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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lahnala et al. (US 2012/0117880) (hereinafter Lahnala).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 12, Lahnala discloses a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus, the automatic window apparatus comprising: a window frame (considered at least elements 28 and 54) configured to support a window (element 56) to slide in a first direction, wherein the window is inserted in a window rail (See Figure 1 below) of the window frame; a guide rail (See Figure 1 below) formed on a lateral side surface of the window frame separately from the window rail and extending along the first direction; a window sliding member (considered combination of elements 72, 156, and 158) connected to the window and extended in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See at least Figures 11-13, each of elements 72, 156, and 158 extends in a three-dimensional manner including “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”), the window sliding member connected to a lateral side surface of the window at one end thereof along the second direction (See at least Figures 11 and 13) and slidably coupled to the guide rail at another end along the second direction (area of element 160 is slidably coupled to guide rail) such that the window sliding member moves the window backward and forward along the first direction while being guided by the guide rail; and an actuator (element 68) configured to drive the window sliding member to reciprocate.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
211
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Lahnala et al. (US 2012/0117880), Figure 12 (Examiner Amended))][AltContent: textbox (Guide Rail)][AltContent: textbox (Window Rail)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 13, Examiner notes the window frame and guide rail are considered to be “integrally formed” (See at least Figures 11-13). Examiner additionally notes that the limitation “wherein the window frame and the guide rail are integrally formed by extrusion molding” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. Examiner notes that it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Lahnala discloses wherein the window sliding member comprises: a slider (element 160) guided by the guide rail; and a connection bracket (at least element 162) configured to connect the slider to the window such that the window moves together with the slider.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Arimoto et al. (US 7,464,501) (hereinafter Arimoto).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 12, Arimoto discloses a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus, the automatic window apparatus comprising: a window frame (See Figure 2 below) configured to support a window (element 14) to slide in a first direction, wherein the window is inserted in a window rail (See Figure 2 below) of the window frame; a guide rail (See Figure 2 below) formed on a lateral side surface of the window frame separately from the window rail and extending along the first direction; a window sliding member (at least element 36) connected to the window and extended in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See at least Figures 9-10), the window sliding member connected to a lateral side surface of the window at one end thereof along the second direction (See at least Figures 9-10) and slidably coupled to the guide rail at another end along the second direction See Figure 2 below) such that the window sliding member moves the window backward and forward along the first direction while being guided by the guide rail; and an actuator (element 22) configured to drive the window sliding member to reciprocate.
PNG
media_image3.png
482
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Arimoto et al. (US 7,464,501), Figure 9 (Examiner Amended))][AltContent: textbox (Frame)][AltContent: textbox (Guide Rail)][AltContent: textbox (Window Rail)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection Bracket)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slider)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Arimoto discloses wherein the window sliding member comprises, a slider (See Figure 2 above) configured to be driven by the actuator and guided by the guide rail, and a connection bracket (See Figure 2 above) configured to connect the slider to the window such that the window moves together with the slider.
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 4-8, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahnala et al. (US 2012/0117880) (hereinafter Lahnala) in view of Mellary et al. (US 2010/0269412) (hereinafter Mellary).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Lahnala discloses wherein the actuator is coupled with the slider and includes a driving mechanism (element 70) extended in the first direction. Lahnala lacks wherein the driving mechanism is a belt. Mellary, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus (See at least Abstract), wherein the automatic window apparatus comprises: a window frame (See at least Figures 2-4 and 9-10b, considered element 169 or 188) fixed to a vehicle body and including a window rail (element 22 or 182) for supporting a bottom of a window to slide in a first direction; a guide rail (element 33 or 184) formed on a lateral side surface of the window rail and extending in the first direction (See Figure 5, Examiner notes that element 33 is clearly and explicitly formed on a lateral side surface of element 22); a window sliding member (considered combination of at least elements 40a, 114, and 116) connected to the window and extended in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Examiner notes that element 40a is a three-dimensional object and is “extended” in a three-dimensional manner, including “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”) to be coupled to the guide rail such that the window sliding member moves the window backward and forward along the first direction while being guided by the guide rail; and an actuator (See at least Figures 9-10b, considered element 30 or 186) configured to drive the window sliding member to reciprocate, wherein the window sliding member comprises: a slider (element 40a) guided by the guide rail; and a connection bracket (at least elements 114 and 116) configured to connect the slider to the window such that the window moves together with the slider, and wherein the actuator is coupled with the slider and includes a driving belt (element 45) extended in the first direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic window apparatus of Lahnala such that it utilized a driven belt and actuator, as taught by Mellary, since the toothed belt and pulley system of Mellary would provide enhanced tension and control for the automatic window of Lahnala, when compared to the cable system. Additionally, the actuator and drive belt configuration of Mellary, as shown in Figure 10b, would be desirable since “the motor assembly 186 is more securely supported and protected from damage” (paragraph [0041]), when arranged in this manner, which would provide a robust design while also including improved aesthetics, which would be desirable for potential users. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Mellary teaches wherein the actuator includes a driving pulley (element 51) and a driven pulley (element 50) spaced apart from each other in the first direction to drive the driving belt.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Mellary teaches wherein the actuator further comprises, a motor (See Figure 3 below), a worm (See Figure 3 below) rotated by the motor, a worm wheel (See Figure 3 below) engaged with the worm, and a reducer (See Figure 3 below) [configured to reduce a speed of rotation of the worm wheel to transmit a driving force to the driving pulley]* (See paragraph [0026], “The motor assembly 30 includes a motor 100, which drives a worm gear (shown at 101 in FIG. 10), which in turn drives an output gear 102 (FIG. 6). The output gear 102 is integrally connected to a drive sprocket 51, and both rotate together about a first end axis 104.”).
PNG
media_image5.png
260
442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3: Mellary et al. (US 2010/0269412), Figure 10b (Examiner Amended))][AltContent: textbox (Worm)][AltContent: textbox (Worm Wheel)][AltContent: textbox (Reducer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Motor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shaft)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Mellary teaches wherein the motor includes a rotational shaft (See Figure 3 above) extending in a same direction as an extension direction of a vertical frame (considered element 182 which frames a bottom portion of element 14) of the window frame (Examiner notes that the “vertical frame” of Mellary is a three-dimensional object and “extends” in a three-dimensional manner).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Mellary teaches wherein the window frame further comprises an extension bracket (element 185) extended in the first direction from the vertical frame, and wherein the reducer is placed on the extension bracket (See Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 11, Mellary teaches a vertical frame (considered element 182 which frames a bottom portion of element 14) extending in a direction vertical to the first direction; and an extension bracket (element 185) extending in the first direction from the vertical frame and including a reducer (See Figure 3 above).
Claims 2, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto et al. (US 7,464,501) (hereinafter Arimoto).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 13, Examiner believes that Arimoto discloses wherein the frame and the guide rail are integrally formed (i.e. form a complete unit, essential or necessary for completeness, etc.). However, if Applicant disagrees, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the frame and guide rail integrally by extrusion molding, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Examiner additionally notes that the limitation “integrally formed by extrusion molding” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. Examiner notes that it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 4-8, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto et al. (US 7,464,501) (hereinafter Arimoto) in view of Mellary et al. (US 2010/0269412) (hereinafter Mellary).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Arimoto discloses wherein the actuator is coupled with the slider and includes a driving mechanism (element 70) extended in the first direction. Arimoto lacks wherein the driving mechanism is a belt. Mellary, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus (See at least Abstract), wherein the automatic window apparatus comprises: a window frame (See at least Figures 2-4 and 9-10b, considered element 169 or 188) fixed to a vehicle body and including a window rail (element 22 or 182) for supporting a bottom of a window to slide in a first direction; a guide rail (element 33 or 184) formed on a lateral side surface of the window rail and extending in the first direction (See Figure 5, Examiner notes that element 33 is clearly and explicitly formed on a lateral side surface of element 22); a window sliding member (considered combination of at least elements 40a, 114, and 116) connected to the window and extended in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Examiner notes that element 40a is a three-dimensional object and is “extended” in a three-dimensional manner, including “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”) to be coupled to the guide rail such that the window sliding member moves the window backward and forward along the first direction while being guided by the guide rail; and an actuator (See at least Figures 9-10b, considered element 30 or 186) configured to drive the window sliding member to reciprocate, wherein the window sliding member comprises: a slider (element 40a) guided by the guide rail; and a connection bracket (at least elements 114 and 116) configured to connect the slider to the window such that the window moves together with the slider, and wherein the actuator is coupled with the slider and includes a driving belt (element 45) extended in the first direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic window apparatus of Arimoto such that it utilized a driven belt and actuator, as taught by Mellary, since the toothed belt and pulley system of Mellary would provide enhanced tension and control for the automatic window of Arimoto, which would be desirable for providing improved functionality and security since the locking engagement of the toothed belt and pulley would eliminate slip between the belt and actuator, which would be desirable to users. Additionally, the actuator and drive belt of Mellary would function as intended for the purpose of driving the sliding window of Arimoto. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Mellary teaches wherein the actuator includes a driving pulley (element 51) and a driven pulley (element 50) spaced apart from each other in the first direction to drive the driving belt.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Mellary teaches wherein the actuator further comprises, a motor (See Figure 3 above), a worm (See Figure 3 above) rotated by the motor, a worm wheel (See Figure 3 above) engaged with the worm, and a reducer (See Figure 3 above) [configured to reduce a speed of rotation of the worm wheel to transmit a driving force to the driving pulley]* (See paragraph [0026], “The motor assembly 30 includes a motor 100, which drives a worm gear (shown at 101 in FIG. 10), which in turn drives an output gear 102 (FIG. 6). The output gear 102 is integrally connected to a drive sprocket 51, and both rotate together about a first end axis 104.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Mellary teaches wherein the motor includes a rotational shaft (See Figure 3 above) extending in a same direction as an extension direction of a vertical frame (considered element 182 which frames a bottom portion of element 14) of the window frame (Examiner notes that the “vertical frame” of Mellary is a three-dimensional object and “extends” in a three-dimensional manner).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Mellary teaches wherein the window frame further comprises an extension bracket (element 185) extended in the first direction from the vertical frame, and wherein the reducer is placed on the extension bracket (See Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 11, Mellary teaches a vertical frame (considered element 182 which frames a bottom portion of element 14) extending in a direction vertical to the first direction; and an extension bracket (element 185) extending in the first direction from the vertical frame and including a reducer (See Figure 3 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights