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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mellary et al. (US 2010/0269412) (hereinafter Mellary).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 12, Mellary discloses 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]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the vehicle including an automatic window apparatus disclosed by Mellary is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 13, Examiner notes that the frame and the guide rail (elements 169 and 22) are considered to be “integral”. Additionally, Mellary explicitly recites “The upper and lower supports 21 and 22 may be made from any suitable material such as a suitable polymeric material, such as glass reinforced polypropylene or glass reinforced nylon. The upper and lower supports 21 may be made by any suitable means” (See paragraph [0036])). Examiner additionally notes that the limitation “wherein 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 claim 3, Mellary discloses 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.
Regarding claim 4, Mellary discloses wherein the actuator is coupled with the slider and includes a driving belt (element 45) extended in the first direction.
Regarding claim 5, Mellary discloses 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 claim 6, Mellary discloses wherein the actuator further comprises, a motor (See Figure 1 below), a worm (See Figure 1 below) rotated by the motor, a worm wheel (See Figure 1 below) engaged with the worm, and a reducer (See Figure 1 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_image1.png
260
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: 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 claim 7, Mellary discloses wherein the motor includes a rotational shaft (See Figure 1 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 claim 8, Mellary discloses 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 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Mellary discloses 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) 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 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Mellary discloses wherein the window sliding member comprises, a slider (element 40a) configured to be driven by the actuator and 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.
Regarding claim 15, Mellary discloses wherein the actuator comprises a driving belt (element 45) which is coupled with the slider and extending in the first direction.
Regarding claim 16, Mellary discloses wherein the actuator further includes a driving pulley (element 51) and a driven pulley (element 50), and wherein the driving pulley and the driven pulley are spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and the driving pulley is configured to drive the driving belt.
Regarding claim 17, Mellary discloses wherein the actuator further comprises, a motor (See Figure 1 above), a worm (See Figure 1 above) rotated by the motor, a worm wheel (See Figure 1 above) engaged with the worm, and a reducer (See Figure 1 above) [configured to reduce a rotation speed of the worm wheel and transmit a driving force to the driving pulley]*.
Regarding claim 18, Mellary discloses wherein the motor includes a rotational shaft (See Figure 1 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 claim 19, Mellary discloses wherein the window frame further comprises an extension bracket (element 185) extending in the first direction from the vertical frame and including a reducer (See Figure 1 above and Figures 10a-10b).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wilson et al. (US 7,410,201) (hereinafter Wilson).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson discloses a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus (See at least Abstract), wherein the automatic window apparatus comprises: a window frame (element 202) fixed to a vehicle body and including a window rail for supporting a bottom of a window to slide in a first direction (See at least column 3, lines 66-67 and column 4, lines 1-9, “Window pane 204 is movable within frame 202 and may move by sliding horizontally within frame 202. More particularly, window pane 204 may slide horizontally within a track (not shown) defined in frame 202”); a guide rail (considered “track”, See column 4, lines 1-9) formed on a side surface of the window rail and extending in the first direction; a window sliding member (element 206) configured to move the window backward and forward along the first direction while being guided by the guide rail; and an actuator (considered at least element 10) configured to drive the window sliding member to reciprocate.
Regarding claim 10, Examiner notes that the frame and the guide rail of Wilson (elements 202 and “track”, See column 4, lines 1-9) are considered to be “integral”. Additionally, Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein 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 claim 11, Wilson discloses a vertical frame (Figure 5, considered right most side of element 202) extending in a direction vertical to the first direction; and an extension bracket (element 16) extending in the first direction from the vertical frame and including a reducer (element 18).
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 1-4, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 7,410,201) (hereinafter Wilson) in view of Mellary et al. (US 2010/0269412) (hereinafter Mellary).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Wilson discloses a vehicle including an automatic window apparatus (See at least Abstract), wherein the automatic window apparatus comprises: a window frame (element 202) fixed to a vehicle body and including a window rail for supporting a bottom of a window to slide in a first direction (See at least column 3, lines 66-67 and column 4, lines 1-9, “Window pane 204 is movable within frame 202 and may move by sliding horizontally within frame 202. More particularly, window pane 204 may slide horizontally within a track (not shown) defined in frame 202”); a guide rail (considered “track”, See column 4, lines 1-9) formed on a side surface of the window rail and extending in the first direction; a window sliding member (element 206) connected to the window and extended in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Examiner notes that element 206 is necessarily 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 (considered at least element 10) configured to drive the window sliding member to reciprocate.
Although structural detail with regard to the guide rail of Wilson is not explicitly shown, Mellary 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]*. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the window system of Wilson such that the “track” (See column 4, lines 1-9) is formed on a lateral surface of the window rail, as taught by Mellary, since this structural configuration would have been logical and obvious, and would have functioned as intended for the purpose of Wilson, and since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. 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 2 and 13, Examiner notes that the frame and the guide rail of Wilson (elements 202 and “track”, See column 4, lines 1-9) are considered to be “integral”. Additionally, Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein 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 claim 3, Wilson discloses wherein the window sliding member comprises: a slider (element 206) guided by the guide rail; and a connection bracket configured to connect the slider to the window such that the window moves together with the slider (See column 4, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson discloses wherein the actuator is coupled with the slider and includes a driving belt (element 123) extended in the first direction (Examiner notes that element 123 extends three-dimensionally including in the first direction).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson discloses wherein the window sliding member comprises, a slider (element 206) configured to be driven by the actuator and guided by the guide rail, and a connection bracket (element 16) configured to connect the slider to the window such that the window moves together with the slider.
Regarding claim 15, Wilson discloses wherein the actuator comprises a driving belt (element 123) which is coupled with the slider and extending in the first direction (Examiner notes that element 123 extends three-dimensionally including in the first direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “none of the bushing assembly 40a, the connector 114, nor the carrier 116 discloses or suggests a structure that is extended along a second direction perpendicular to a first direction along which the window slides”. Examiner disagrees and notes that that each of elements 40a, 114, and 116 are three-dimensional objects and are “extended” in a three-dimensional manner, including “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”. For example, See Figures 7a-7b. Examiner notes that element 40a is clearly and explicitly illustrated as including a dimensional thickness that extends “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”.
Regarding the argument “Wilson fails to disclose or teach a window sliding member that is extended in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and coupled to the guide rail, as recited in claim 1”. Examiner disagrees and notes that that element 206 is a three-dimensional object and is “extended” in a three-dimensional manner, including “in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”.
Regarding the argument “Wilson merely describes that the track is defined in the frame 202, and is entirely silent as to the structural position of the track, including whether the track is formed on a lateral side surface of the window frame, as recited in amended claim 1”. Necessitated by the claim amendments filed 1/14/2026, this argument is 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
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 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