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 05/20/2026.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusasco (EP 0709537).
Claim 1
(Brusasco discloses) A motorized window pane actuation mechanism (figures 1 and 4) for displacing a mobile window pane (5) with respect to a window holding structure (1) between a first position (lowered position of the window) and a second position (raised position of the window) along a window opening displacement (9), the mobile window pane occupying, with respect to the window holding structure, a first pane zone (Annotated figure 1 below) when in the first position and a second pane zone (Annotated figure 1 below) when in the second position, the window pane actuation mechanism comprising:
a static tubular pillar (Annotated figure 4 below) extending along a main axis (25) and on a side of the first pane zone (the static tubular pillar is in the inboard side of the first pane zone), the static tubular pillar statically affixed to the window holding structure during operation of a rotary motor (60; figure 4);
a rotating output tube (50; note that 50 houses a core 52; see figure 3, therefore it meets the ‘tube’ limitation) mounted coaxially around the static tubular pillar (“around” was interpreted as --On all sides-- or --In a circle or with a circular motion-- such that 50 is mounted coaxially ‘on all sides’ of the interior surface of the static tubular pillar; see definition below);
a rotating central shaft (65) mounted coaxially inside the static tubular pillar;
the rotary motor mounted coaxially inside the static tubular pillar and around the rotating central shaft (figure 4) to cause rotation of the rotating central shaft with respect to the static tubular pillar (lines 41-45 of col. 3);
a connector (75) for transmitting a rotary motion of the rotating central shaft to the rotating output tube (via 74); and
a rotary-to-linear motion converter (applicant discloses the rotary-to-linear motion converter as the helical thread of the rotating output tube, therefore the rotary-to-linear motion converter was interpreted as the helical thread of screw 50) which is driven by the rotating output tube and drives the displacement of the mobile window pane along the window opening displacement (lines 13-19 of col. 3).
Brusasco fails to disclose the static tubular pillar extending along a main axis (25) parallel to the window opening displacement.
However, examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held that “Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device”. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shift the position of the static tubular pillar such that the main axis 25 extends parallel to the window opening displacement for providing additional horizontal space within the lower structure of the vehicle door.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
440
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
134
297
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Claim 2
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the rotating output tube extends along at least a portion of the static tubular pillar and extends alongside the first pane zone (figures 1 and 4).
Claim 3
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the connector is an iso-speed connector which connects the rotating central shaft to the rotating output tube (figure 4; note that ‘iso-speed connector’ was interpreted similar to applicant’s description in par. 69, the connection of 65 to 50 via 74 allows both parts to rotate synchronously).
Claim 5
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the rotary-to-linear motion converter comprises a helical thread (thread of 50) on an outer cylindrical surface of the rotating output tube (figure 4).
Claim 6
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 5.
Modified Brusasco is silent regarding wherein the helical thread on the outer cylindrical surface of the rotating output tube has a length along the main axis which is superior or equal to a travel distance of the window pane between its first and second positions.
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 helical thread of the rotating output tube with a length that is superior or equal to a travel distance of the window pane between its first and second positions for the predictable and expected results of properly supporting the displacement of the window.
Claim 9
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the rotary motor comprises an electric motor (60) which has a stator (62) connected to an internal surface of the static tubular pillar, and a rotor (64) mounted on the rotating central shaft (figure 4; lines 39-45 of col. 3).
Claim 10
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the connector is guided in rotation with respect to the window holding structure via a bearing (71).
Claim 11
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the static tubular pillar is statically affixed by a mounting extremity (Annotated figure 4 above) to the window holding structure, wherein the static tubular pillar has a free end extremity (Annotated figure 4 above), opposite of the mounting extremity along the main axis, and wherein the connector for transmitting the rotary motion of the rotating central shaft to the rotating output tube is located at the free end extremity of the static tubular pillar (Annotated figure 4 above).
Claim 13
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the window holding structure is a door (1) of an automotive vehicle (figure 1).
Claim 14
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) A vehicle (figure 1) comprising the motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1 (see rejection in claim 1 above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusasco, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-14 above, in view of Kunert et al. (US 5309677) (hereinafter “Kunert”).
Claim 4
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1.
Modified Brusasco fails to disclose wherein the connector connects the rotating central shaft to the rotating output tube with a speed reduction or multiplication ratio.
(However, Kunert teaches) wherein a connector (16; Kunert figure 2) connects a rotating central shaft (22) to a rotating output tube (12 and 13) and converts rotary motion to linear displacement with a speed reduction (via 17 and 18) or multiplication ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the rotating central shaft to the rotating output tube of modified Brusasco with a speed reduction of Kunert for optimizing the conversion of the rotary motion to the linear displacement of the window.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusasco, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-14 above, in view of Getzschman et al. (US 11135906) (hereinafter “Getzschman”).
Claim 12
(Brusasco, as modified above, discloses) The motorized window pane actuation mechanism of claim 1.
Modified Brusasco fails to disclose wherein the window holding structure comprising, facing the first pane zone, a transparent panel.
(However, Getzschman teaches) A window holding structure (front passenger door in Getzschman figure 41) comprising, facing a first pane zone (lower door zone), a transparent panel (432; lines 56-58 of col. 7).
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 window holding structure of modified Brusasco with the transparent panel of Getzschman for improving the door visibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art Brusasco (EP 0709537) appears to teach most of the limitations of the independent claim 1 and most of the dependent claims.
However, claims 7 and 15 recites “wherein the rotary-to-linear motion converter comprises a nut which is screwed on the helical thread and which is prevented from rotating around the main axis but free to translate along the main axis”. Brusasco does disclose a nut (74), however it is statically affixed inside the casing 61 and it is not free to translate along the main axis.
Examiner has considered applying a secondary prior art such that the nut 74 is free to translate along an axis, however further modification would render the invention of Brusasco unusable, therefore ultimately decided that such combination is improper. Claim 8 was allowable due to its dependency to claim 7.
Further any modifications such as any of the prior art discussed above meet the claim limitations would require hindsight and/or piecemeal rejection such that examiner finds them unreasonable to apply.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments directed to the specification objections have been considered and the objections were withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thangamariappan et al. (US 12173548) (hereinafter “Thangamariappan”) was cited as a pertinent prior art as it discloses a similar actuation mechanism to applicant’s invention. Thangamariappan discloses a vertical and rotary motor utilizing a stator and rotor to actuate the displacement of the window. Thangamariappan was not used in the 102(a)(2) rejection as the prior art is exempt under the exception 102(b)(2)(A).
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights