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 2-6 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.
In claim 2, Applicant recites that “said partition portion extends in a direction which crosses said longitudinal direction.” However, in claim 1, Applicant has recited two different longitudinal directions (“vehicle longitudinal direction” and “a longitudinal direction which corresponds to an application direction of said vibration-reduction adhesive agent”). Thus, it is not clear which direction Applicant is referring to. For purposes of expediting examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the latter longitudinal direction.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 4,389,122) in view of Rehfeld et al. (US 2006/0165977).
With respect to claim 1, Weaver discloses the claimed window structure except that they are silent on the storage modulus of the adhesive agent. Weaver discloses a window structure of a vehicle, comprising:
a window frame member 12 having an opening portion penetrating in a vehicle longitudinal direction and a peripheral edge portion 18 enclosing the opening portion and provided at a front part of the vehicle (Weaver, col. 1, lines 17-21; Fig. 4);
a window member 20 covering the opening portion and piled on the peripheral edge portion of the window frame member 12 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver), the window member being transparent or translucent (Weaver, col. 4, line 62-64);
an adhesive agent 40 applied to at least part of the peripheral edge portion of the window frame member 12 along the peripheral edge portion so as to adhere the window member to the peripheral edge portion of the window frame member 12 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver); and
a partition portion 30 to partition at least part of said adhesive agent 40 in a longitudinal direction which corresponds to an application direction of said adhesive agent (as shown in Fig. 2 of Weaver).
Rehfeld et al. teach a similar window structure of a vehicle including frame member 2 having a peripheral edge and a window member 1 (as shown in Fig. 1a of Rehfeld et al.). Rehfeld et al. further teach a vibration-reduction adhesive agent 3 (“acoustic damping properties,” Rehfeld et al., paragraph [0076]) having a storage modulus of 21 MPa (“E’=21 MPa,” Rehfeld et al., paragraph [0177]). While 21 MPa is not in the exact range of 10 - 17 MPa as recited, it is considered close enough to the range that the adhesive agent would have the same properties (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Rehfeld et al. with the window structure disclosed by Weaver for the advantage of attenuating noise propagating through the window structure (Rehfeld et al., paragraph [0001]).
With respect to claim 2, Weaver discloses that the partition extends in a direction which crosses said longitudinal direction as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Weaver:
[AltContent: textbox (toward center of window member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (direction which crosses longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
322
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Weaver discloses that the partition portion extends toward a center of said window member (i.e. the direction which crosses the longitudinal member as indicated in the above Figure).
With respect to claims 4 and 10, Weaver discloses that said partition portion 30 is constituted by plural portions which are positioned adjacently and extend in different directions from each other (as shown adjacent to tabs 28 as shown in Fig. 1 of Weaver).
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhnke et al. (DE 4422122) in view of Rehfeld et al. (US 2006/0165977).
With respect to claim 1, Bruhnke et al. disclose the claimed window structure except that they are silent on the storage modulus of the adhesive agent. Bruhnke et al. disclose a window structure of a vehicle, comprising:
a window frame member 7 having an opening portion penetrating in a vehicle longitudinal direction and a peripheral edge portion enclosing the opening portion and provided at a front part of the vehicle as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Bruhnke et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (opening portion)][AltContent: textbox (peripheral edge portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
248
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a window member 1 covering the opening portion and piled on the peripheral edge portion of the window frame member 7 (as shown above.), the window member being transparent or translucent (inherent in a windshield as shown in Fig. 1 of Bruhnke et al.);
an adhesive agent 4 applied to at least part of the peripheral edge portion of the window frame member 7 along the peripheral edge portion so as to adhere the window member to the peripheral edge portion of the window frame member 7 (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Bruhnke et al.); and
a partition portion 3 to partition at least part of said adhesive agent 4 in a longitudinal direction which corresponds to an application direction of said adhesive agent (as shown in Fig. 1 of Bruhnke et al.).
Rehfeld et al. teach a similar window structure of a vehicle including frame member 2 having a peripheral edge and a window member 1 (as shown in Fig. 1a of Rehfeld et al.). Rehfeld et al. further teach a vibration-reduction adhesive agent 3 (“acoustic damping properties,” Rehfeld et al., paragraph [0076]) having a storage modulus of 21 MPa (“E’=21 MPa,” Rehfeld et al., paragraph [0177]). While 21 MPa is not in the exact range of 10 - 17 MPa as recited, it is considered close enough to the range that the adhesive agent would have the same properties (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Rehfeld et al. with the window structure disclosed by Bruhnke et al. for the advantage of attenuating noise propagating through the window structure (Rehfeld et al., paragraph [0001]).
With respect to claim 2, Bruhnke et al. disclose that the partition extends in a direction which crosses said longitudinal direction as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Weaver:
[AltContent: textbox (toward center of window member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (longitudinal direction (into the page) )][AltContent: textbox (direction which crosses longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
255
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Bruhnke et al. disclose that the partition portion 3 extends toward a center of said window member (i.e. the direction which crosses the longitudinal member as indicated in the above Figure).
With respect to claims 7, 11, and 18 in the combination, Bruhnke et al. disclose that said vibration-reduction adhesive agent 4 is applied to a pair of lower corner portions of said peripheral edge portion (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Bruhnke et al.) and/or a portion of the peripheral edge portion which interconnects said pair of lower corner portions, and said partition portion 3 is provided in an area where the vibration-reduction adhesive agent 4 is applied (as shown in Fig. 2 of Bruhnke et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-9, and 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claims 5-6 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for aid plural partition portions extending in an inverted-V shape.
Claims 8 and 16 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for said partition portion having a bead which is provided at said window frame member and extends in a short direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction.
Claims 9 and 17 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for said partition portion having a rib which is provided at said window frame member and extends in a short direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction.
Claim 12 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for said partition portion having a bead which is provided at said window frame member and extends in a short direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction.
Claim 13 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for said partition portion having a rib which is provided at said window frame member and extends in a short direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction.
Claim 14 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for said partition portion having a bead which is provided at said window frame member and extends in a short direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction.
Claim 15 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for said partition portion having a rib which is provided at said window frame member and extends in a short direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hayashi and Kunert et al. are cited to show other examples of a window structure with a partition portion to partition at least part of said adhesive agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights