DETAILED ACTION
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 10/28/2024.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/28/2024 has been considered. The strike-through reference was not considered as it does not have an English translation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 shows three different positions of the first arm and second arm however since all were drawn in solid lines, it seems that the regulator has six arms. Applicant should amend the figure by making two of the three positions in dashed or dotted lines.
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 - “a rotation center shaft of the one end of the first arm and a rotation center shaft of the one end of the second arm are shifted in a drive direction of the bracket” and “a rotation center shaft of the other end of the first arm and a rotation center shaft of the other end of the second arm are shifted in the drive direction of the bracket”. See specification objection below.
Claim 1 - “a vehicle member constituting a door”.
Recitations in claim 5 is not shown in the drawings. Note that since the vehicle door panel is not shown the drawings, the entire recitations of the claim is not shown by the drawings. For example, the comparison between the two shift amounts and distance is not shown because the vehicle door panel itself is not shown.
Claim 17 - “a first direction”, “a second direction”, “window glass rotates in the first direction about the other end of the first arm”, “window glass rotates in a second direction about the other end of the first arm”, and “the second arm is disposed above the first arm”. These objections were set forth because the first arm is located above the second arm in the three different positions of the first arm and second arm in at least figure 1.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Disclosure in par. 39 is objected because it is not clear because the term “shift amount” is not properly discussed by the specification. Is the shift amount merely a fixed distance between the rotation support portions regardless of the position of the arms or is it a parameter measured during a certain movement of both first and second arms? As noted in the drawing objections above, the vehicle door panel is not shown therefore the comparison in par. 39 is not readily clear to the examiner.
The term “shifted” is objected because the original disclosure is not clear regarding the meaning of the term. In the at least last six lines of par. 32, it seems that the original disclosure is referring to “shifted” as merely the position of the rotation center shaft of the first arm relative to the rotation center shaft of the second arm which is not commensurate to the definition below. What does the applicant believe the meaning of the term “shifted”?
PNG
media_image1.png
235
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the respective lines 5 and 6 of claim 12, “the first arm the one end of which” and “the second arm the one end of which” were objected as they are awkwardly written.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of copending Application No. 18350079 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1 and 12 of the co-pending application 18350079 includes all features of claims 1, 4, and 7-10. Although the co-pending application is silent regarding the rotation center shafts of the first arm and second arm, claims 1 and 12 recites a first arm and a second arm having one end side supported by the base and another end side supported by the bracket. Also, since claim 1 requires the first arm and second arm to restrain from intersecting each other while rotating, it is taught that the respective rotation center shafts of each arms are not coaxial of each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-17 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1
Recitations such as “the other end” on line 4 and line 6 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis.
Recitations such as “the first arm and the second arm” on line 8 render the claims indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. It seems that applicant wants to claim a first arm, second arm, one end of the first arm, and one end of the second arm however the claims are written such that “a first arm one end” on line 3 is only positively reciting an end of a first arm but not requiring the first arm itself.
Recitations such as “shifted” on at least lines 10 and 13 of at least claim 1 render the claims indefinite - see specification objection above. Although applicant is free to act as their own lexicographer, this rejection was set forth because the different meanings significantly changes the scope of the claim. This issue is also present to the similar recitation in the dependent claims.
Claim 5
Recitations in lines 3-8 of claim 5 are rejected because it is not clear to the examiner what is applicant attempting to recite. See drawing and specification objections above. The scope of the claim is unclear because it is not clear what applicant believes the ‘shift amount’ to be.
Claim 17
Recitations such as “when the first arm and the second arm extend in a first direction and the window glass rotates in the first direction about the other end of the first arm, the second arm is disposed above the first arm” on lines 3-5 and “when the first arm and the second arm extend in the first direction and the window glass rotates in a second direction about the other end of the first arm, the second arm is disposed below the first arm” on lines 6-8 are rejected because it is unclear what is applicant attempting to recite. With respect to figure 1, the scope of the claim is unclear regarding how can the window rotate in the same direction at which the first arm and the second arm are extending to. Note that neither the first direction nor the second direction were shown.
Additionally, since claim 1 seems to define the positions of the first arm relative to the second arm, it is unclear how would the second arm be disposed above the first arm. For the rejection below, this was interpreted as --the first arm disposed above the second arm--.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above. All claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected for including the 112 issues of the claim from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roethel (US 1931738).
Note that the claims were interpreted as best understood by the examiner in light of the 112(b) issues set forth above.
Claim 1
(Roethel discloses) A window regulator (figures 1-6) comprising:
a bracket (28; figure 1) on which window glass (26) is to be supported;
a first arm one end (one end of first arm 12 at 11) of which is rotatably supported by a vehicle member (9) constituting a door (figure 2) and the other end of which is rotatably supported by the bracket (other end of first arm 12 at 16);
a second arm one end (one end of second arm 14 at 13) of which is rotatably supported by the vehicle member and the other end of which is rotatably supported by the bracket (other end of second arm 14 at 17); and
a drive member (10) configured to drive the bracket, on which the window glass is to be supported, by rotationally driving the first arm and the second arm (lines 132-137 of page 2), wherein
a rotation center shaft of the one end of the first arm and a rotation center shaft of the one end of the second arm (both shown in Annotated figure 1 below) are shifted in a drive direction of the bracket on which the window glass is to be supported (Annotated figure 1 below), and
a rotation center shaft of the other end of the first arm and a rotation center shaft of the other end of the second arm (both shown in Annotated figure 1 below) are shifted in the drive direction of the bracket on which the window glass is to be supported (Annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
Claim 2
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein the first arm and the second arm at least partially overlap each other as viewed in a vehicle up-down direction (figure 6).
Claim 3
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein the bracket includes a shoe member (15) slidable in an extending direction of a slide rail (28a and 28b; figure 5; lines 102-107 of page 2) of the bracket,
the other end of the first arm and the other end of the second arm are rotatably supported by the shoe member so as to be shifted in the drive direction of the bracket on which the window glass is to be supported (figure 2),
the shoe member includes a first side portion (horizontal portion 15a) extending in an extending direction of the bracket and a second side portion (vertical portion of 15 in figure 1) bent from the first side portion in a direction intersecting the extending direction of the bracket (figure 1),
the other end of the first arm is rotatably supported by the first side portion or by a connection portion of the first side portion and the second side portion (figure 1), and
the other end of the second arm is rotatably supported by the second side portion (figure 1).
Claim 4
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein in a movable range of the first arm, a line segment (Annotated figure 1 above) connecting a rotation center of the one end (at the rotation center shaft of the one end of the first arm in Annotated figure 1 above; similar rotation center for the one end of the second arm) and a rotation center of the other end of the first arm (at the rotation center shaft of the other end of the first arm in Annotated figure 1 above; similar rotation center for the other end of the second arm) does not overlap a rotation center of the one end or a rotation center of the other end of the second arm (see line segment of first arm does not overlap the rotation centers of the second arm as they both move from the open and closed positions; figures 1-2).
Claim 5
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein when the window glass is positioned at a bottom dead center (Annotated figure 2 below), a shift amount in the drive direction between a rotation support portion of the one end of the first arm and a rotation support portion of the one end of the second arm and a shift amount in the drive direction between a rotation support portion of the other end of the first arm and a rotation support portion of the other end of the second arm are smaller than a distance between a rotation center of the other end of the first arm and a lower surface of a vehicle door panel (see smaller shift amounts between respective rotation support portions than the distance in Annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
714
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
Claim 7
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein the one end of the first arm and the one end of the second arm are rotatably supported by the vehicle member so as to be shifted in the drive direction of the bracket, on which the window glass is to be supported, and a vehicle width direction (Annotated figure 1 above).
Claim 8
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle member is a base (9) to be assembled to an inner panel or an outer panel of a vehicle (figure 2), and
the drive member drives the bracket, on which the window glass is to be supported, by rotationally driving the first arm with respect to the base and the bracket and rotationally driving the second arm with respect to the base and the bracket (figure 2).
Claim 9
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 8, wherein the base is formed of a single member (see base 9 in figure 6).
Claim 10
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 8, wherein the first arm and the second arm at least partially overlap each other as viewed in a vehicle up-down direction (figure 6).
Claim 11
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 8, wherein the base includes a pair of sidewall portions (Annotated figure 6 below) extending in a vehicle width direction and a second support flat portion (flat portion of the base at 13 in figure 1) connected to the pair of sidewall portions (Annotated figure 6 below), and
the one end of the second arm is rotatably supported by the second support flat portion of the base (figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
314
980
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6
Claim 14
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein the bracket includes two shoe members (left and right 21 in figure 1) spaced apart from each other in a vehicle front-rear direction (figure 1), and
the rotation center shaft of the other end of the first arm and the rotation center shaft of the other end of the second arm are positioned between the two shoe members in the vehicle front-rear direction (figure 1).
Claim 15
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 14, wherein the bracket includes a bead (24; figure 4) positioned between the two shoe members and the rotation center shafts of the other ends of the first arm and the second arm (figure 1).
Claim 16
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 14, wherein the rotation center shafts of the other ends of the first arm and the second arm are shifted to a vehicle upper side or a vehicle lower side with respect to the two shoe members in a vehicle up-down direction (Annotated figure 1 (II) below).
PNG
media_image5.png
593
865
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 (II)
Claim 17
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1, wherein when the first arm and the second arm extend in a first direction (Annotated figure 1 (II) above) and the window glass rotates in the first direction about the other end of the first arm (Annotated figure 1 (II) above), the second arm is disposed above the first arm (due the 112(b) rejection above, this was interpreted as the first arm disposed above the second arm),
when the first arm and the second arm extend in the first direction and the window glass rotates in a second direction (direction when the window glass is at the bottom dead center indicated in the Annotated figure 2 above) about the other end of the first arm, the second arm is disposed below the first arm (Annotated figure 2 above), and
the first direction and the second direction are opposite to each other (Annotated figure 1 (II) and Annotated figure 2 above).
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 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roethel, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-17 above, in view of S43-16328 (hereinafter “328”).
Note that 328 is included in the IDS - see IDS for copy.
Claim 6
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 1.
Roethel fails to disclose a width of the first arm is larger than a width of the second arm.
(However, 328 teaches) a width of a first arm (4; 328 figure 1) is larger than a width of a second arm (5).
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 widths of the first arm and second arm such that the first arm is wider than the second arm as taught by 328, with a reasonable expectation of success, for reinforcing the first arm therefore making it more robust as it supports the rotation of the window glass.
Claim 12
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 11, the base includes a first support flat portion (flat portion of the base at 11 in figure 1) by which the one end of the first arm is rotatably supported and the second support flat portion by which the one end of the second arm is rotatably supported (figure 1).
Roethel fails to disclose the first arm the one end of which is supported by the first support flat portion and the second arm the one end of which is supported by the second support flat portion are off set in the vehicle width direction.
(However, 328 teaches) a first arm (4) of a one end and a second arm (5) of a one end are off set in a vehicle width direction (Annotated figure 1 (I) below).
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 positions of the one ends of the respective first arm and second arm such that they are offset in the width direction as taught by 328, with a reasonable expectation of success, for optimizing the support provided by the first arm and second arm to the window glass with respect in the width direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
729
741
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 (I)
Claim 13
(Roethel discloses) The window regulator according to claim 8.
Roethel fails to disclose the second arm includes a narrow portion positioned intermediate between the one end and the other end, and a wide portion positioned at the one end and rotatably supported by the base.
(However, 328 teaches) a second arm (5) includes a narrow portion positioned intermediate between a one end and another end (see narrow portion in Annotated figure 1 (I) above), and a wide portion (Annotated figure 1 (I) above) positioned at the one end and rotatably supported by a base (plate to which arm 5 is mounted in figure 1).
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 second arm to have the narrow and wide portions as taught by 328, with a reasonable expectation of success, for making the second arm lighter therefore it is easier to rotate without significantly affecting its durability.
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
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619