the first portion extend in a direction opposite to a direction in which the outer header wall extends? Also see “opposite the first portion” on line 5 of claim 12.
Claim 12 is objected to because “second portion extending . . . parallel to the upper insert wall” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the second portion can extend parallel to the upper insert wall when the hook extends in a direction toward the outer header wall. Note that it appears that the applicant is improperly combining two different embodiments of the invention as shown in figures 4C and 8.
Claim 13 is objected to because “a direction opposite the cover lip” on line 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What characteristic of the cover lip is the applicant referring to? Does the hook portion extend in a direction opposite to a direction in which the cover lip extends? Also see “a direction opposite the upper insert wall” on line 11 of claim 13.
Claim 15 is objected to because “the cover lip extending from a distal end of the inner header wall” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the cover lip can extend from the inner header wall. See figure 4C which shows the cover lip extending from the first portion 196 of the hook 118 rather than from the inner header wall 128.
Claim 15 is objected to because “an upper insert wall” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the upper insert wall set forth above or is attempting to set forth another upper insert wall in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 15 is objected to because “an insert body” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the insert body set forth above or is attempting to set forth another insert body in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 17 is objected to because “a direction opposite the outer header wall” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What characteristic of the outer header wall is the applicant referring to? Does the first portion extend in a direction opposite to a direction in which the outer header wall extends? Also see “a direction opposite the upper insert wall” on line 4 of claim 17 and “opposite the first portion” on line 5 of claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaughan (US 5010689). Vaughan discloses a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body 10 (fig. 1); and
a door 12 including an outer door panel (labeled below), an inner door panel (labeled below) cooperating with the outer door panel to define a receiving area (labeled below), and a glass run channel 20 (fig. 5) provided within the receiving area, the glass run channel 20 including:
a header 250 comprising:
a cover lip 259; and
a hook portion 242 (fig. 5) extending in a direction opposite the cover lip 259; and
one or more inserts 234 (lines 46-47 of column 3) encased within the header 250, the one or more inserts 234 including an upper insert wall (labeled below), an insert body (labeled below) extending from the upper insert wall, and a hook wall (labeled below) extending from a lower end of the insert body in a direction opposite the upper insert wall and through the hook portion 242 of the header,
wherein the hook portion 242 of the header surrounding the hook wall of the one or more inserts defines a hook, as shown in figure 5, having an opening 251 formed below and between the cover lip 259 and a distal end of the hook portion (labeled below), the hook extending in a direction toward the outer door panel (claim 13).
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 642 943 in view of EP 0 930 188.
With respect to claim 1, EP 0 642 943 discloses a glass run channel 10 (fig. 2) comprising:
a header 12 comprising:
an outer header wall 38;
an upper header wall 20 extending from the outer header wall 38;
an inner header wall 18 extending from the upper header wall 20;
a cover lip 30 extending from the inner header wall 18; and
a hook portion 40 extending from the inner header wall 18 in a direction opposite the cover lip 30; and
one or more inserts 70 encased within the header 12, the one or more inserts 70 including an upper insert wall (labeled below) and an insert body (labeled below) extending from the upper insert wall,
wherein the hook portion 40 of the header 12 defines a hook having an opening (labeled below) formed below and between the cover lip 30 and a distal end of the hook portion (labeled below), the hook extending in a direction toward the outer header wall 38.
EP 0 642 943 is silent concerning a hook wall extending from a lower end of the insert body in a direction opposite the upper insert wall and through the hook portion of the header and the hook portion of the header surrounding the hook wall of the one or more inserts.
However, EP 0 930 188 discloses a header 22 (fig. 5) comprising one or more inserts 24, 25 comprising a hook wall (labeled below) extending from a lower end of an insert body (labeled below) in a direction opposite an upper insert wall 32 and through a hook portion (labeled below) of the header 22, wherein the hook portion of the header surrounding the hook wall of the one or more inserts defines a hook having an opening (labeled below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide EP 0 642 943 with a hook wall, as taught by EP 0 930 188, with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the strength of the hook portion 40.
With respect to claim 2, EP 0 930 188 discloses that the one or more inserts 24, 25 comprises a plurality of inserts 24, 25 spaced apart from one another since the distal ends of the inserts 24, 25 are spaced apart from one another as shown in figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide EP 0 642 943 with a plurality of inserts, as taught by EP 0 930 188, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the insert to be made from different materials selected for specific characteristics such as strength and flexibility.
With respect to claim 3, EP 0 642 943 discloses that the one or more inserts 70 is formed from metal as set forth on lines 43-44 of column 7.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, EP 0 930 188 discloses a plurality of holes 50 (fig. 9) are formed in the one or more inserts 24, 25 (claim 9) and wherein the plurality of holes are arranged in rows as shown in figure 9 (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide EP 0 642 943 with a plurality of holes in rows, as taught by EP 0 930 188, with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely bond the one or more inserts to the header 12.
With respect to claim 21, EP 0 642 943 discloses that an imaginary plane (labeled below) extends in a vehicle vertical direction through the cover lip 30 and the opening formed in the hook portion 40 of the header.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of EP 0 930 188.
Vaughan is silent concerning a plurality of inserts spaced apart from one another.
However, EP 0 930 188 discloses a glass run channel 22 comprising a plurality of inserts 24, 25 spaced apart from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Vaughan with a plurality of inserts, as taught by EP 0 930 188, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the insert to be made from different materials selected for specific characteristics such as strength and flexibility.
PNG
media_image1.png
1644
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1640
1102
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1658
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1670
1134
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11, 12 and 15-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, absent applicant’s own disclosure, fails to teach the entire combination of elements set forth in the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach the cover lip extending extends from a distal end of the inner header wall and the hook portion extending extends from the distal end of the inner header wall below the cover lip (claim 4, lines 7-9) and the cover lip extending from a distal end of the inner header wall and the hook portion extending from the distal end of the inner header wall below the cover lip (claim 15, lines 7-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS NOT MADE FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 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 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 J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit