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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed October 29, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the applicant has used the same reference characters to refer to the same element in different embodiments of the invention. Since the elements are different in each of the different embodiments of the invention, they each require their own reference character. For example, the seal member “10” in figure 2 is different from the seal member “10” in figure 5. Also see figures 6-9 which all show a different version of the seal member. Since the seal members “10” in figures 2 and 5-9 are different, they each require their own reference character such as --10’--, --10’’--, etc. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “the inner panel” on line 1 is confusing since the applicant has not set forth an inner panel above while the use of the word “the” implies that the applicant has set forth an inner panel above. It is suggested the applicant change “the inner panel” to --an inner panel-- to avoid confusion.
On line 3, “opened on” is confusing because it is unclear how an opening is opened on a vehicle side surface. It is suggested the applicant deleted “opened” on line 3 to avoid confusion.
On lines 4-5, “closer to a vehicle outer side” is confusing since it is unclear what element of the invention the inner panel is closer to the inner side than.
On lines 8-9, “adopting the outer panel made of resin” is confusing because it is grammatically awkward. It is suggested the applicant change “adopting the outer panel made of resin” to --the outer panel being made of resin-- to avoid confusion.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “forming a door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a single panel is able to form a door. Note that it appears that at least the inner panel and the outer panel form the door.
Claim 1 is objected to because “closer to a vehicle outer side as compared to a vehicle inner side” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the outer panel or the inner panel is closer to a vehicle outer side as compared to a vehicle inner side.
Claim 2 is objected to because “formed from the base portion” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the panel seal portion is formed from the base portion. It appears that the panel seal portion 51 extends from the base portion rather than being formed from the base portion.
Claim 4 is objected to because “an outer wall” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the outer wall to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 4 is objected to because “inclined in the base portion” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. First, it is unclear what element of the invention the outer wall is inclined relative to. Second, it is unclear how the outer wall is in the base portion. See figure 3, which appears to show the outer wall 41 being a part of the base portion rather than being in the base portion.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the U-shaped groove” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis. Note that the applicant has only set forth a portion, a shape and a cross-section on line 6 above rather than a groove.
Claim 7 is objected to because “closer to a vehicle interior side of the general portion toward the vehicle interior side as compared to the vehicle outer side” on lines 5-7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it appears that the applicant is confusingly mixing two different concepts. The first concept being the plate surface being closer to a vehicle interior side of the general portion as compared to the vehicle outer side. The second concept being the protrusion strip protruding toward the vehicle interior side. However, the applicant has confusingly intertwined these apparent concepts.
Claim 7 is objected to because “a door surface center side” on lines 8-9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the door surface center side to which the applicant is referring. Does the inner panel include the door surface center side?
Claim 7 is objected to because “than the extended portion of the general portion” on line 9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What characteristic of the extended portion of the general portion is the applicant referring to? Is the applicant referring to the position the extended portion of the general portion contacts the outer panel?
Claim 6 is objected to because “a door surface periphery side” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention includes the door surface periphery side to which the applicant is referring. Does the inner panel include the door surface periphery side?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokida et al. (US 4707020) in view of Taketomo et al. (US 2017/0182871). Enokida et al. discloses a vehicle seal structure, comprising:
an inner panel 32 (fig. 3) made of a metal, as set forth on line 53 of column 5, forming a door 16 (fig. 2), and the door 16 is supported to be capable of opening and closing an ingress-egress opening (not numbered, but shown in figures 2 and 3 being occupied by the door 16),
an outer panel 18 made of a resin, as set forth on line 32 of column 5, arranged above a plate surface (labeled below) of the inner panel 32 closer to a vehicle outer side as compared to a vehicle inner side and to be movable along the plate surface (labeled below) of the inner panel 32. Note that the examiner has interpreted “closer to a vehicle outer side as compared to a vehicle inner side” as describing the position of the outer panel.
Enokida et al. is silent concerning a seal member.
However, Taketomo et al. discloses a seal member 50 held between an inner panel 1 and an outer panel 57 (claim 1);
wherein the seal member comprises: a base portion (labeled below) having a groove shape (labeled below) with a substantially U-shaped cross section and arranged to have a periphery of the inner panel 1 inside the U-shaped groove, and a panel seal portion (labeled below) formed from the base portion and extended toward the outer panel 57, and is in contact with a plate surface (labeled below) of the outer panel 57 closer to the vehicle inner side as compared to the vehicle outer side with the seal member 50 held between the inner panel 1 and the outer panel 57 (claim 2);
wherein the seal member 50 comprises: an inter-panel seal 52 being in contact with the outer panel 57 as well as an exterior panel 58 adjacent to the outer panel 57 (claim 3);
wherein the seal member 50 comprises: a base portion (labeled below) arranged on the inner panel 1, and a seal lip (labeled below) extending from an outer wall 511, and extending along a door surface periphery side (labeled below) of the outer panel 57, wherein the outer wall 511 is inclined in the base portion since the outer wall is inclined relative to a portion of the inner panel 1 as labeled below (claim 4);
wherein the outer panel 57 comprises: a general portion (labeled below) forming a main body portion of the outer panel 57, an extended portion 57a integrally formed with the general portion to protrude as a protrusion strip from a plate surface (labeled below) of the outer panel 57 closer to a vehicle interior side of the general portion toward the vehicle interior side as compared to the vehicle outer side, wherein an edge of the seal lip (labeled below) is in contact with the outer panel 57 closer to a door surface center side (labeled below) than the extended portion 57a of the general portion (claim 7);
wherein the seal member 50 includes a hollow seal (labeled below) having a cylindrical cross section as shown in figure 3 since at least a portion of the hollow seal is cylindrically shaped, and is in contact with a plate surface (labeled below) of the outer panel 57 closer to the vehicle inner side as compared to the vehicle outer side with the seal member 50 held between the inner panel 1 and the outer panel 57 (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Enokida et al. with a seal member, as taught by Taketomo et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a seal between the inner and outer panels and to provide a seal between the door and a structure adjacent the door.
PNG
media_image1.png
1656
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1660
1116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1582
1098
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 that the seal member comprises a turned-back lip extending from an end portion of the seal lip toward a door surface center side of the inner panel, and having an acuate angle to the seal lip, and the base portion has a groove shape with a U-shaped cross section, and is arranged to have a periphery of the inner panel inside a U-shaped groove as set forth in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that Enokida et al. fails to disclose a seal member. This is not found to be persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the applicant argues that Enokida et al. fails to disclose any sound insulating properties. This is not found to be persuasive because it is not supported by the claim language. Note that the applicant has not claimed any sound insulating properties.
The applicant then argues that Taketomo et al. fails to disclose an outer panel made of resin and arranged movable with respect to the inner panel. This is not found to be persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Since Enokida et al. discloses an outer panel made of resin and arranged movable with respect to the inner panel, the applicant’s comments concerning Taketomo et al. failing to disclose an outer panel made of resin and arranged movable with respect to the inner panel are not persuasive. Additionally, Taketomo et al. discloses an outer panel made of resin. Even thought the panel 57 is described by Taketomo et al. as being a garnish, it does not negate the fact that the panel 57 is an outer panel and made of resin.
Finally, with respect to the applicant’s arguments concerning the motivation to combine the references of record, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since the applicant has failed to address the reasoning/rationale supplied by the examiner as to why the modification would have been obvious, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 3634