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 .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 8-10 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1 - “cross sections of the accommodation portion and the accommodation protrusion are positioned substantially on a straight line with each other”. Note that the specification only discloses “That is, the cross sections of the guide rail 110 and the pulley bracket 120 may be positioned in a straight line with each other” (page 10), and none of the figures show a reference straight line such that this feature is fully shown.
Examiner notes that no 112(a) or 112(b) was set forth below as the scope of the claim is clear and both cross sections of the accommodation portion and the accommodation protrusion are properly aligned with each other as seen in at least figure 6. Also, the accommodation portion and accommodation protrusion are respectively formed on the guide rail and pulley bracket, thus this limitation is supported by the specification.
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (DE 102014019911) (hereinafter “Lange”).
Claim 1
(Lange discloses) A window regulator (figures 1-10) comprising:
a guide rail (3; figure 1) provided inside a door (Lange discloses a window regulator for a vehicle door; 2nd par. of page 7 of the specification);
a pulley bracket (5; figure 3) that is fixed to the guide rail (figure 10) and to which a pulley (4) that changes a moving direction of a cable (cable shown in figure 1) is axially coupled; and
a stress distribution unit (Annotated figure 3 below) configured to distribute a stress applied to the pulley (this is true once all parts are assembled),
wherein the stress distribution unit includes:
an accommodation portion (Annotated figure 3 below) formed on the guide rail; and
an accommodation protrusion (Annotated figure 3 below) formed to protrude from a rear surface of the pulley bracket to be coupled to the accommodation portion (figure 9B),
wherein the accommodation portion is formed as a hole passing through the guide rail (Annotated figure 3 below),
wherein the accommodation protrusion is insertion-coupled to the accommodation portion (figure 9B showing the accommodation protrusion inserted to the accommodation portion), and
wherein the accommodation protrusion is insertion-coupled to the accommodation portion (figure 9B) such that a rear surface of the guide rail and a rear surface of the accommodation protrusion form a same surface (both rear surfaces shown in Annotated figure 9B below; note that ‘same’ is extremely broad per its definition of --Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree-- such that both rear surfaces are the same surface as they are both flat horizontal surfaces) and cross sections of the accommodation portion and the accommodation protrusion are positioned substantially on a straight line with each other (Annotated figure 9B below).
Lange fails to disclose wherein the accommodation portion and the accommodation protrusion are formed in a cross shape corresponding to each other.
However, examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held that shape configurations of an element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shapes of the accommodation portion and accommodation protrusion such that they both have a cross shape corresponding to each other, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase the contacting surface areas of both parts thus they are more secured together and reduces the chances of separation of the pulley bracket from the guide rail during high instances of stress and vibration on multiple directions. In addition, the cross-shape removes the possibility of the accommodation protrusion to rotate with respect to the accommodation portion when both parts are insertion-coupled.
PNG
media_image1.png
395
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
359
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 9B
PNG
media_image3.png
90
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Claim 2
(Lange, as modified above, discloses) The window regulator of claim 1, comprising a fixing unit (Annotated figure 3 above) configured to fix the pulley bracket to the guide rail,
wherein the fixing unit includes:
a first fixing portion (Annotated figure 3 above) that fixes an upper end of the pulley bracket; and
a second fixing portion (Annotated figure 3 above) that fixes a lower end of the pulley bracket.
Claim 3
(Lange, as modified above, discloses) The window regulator of claim 2, wherein the first fixing portion includes:
a first fixing hole opening (61 and 62; figure 3) in an upward direction of the guide rail; and
a first fixing protrusion (51 and 52) formed on the upper end of the pulley bracket to be inserted into the first fixing hole opening (figure 10), and
the second fixing portion includes:
a second fixing protrusion (56); and
a second fixing hole (75) so that the second fixing protrusion is inserted (lines 6-8 of page 9).
Lange discloses the fixing protrusion formed on the pulley bracket and the fixing hole formed on the guide rail, thus it fails to disclose:
(i) the second fixing protrusion formed to protrude from the guide rail in the upward direction; and
(ii) the second fixing hole formed in the pulley bracket.
However, examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held that mere reversal of parts was held to be an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reverse the respective positions of the second fixing protrusion and the second fixing hole such that the second fixing protrusion is formed on the guide rail and the second fixing hole is formed in the pulley bracket, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce the intricate features of the smaller and lighter pulley bracket thus it is easier to design and manufacture, and to also lower the cost of producing the part.
Claim 4
(Lange, as modified above, discloses) The window regulator of claim 3, wherein the fixing unit further includes a stress support portion (Annotated figure 2 below) that supports a stress generated by tension of the cable.
PNG
media_image4.png
380
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
Claim 5
(Lange, as modified above, discloses) The window regulator of claim 4, wherein the stress support portion includes:
a support flange (54; figure 2) formed at the lower end of the pulley bracket; and
a support rib portion (70-74; figure 2) formed to protrude from the guide rail so that the support flange is supported (figures 8 and 10).
Claim 6
(Lange, as modified above, discloses) The window regulator of claim 5, wherein the second fixing hole is formed in the support flange (note that the second fixing hole would inevitably be formed on the support flange of the pulley bracket in light of the modification in claim 3 above), and
an inclined portion (Annotated figure 4 below) inclined downward toward the second fixing hole is formed on the support flange (Annotated figure 4 below; note that “inclined” was interpreted as a slant or a slope, alternatively it can also be interpreted as a bend, see definition below).
PNG
media_image5.png
621
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4
PNG
media_image6.png
208
722
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Claim 7
(Lange, as modified above, discloses) The window regulator of claim 1, wherein a separation prevention piece (53; figures 2-3) for preventing separation of the cable is formed on the pulley bracket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant merely stated:
“Lange relates to an adjustment device with a deflection assembly, as specified in the title. Lange does not teach or suggest the emphasized claim recitations, nor does the Final Office Action make any such assertions.
The Applicant respectfully traverses all of the assertions in the Final Office Action, however in the spirit of expediting patent prosecution has amended the claims as set forth above.” (page 1 of the Remarks section).
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Regarding the amendments to the claims, claim 1 was amended to recite “the accommodation protrusion is insertion-coupled to the accommodation portion such that a rear surface of the guide rail and a rear surface of the accommodation protrusion form a same surface”. This was found unpersuasive and does not overcome the prior art as “same” is extremely broad such that it was interpreted as presented in the definitions above. Furthermore, applicant’s specification does not provide further guidance regarding what is “same surface” actually means (see at least 2nd par. in page 10 and last par. in page 11 of the specification).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634