DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on July 17, 2026.
Status of claims: claim 7 is cancelled; claims 1-6 and 8 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 – shouldn’t “an interior side” be replaced with “the interior side”
Claim 1, line 4 – shouldn’t “a lateral side of the window glass facing an interior side of the window frame” be amended to “lateral sides of the window glass facing interior sides of the window frame? Note, applicant’s FIGS. 2, 3a, 3b and 3c all illustrate the first and second permanent magnet strips attached to opposites sides, and not a single “lateral side,” of the window glass 12. Also, claim 1, line 7 should be appropriately amended.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2010-0065891 to Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”).
Park discloses a window control device for controlling up and down displacement of a window glass 120 comprising:
first and second permanent magnet strips 132a,132b attached to a rear side of the window glass, the rear side being a lateral side of the window glass facing an interior side of a window frame; (FIG. 3)
the window frame 50 surrounding at least partially the window glass and being provided with first and second sets of electromagnets 142a,142b at a rear side of the window frame; the rear side of the window frame being an interior side of the window frame facing the rear side of the window glass; and (see FIGS. 2 and 3)
a control system 150 for controlling the polarity of the electromagnets and the intensity of the magnetic field generated by the first and the second sets of electromagnets so that, in a locked state, the first set of electromagnets are adapted to attract the first permanent magnet strip, thus preventing any up and down displacement of the window glass, and, in a released state of the window glass, the first set of electromagnets are adapted to repel the first permanent magnet strip, thus allowing an up and down displacement of the window glass, and the second set of electromagnets are adapted to generate selectively a repulsive and/or attractive force on the second permanent magnet strip , thus resulting in an up or down displacement of the window glass. (see pages 2 and 3 of the machine translation of Park) (claim 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
492
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Rear side of the widow glass)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral side)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
480
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park further discloses wherein the second permanent magnet strip has a series of individual permanent magnets (see FIGS. 5a, 5b) arranged in alternating polarity and the second set of electromagnets comprises a series of individual electromagnets that can each have either north or south polarity. (claim 3)
Park further discloses wherein the first and the second permanent magnet strips are disposed at opposite sides of the window glass. (see FIG. 3) (claim 4)
Park further discloses wherein the first and the second permanent magnet strips are disposed along an end edge of the window glass that is covered by the window frame. (see FIGS. 2 and 3) (claim 5)
Park further discloses the vehicle door comprising the upper window glass and the window control device according to claim 1 for controlling the up and down displacement of the window glass, wherein the window glass constitutes an upper window glass. (see FIGS. 1 and 2) (claim 6)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of FR 2822879 to Breynaert et al. (hereinafter “Breynaert”).
Park, as applied above, discloses the first permanent magnet strip comprises a plurality of flat permanent magnets with opposite polarity on each side (inherent) and the first set of electromagnets comprising a plurality of electromagnets that can have either north or south polarity, (see FIGS. 3, 5a, 5b) but fails to disclose the first permanent magnet strip comprises a single magnet and the first set of electromagnets comprises only one electromagnet.
Breynaert teaches the use of a single magnet 8, versus a magnet strip or a set of magnets, used in a similar window control device. (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 modify the Park first permanent magnet strip with a single permanent magnet as well as modify the Park first set of electromagnets with only one electromagnet, as taught by Breynaert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate assembly of the Park window control device, in order to facilitate replacement of the first permanent magnet strip and first set of electromagnets as well as since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. (claim 2)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of US 4272923 to Anderson.
Park, as applied above, fails to disclose a lower window glass that is fixedly connected to the window frame.
Anderson teaches of a vehicle door with a lower window glass that is fixedly connected to a window frame. (see FIGS. 1 and 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 Park vehicle door with a lower window glass fixedly coupled thereto as taught in Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide children and short people the ability to see through the vehicle door at a lower region of the door. (claim 8)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5 and 6 of the applicant’s response filed July 17, 2026, the applicant contends the Park reference discloses “a window control device in which the window frame 130 is provided on the bottom surface of the window glass 120” with the first and second permanent magnet strips attached thereto and therefore does not read on the claim 1 amendment of “first and second permanent magnet strips attached to a rear side of the window glass, the rear side being a lateral side of the window glass facing an interior side of a window frame.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As illustrated in the figures under the rejection of claim 1 above, the first and second permanent magnet strips are attached to lateral sides of elements 130, which are directly attached to element 120. Therefore, the first and second permanent magnet strips are in fact, at least indirectly via elements 130, “attached to a rear side of the window glass, the rear side being a lateral side of the window glass facing an interior side of a window frame,” as recited.
Also, although applicant argues that element 130 is not part of the window glass, nothing in the claims precludes the interpretation of the window glass to include elements 130.
Additionally, Park does not require the first and second permanent magnet strips 132a,132b to be positioned on elements 130.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
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.
/MARCUS MENEZES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights