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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/8/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 10-11 recite “the open section formed on a side of the U-shaped section”. The open section is defined in line 8 (and throughout the disclosure) as being part of the rail, i.e. the rail has an open section that is then covered by the garnish plate forming the U-shaped section. As such the open section is not formed on a side of the U-shaped section since once the U-shaped section is formed there is no longer an open section of the rail. Claim should be amended to recite “the open section of the rail” in keeping with the disclosure and previous recitations.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “the door BIW” instead of “the door body” in keeping with claim 1.
Claims 13 and 14 both include the status identifier (Currently Amended), however, neither claim includes any amendments (no strikethroughs or underlines) and the language appears to be the same as the previous claim set. For purposes of examination claims are being read as (Original) with no changes from the previous claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 recite "a micro clearance structure defined by the garnish plate is included in the U-shaped section" (emphasis added). U- shaped section requires structures forming a U, i.e. two legs connected at one end by a third perpendicular leg. The U-shaped structure of the present invention is defined by the rail and the garnish plate as recited in claim 1. The micro clearance structure 19,7a in applicant's disclosure is shown in figure 2 toward the right end of garnish plate 13 away from the U-shape formed by the plate 13 and the rail 2, i.e. there is no overlap of the rail and slider at the location of the micro clearance structure as the rail does not extend that far to the right and thus as the U-shaped section is defined by the rail and the garnish plate the micro clearance structure cannot be considered to be in the U-shaped section. Applicant has attempted to resolve the previously noted issue by adding the italicized limitation above, however, the garnish plate defining the micro clearance structure does not negate the fact that the structure is not included in the U-shaped section. It is unclear what the scope of U-shaped is in claim 5 as the disclosure and claim 1 indicate it is where the rail and garish overlap but the micro clearance structure is clearly not where the rail and garnish overlap. Limitation will be interpreted broadly in view of what is shown in applicant's figure 2. As the micro clearance structure is not in the U-shaped section, examiner suggests deleting that portion of the recitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US patent 6880293 to Ishikawa (hereinafter Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 1, the flush door is shown in Ishikawa in figures 1-7F with
a door body (main structure of door 11, see figure 1) having a door frame (with outer body panel 65);
a door module (window regulator 30) mounted on the door frame;
a glass (25) configured to be moved up and down by a motor (further taught column 6 lines 51-55) of the door module (30); and
a slider (49) including a movement guide including a connection part (56) connected to the glass (25) and a body part (55) located in a U-shaped section formed by a rail (45) and a garnish plate (27),
wherein the rail (45) and the garnish plate (27) are configured separately,
wherein the garnish plate (27) covers an open section of the rail (45) and guides movement of the slider (49), and
wherein the body part (55) of the slider (49) is inserted into the open section (see figures 7C and 7D) of the rail. Examiner notes the limitation “is inserted” is a product by product limitation as it includes the method of assembling the door (i.e. insertion of the slider into the rail) and the patentability of a product is based on the product itself, see MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, the rail (45), slider (49) and garnish plate (27) are made of hard material (i.e. are rigid) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 3, the open section of the rail (45) is covered by the garnish plate (27) while the rail (45) and the garnish plate (27) are spaced apart from one another (spacing for receiving slider 49) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 4, the U-shaped section supports a reaction force of the door body generated by upward/downward movements of the glass (25) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 5 as best understood, a micro clearance structure (88,111 similar to applicant’s disclosed structure of a nut and bolt) is included in the U-shaped section (between garnish plate and door frame, similar to applicant’s figure 2), and wherein the micro clearance structure (88,111) constrains the glass (25) at a location according to the upward/downward movement of the glass (25) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 6, a glass run inner lip (94) is assembled to the rail (45), and wherein the glass run inner lip (94) forms an airtight seal at an inside of the glass (25) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 7, the glass (25) is connected to the connection part (56) by adhesion of a sealant (104) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 8, the body part (55) of the slider (49) absorbs a distribution of the U-shaped section in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 13, the door frame (with 65) is provided with a location hole (87) and a bolt hole (113); the rail (45) is constrained by coupling a guide pin (86) with the location hole (87); and the garnish plate (27) is constrained by coupling an insert bolt (111) and the bolt hole (113) in Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 15, the door body is configured by the coupling the door frame (with 65) and a door inner panel (66), wherein the door frame (65) and inner panel (66) are covered by an inner panel cover (81), and wherein an inner panel cover lip (82) assembled to the inner panel cover (81) forms an airtight seat at an inside the glass (25) in Ishikawa.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of US patent 9925850 to Yoshida (hereinafter Yoshida).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa is silent as to the slider (49) having a tension part.
A tension part is shown in Yoshida in figures 1-13B where slider (23) has a tension part (28b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flush vehicle door of Ishikawa (having the door module carrying components of Tatsumi) with the tension part of Yoshida because tension parts provided the known benefit of an elastic or spring connection between slider and rail.
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa is silent as to the slider (49) end shape.
A circular end is shown in Yoshida in figures 1-13B where slider (23) has a circular end (28c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flush vehicle door of Ishikawa (having the door module carrying components of Tatsumi) with the circular ends of Yoshida because circular ends provided the known benefit of limiting jamming of the slider (i.e. by having a curved end rather than a flat end).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (and Tatsumi) in view of KR 20040039630 to Song (hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 11, the glass (25) and slider (49) are connected by bonding sealant (104) to the connection part (56) in Ishikawa.
However, Ishikawa is silent as to the slider (49) having grease.
Grease is shown in Song in figures 1-2 where slider (40) has grease (80) between body part (50) and rail (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flush vehicle door of Ishikawa with the grease of Song because grease provided the known benefit of friction reduction.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Official Notice/Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa shows a single piece garnish (27), not a two piece garnish plate and cover.
Examiner notes that applicant failed to properly traverse examiner’s Official Notice that two piece garnishes were old and well known (see below remarks). As such the fact is now considered Admitted Prior Art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flush vehicle door of Ishikawa with the known two piece garnish because two piece garnishes provided the benefit of having the fastening members (88 and 111 in Ishikawa) on the durable plate member while allowing the visible garnish cover to be a simpler construction (i.e. without 111).
Regarding claim 14, a nut (111) is applied to a fixing portion of the garnish (27) and a screw (86) is applied to a fixing portion of the rail in Ishikawa.
However, Ishikawa does not teach a pad.
Examiner notes that applicant failed to properly traverse examiner’s Official Notice that pads were old and well known (see below remarks). As such the fact is now considered Admitted Prior Art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flush vehicle door of Ishikawa with the known pad because pads provided the benefit of a softer or dampened engagement between abutting surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to applicant’s arguments directed to the drawing objections, examiner notes that the replacement drawings are acceptable and the issues have been resolved.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the claim objections, examiner notes the previous issues have been resolved, however, new issues have arisen as detailed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 112(b) rejections, examiner notes most issue have been resolved by the amendments, however, the amendments to claim 5 did not resolve the issue with respect to the location in the U-shaped section as further detailed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 103 rejections of claims 1-8, 13, and 15, examiner notes the previous rejection of claims 1-8, 13, and 15 was a 102 or 103 rejection, not just a 103 rejection. In view of the amendments clarifying that the motor of the door module is moving the window and thus changing the scope of the door module to a thing with a motor (read on by a window regulator) not a plate with various structures on it as could have been encompassed by door module the 103 rejection is no longer applied and only the 102 rejection remains.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the slider of Ishikawa can only be inserted vertically, examiner disagrees. As is clearly shown in Ishikawa in figures 7C-7F the slider of Ishikawa is inserted horizontally into the rail, then covered by the garnish plate, which is then affixed to the rail (similar to applicant’s assembly).
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to examiner’s Official Notice, examiner notes applicant has failed to properly traverse. Per MPEP 2144.03 C, a proper traversal “would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” (emphasis added). Applicant’s traversal includes only assertions that the original Official Notice is not proper as it failed to provide documentary evidence, quotations from the MPEP, and the statement “the facts asserted as well-known must be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known, and Applicant does not believe that such is the case here” (emphasis added). The italicized portion of applicant’s arguments does provide any reasons why the fact is not common knowledge or well-known as required by the italicized portion of MPEP 2144.03 C above, it is simply an assertion. As such, applicant has not properly traversed but instead has merely requested that examiner provide evidentiary support and per MPEP 2144.03 C “A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The newly cited art is in the area of rail pads and garnish plates.
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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights