DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on February 4, 2026.
Status of claims: claim 4 is cancelled; claims 1-3 and 5-9 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
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12 – shouldn’t “for the least one” be amended to “for the at least one”
Claim 2, line 2 – shouldn’t “the groove” be amended to “the groove for the at least one of the pair of support members that is inclined”
Claim 5, line 1 – shouldn’t “vehicle” be amended to “the vehicle”
Claim 5, line 3 – shouldn’t “one of the support members” be amended to “the at least one of the pair of support members”
Claim 6, line 4 – shouldn’t “of at least” be amended to “of the at least”
Claim 6, line 5 – shouldn’t “that support member” be amended to “the at least one of the pair of support members”
Claim 7, line 4 – shouldn’t “the groove of at” be amended to “the groove of the at”
Claim 8, line 4 – shouldn’t “the groove of at” be amended to “the groove of the at”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105087 in view of US 20230116133 to Alam et al. (hereinafter “Alam”).
JP 2015-105087 discloses a window glass for a vehicle comprising:
a fixed glass 2 with an opening formed therein, configured to be fixed to the vehicle M (see FIGS. 1 and 14);
a movable glass 10 configured to be fitted into the opening of the fixed glass; and a pair of support members 3,4 configured to vertically sandwich the movable glass therebetween and slidably support the movable glass relative to the fixed glass, (see FIGS. 1, 2, 3) wherein
a groove 3f,3r,4f,4r extending in a direction in which the movable glass is slid is formed in each of the pair of support members, and
at least one of the pair of support members is inclined in such a manner that a bottom surface of the groove of that support member gets closer to the other support member on a vehicle rear side. (see FIGS. 3,4 and 6-8 and at least paragraphs [0004] and [0010] and note that the vehicle is not positively recited.)
JP 2015-105087 fails to disclose the pair of support members are formed of resin.
Alam teaches of a support member 5 formed of resin. (see FIG. 3 and paragraph [0039])
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 form the pair of support members of JP 2015-105087 of resin, as taught by Alam, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the support members of inexpensive and durable material as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
JP 2015-105087 fails to disclose a ratio of a height of the inclination of the bottom surface of the groove for the least one of the pair of support members that is inclined to an overall length of the respective support member is not lower than 0.03% and not higher than 1.0%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide
a ratio of a height of the inclination of the bottom surface of the groove for the least one of the pair of support members that is inclined to an overall length of the support member is not lower than 0.03% and not higher than 1.0% with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with sliding and positioning of the movable glass. (claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Vehicle front side)][AltContent: textbox (Vehicle rear side)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
204
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JP 2015-105087, as applied above, further discloses wherein the pair of support members support the movable glass roughly horizontally when the opening of the fixed glass is completely closed by fitting the movable glass into the opening. (see FIG. 2) (claim 3)
JP 2015-105087, as applied above, further discloses wherein the pair of support members are inclined in such a manner that the bottom surface of the groove of one of the support members gets closer to the other support member on the vehicle rear side. (see FIGS. 6-8 and at least paragraphs [0004] and [0010]) (claim 5)
JP 2015-105087, as applied above, further discloses wherein the movable glass comprises a frame 11 and a pair of rods 24, the frame being a rectangular member with an opening at a center thereof, and the pair of rods being configured to be attached to an end of the frame on the vehicle rear side, and upper ends or lower ends of the pair of rods are slidably fitted into the grooves provided in the pair of support members. (see FIG. 1) (claim 9)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105087 in view of Alam, as applied to claim 1 above.
JP 2015-105087, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the height of the inclination of the bottom surface of the groove is not lower than 0.3 mm and not higher than 5 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide
the height of the inclination of the bottom surface of the groove is not lower than 0.3 mm and not higher than 5 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with sliding and positioning of the movable glass and to minimize any dirt and debris from collecting within the bottom surface. (claim 2)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105087 in view of Alam, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of DE 10 2018 210 529 A1 to Kramer et al. (hereinafter “Kramer”).
JP 2015-105087, as applied above, discloses wherein the fixed glass includes a small window (see FIG. 14), the small window is a rectangular opening having corners, and upper and lower edges being roughly horizontal, a step is provided on the bottom surface of the groove of the at least one of the pair of support members so that the bottom surface of the groove of that support member is lower at a completely-closed position of the small window.
[AltContent: textbox (step)][AltContent: textbox (Bottom surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
192
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JP 2015-105087 fails to disclose the bottom surface of the groove of that support member is lower at a completely-opened position of the small window than at positions of the small window other than the completely-closed position and the completely-opened position.
Kramer teaches of a recess 18 with a bottom surface in a groove 11 (see FIGS. 1, 2A, 2B) of a support member 7 that is lower at a position of the small window than at positions of the small window other than the position of the small window when the recess 18 is filled. (see FIG. 2B, note the bottom surface of recess 18 is lower than at least a portion of the bottom surface of 11.)
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 include a recess at an end of the at least one of the pair of support members of JP 2015-105087 (at the completely-opened position), as taught by Kramer, such that the bottom surface of the groove of that support member is lower at a completely-opened position of the small window than at positions of the small window other than the completely-closed position and the completely-opened position with a reasonable expectation of success in order to help maintain and fix the movable glass in the completely opened position.
JP 2015-105087 fails to disclose the corners of the rectangular opening are rounded. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the corners rounded or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on page 7 of the applicant’s response filed February 4, 2026 the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
108
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
First, it appears the applicant is highlighting limitations that are not positively recited in the claims. More specifically, the vehicle is never positively recited in applicant’s claims.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of JP 2015-105087 is certainly capable of performing the intended use.
Second, FIGS. 13 and 14 and paragraph [0004] of the machine translation of JP 2015-105087 disclose the movable glass 35 moves from the front of the vehicle to the rear of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image4.png
206
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Third, all of the movement of the JP 2015-105087 movable glass occurs “on a vehicle rear side,” as recited and noted in the claim 1 rejection above.
On page 11 of the applicant’s response filed February 4, 2026, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image5.png
252
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide a ratio of a height of the inclination of the bottom surface of the groove to an overall length of the support member is not lower than 0.03% and not higher than 1.0% with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with sliding and positioning of the movable glass.
Additionally and in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See 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), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
On page 11 of the applicant’s response filed February 4, 2026, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image6.png
86
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees and notes that JP 2015-105087 does in fact disclose the inclinations, regardless of how the pair of support members 3,4 are attached to the fixed glass.
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 extension fee 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 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 on M - F 8-5 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634