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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “when in an unloaded state…” in line 28 and goes on to describe an unloaded state as a state “in which the pane edges bear against respectively associated seals”. In paragraph 19 of the specification, this state is described as a “loaded state”. It is believed this should be “when in a loaded state” and Examiner interprets this limitation as the loaded state when applying prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the loaded state" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the door window pane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the class-A-spatial-surface position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the loaded state" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US Pat 4,823,507).
Regarding claim 15, Miller discloses a method for closing a door window opening 14 in a vehicle A in an aerodynamically watertight manner, the method comprising: guiding a door window pane 24 on a path which is arcuate, viewed in cross section through the vehicle, and which is curved more strongly with respect to a vehicle longitudinal center plane at least above a door shoulder 22 in an unloaded state of the door window pane 24 than an arcuate course R1 of an associated door-window-pane class-A-surface spatial form, or its spatial position deviates from the class-A-surface spatial position, in order to bring about preloading of the door window pane 24, determining a sealing action, in the loaded state (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, line 54-Col. 4, line 19). The deviation from the class-A-surface spatial position is a position in which the door window pane is not positioned against the seal 26 of Miller (see Figures 3-4), as the class-A-surface is formed by a continuous surface along a side of the vehicle body. Miller discloses the door window pane is sealed against the vehicle body in the loaded state in a watertight manner (see Col. 3, lines 12-17), which requires that the sealing action required to position the door window pane in the loaded state must be determined before the door window pane is positioned in the loaded state.
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses a method for constructing a spatial form and movement path of a window lifter unit 42 of a vehicle A, the method comprising: determining sealing forces required to achieve a predefined sealing action, which sealing forces act locally on a closed door window pane 24 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 49-54); determining a load-free spatial form and/or a load-free spatial position of the door window pane 24 relative to a door body 40, deviating from a constructional class-A-surface spatial position of the door window pane 24 relative to the door body 40, from which the door window pane is urged back into the class-A-surface spatial position by the local sealing forces (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, lines 54-64); and configuring a curvature R3 of each of a first and second guide rail 74, 76 to be curved parallel to a load-free curvature R1 of the door window pane 24 in a region thereof guided by the guide rail 74, 76, and about a same axis as the door window pane 24, such that, when the door window pane 24 is retracted into the door body 40 and when the door window pane 24 is extended out of the door body 40, the door window pane 24 moves along its own curved area (see Figures 3-4; Col. 3, line 54- Col. 4, line 19). Miller discloses the door window pane is sealed against the vehicle body in the loaded state in a watertight manner (see Col. 3, lines 12-17), which requires that the sealing action required to position the door window pane in the loaded state must be determined before the door window pane is positioned in the loaded state. The deviation from the class-A-surface spatial position is a position in which the door window pane is not positioned against the seal 26 of Miller (see Figures 3-4), as the class-A-surface is formed by a continuous surface along a side of the vehicle body. Miller discloses the door window pane is sealed against the vehicle body in the loaded state in a watertight manner (see Col. 3, lines 12-17), which requires that the sealing action required to position the door window pane in the loaded state must be determined before the door window pane is positioned in the loaded state.
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.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaha et al. (US Pat 3,844,064) in view of Miller (US Pat 4,823,507) and Handte et al. (US Pat 5,632,121).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaha et al. disclose a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body 10 having at least one frameless vehicle door with a lower door body 13 and a door window pane 18 (see Figure 2; Col. 2, lines 35-48); a window lifter unit 30 by which the door window pane 18 is able to be moved upward out of the door body 13 and back into the door body 13 (see Figure 2; Col. 3, lines 50-59), wherein the door body 13 is frameless above a door shoulder that upwardly delimits the door body 13, wherein the door shoulder has a passage slot 16 for the door window pane 18 (see Figure 2; Col. 2, lines 44-48), wherein the door window pane 18 is guided, within the door body 13, by a first guide rail 20, and wherein, when in a state extended out of the door body 13 and with the vehicle door closed, the door window pane 18 bears, against a first seal 12 on the vehicle body 11 (see Figure 2; Col. 2, lines 50-67), wherein the door window pane 18 is curved toward a vertical vehicle longitudinal center plane, wherein the guide rail 20 is curved parallel to an unloaded door window pane 18 (see Figure 2; Col. 2, lines 49-67), in a region of the latter guided by the guide rail 20, and about a same axis as the door window pane 18, and wherein a curvature and/or position of the guide rail 20 relative to the door body 13 deviates from a constructional class-A-surface curvature and/or class-A-surface spatial position of the guide rail 20 relative to the door body 13 and are configured or arranged such that: (i) when in an unloaded state extended out of the door body 13, the door window pane 18 forms a first spatial form 28 and/or takes up a first spatial position R3 relative to the door body 13, which deviates from a constructionally fixed door-window-pane class-A-surface spatial form and/or door-window-pane class-A-surface spatial position R4 relative to the door body 13 (see Figure 2; Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 3), and (ii) when in a loaded state, in which the pane edges bear against respectively associated seals 12, the door window pane 18 forms a second spatial form and/or takes up a second spatial position R1 relative to the door body 13, which corresponds substantially to the door- window-pane class-A-surface spatial form and/or door-window-pane class-A-surface spatial position relative to the door body 13 (see Figure 2; Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 3).
Yamaha et al. fail to disclose first and second seals on the vehicle body against first and second lateral panes, respectively, and first and second guide rails, wherein the second guide rail is spaced at a distance from the first guide rail.
Miller discloses a vehicle body 12 having a frameless vehicle door 16 with a lower door body 40 and a door window pane 24 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 2, lines 39-54). When in an extended state, the door window pane 24 has a first lateral pane edge which rests against a first seal 30 on the vehicle body 10 and a second lateral pane edge which rests against a second seal 28 on the vehicle body 10 (see Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 1 below; Col. 2, lines 49-62). The first and second seals form a seal 26 that is meant to ensure the door is sealed against the vehicle body 12 in the closed position (see Col. 3, lines 12-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Handte et al. disclose a vehicle body having a frameless vehicle door 1 with a lower door body 2 and a door window pane 7 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, lines 3-13). The door window pane 7 has a window lifter unit 9 and the door window pane 7 is guided by a first guide rail 11 and a second guide rail 12 at a distance from the first guide rail 11 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, lines 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the door window pane of Yamaha et al. such that, when the door window pane is in an extended state, a first lateral pane edge of the door window pane rests against a first seal on the vehicle body and a second lateral pane edge of the door window pane rests against a second seal on the vehicle body, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the door window pane sealingly engages the vehicle body when the door is closed, as taught by Miller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the guide rail of Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller, as a first guide rail and a second guide rail at a distance from the first guide rail, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Handte et al., to ensure the door window pane moves in a uniform manner and does not rotate in an unwanted manner when extending and retracting from the passage slot.
Regarding claim 10, Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., disclose the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the curvature of the region, guided by each guide rail 19, of the door window pane 18 is curved, in the unloaded state of the door window pane 18, in each case about an axis of curvature O1 which has at least one direction component extending substantially parallel to the passage slot 16 (see Figure 2; Col. 3, lines 32-49). The axis of curvature O1 and the passage slot 16 both extend longitudinally along the lower door body 13 (see Figure 2; Col. 3, lines 32-49).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., disclose the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the door window pane 18, in the unloaded state, has substantially the same curvature as the class-A-surface spatial form, but its spatial position deviates from the class-A-surface spatial position (see Figure 2; Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 3). The class-A-surface spatial form 28 is maintained by the door window pane 18, but the spatial position does not abut the seal 12 that would allow for the class-A-surface spatial position.
Regarding claim 12, Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., disclose the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the radius of curvature R4 of the door window pane 18 about the axis of curvature O1 extending substantially parallel to the passage slot 16 in a side view is smaller in the unloaded state of the door window pane 18 than the radius of curvature R3 thereof in the loaded state (see Figure 2; Col. 3, lines 32-49).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., disclose the vehicle according to claim 9.
Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., fail to disclose the seals on the vehicle body each have a curved course which corresponds to the curvature of the associated pane edge of the door-window-pane class-A-surface spatial form.
Miller discloses a vehicle body 12 having a frameless vehicle door 16 with a lower door body 40 and a door window pane 24 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 2, lines 39-54). When in an extended state, the door window pane 24 has a first lateral pane edge which rests against a first seal 30 on the vehicle body 10 and a second lateral pane edge which rests against a second seal 28 on the vehicle body 10 (see Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 49-62). The first and second seals form a seal 26 that is meant to ensure the door is sealed against the vehicle body 12 in the closed position (see Col. 3, lines 12-17). The seals 28, 30 on the vehicle body 10 each have a curved course which corresponds to the curvature of the associated pane edge of the door window pane class-A-surface spatial form (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 1 above; Col. 2, lines 49-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the seals on the vehicle body of Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., to each have a curved course which corresponds to the curvature of the associated pane edge of the door-window-pane class-A-surface spatial form, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the door window pane maintains an aerodynamic surface while also sealing the door against the vehicle body, as taught by Miller.
Regarding claim 14, Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., disclose the vehicle according to claim 9.
Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., fail to disclose the course of the curvature of each guide rail is constant.
Handte et al. disclose a vehicle body having a frameless vehicle door 1 with a lower door body 2 and a door window pane 7 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, lines 3-13). The door window pane 7 has a window lifter unit 9 and the door window pane 7 is guided by a first guide rail 11 and a second guide rail 12 at a distance from the first guide rail 11 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, lines 9-22). The course of the curvature of each guide rail 11, 12 is constant (see Figures 2-3 and annotated Figure 3 below; Col. 3, lines 14-22, 47-57).
PNG
media_image2.png
762
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct each guide rail of Yamaha et al., as modified by Miller and Handte et al., to have a constant curvature, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Handte et al., to ensure the door window pane is raised uniformly and smoothly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gerhardt et al. (US Pat 9,033,395) disclose a motor vehicle side door having a door window pane with a radius of curvature and a curved travel path. Srock et al. (US Pat 4,905,412) disclose a vehicle door having a guiding device with first and second guide rails and a window lifter unit. Glossop, Jr. et al. (US Pat 5,159,781) disclose a vehicle having a vehicle body and a vehicle door with a door window pane having a radius of curvature and a curved travel path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is (571)272-9415. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-3pm EST.
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.
/VERONICA M CONDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights