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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed December 10, 2025.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “vehicle sash door structure” on line 1 is confusing because it is grammatically awkward. It is suggested the applicant change “vehicle sash door structure” on line 1 to --vehicle door sash structure-- to avoid confusion.
On lines 1-2, “a side door body for a vehicle” is confusing because it is unclear how a side door body is for a vehicle. It appears that the side door body is of a door for a vehicle rather than just being for a vehicle. Accordingly, it is suggested the applicant insert --of a door-- following “body” on line 2 to avoid confusion.
On line 2, it is suggested the applicant delete the comma following “body” to avoid confusion.
On line 4, “a weather strip door” is confusing it is grammatically awkward. How can the weather strip be a “door”? It is suggested the applicant delete “door” on line 4 to avoid confusion.
On line 5, “is provided to the bracket” is confusing since it is unclear how the reinforcement support can be provided to the bracket. What spatial relationship is the applicant attempting to set forth? Is the reinforcement support actually attached to the bracket?
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 5-22 are objected to because “vehicle sash door structure” on line 1 of claims 1, 2 and 5-22 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. It is suggested the applicant change “vehicle sash door structure” on line 1 of claims 1, 2 and 5-22 to --vehicle door sash structure-- to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a side door body for a vehicle” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a side door body is for a vehicle. It appears that the side door body is of a door for a vehicle rather than just being for a vehicle. Accordingly, it is suggested the applicant insert --of a door-- following “body” on line 2 of claim 1 and where appropriate throughout the claims to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a weather strip door” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. How can the weather strip be a “door”? It is suggested the applicant delete “door” on line 6 of claim 1 and throughout the claims where appropriate to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a joining position” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element(s) of the invention have the joining position to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 10 is objected to because “a crank-shaped cross-section” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What comprises a “crank-shaped” cross section? What shape is required in order to be referred to as being “crank-shaped”?
Claim 12 is objected to because “in the vehicle width direction” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the plate shaped part can be joined to the outer side of the door sash body in the vehicle width direction. See figure 5 which shows the plate shaped part 16 being joined to the outer side of the door sash body 11 in the vehicle length direction rather than the vehicle width direction as set forth in claim 12. Also see “the vehicle width direction” on lines 3-4 of claim 12 which creates the same clarity issue.
Claim 22 is objected to because “a side door body for a vehicle” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a side door body is for a vehicle. It appears that the side door body is of a door for a vehicle rather than just being for a vehicle. Accordingly, it is suggested the applicant insert --of a door-- following “body” on line 2 of claim 22 and where appropriate throughout the claims to avoid confusion.
Claim 22 is objected to because “a weather strip door” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. How can the weather strip be a “door”? It is suggested the applicant delete “door” on line 6 of claim 22 and throughout the claims where appropriate to avoid confusion.
Claim 22 is objected to because “a joining position” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element(s) of the invention have the joining position to which the applicant is referring.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-22 are 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.
Recitations such as “a gap formed, by a thickness of the bracket in a vehicle width direction” on line 10 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How does the thickness of the bracket form the gap between the bracket and the inner door panel? It appears that that the gap between the bracket and the inner door panel is independent of the thickness of the bracket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 and 5-22, as best understood by the examiner, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, absent applicant’s own disclosure, fails to teach the entire combination of elements set forth in the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach a vehicle door sash structure wherein the retainer comprises a plate shaped part that is configured to fill a gap formed, by a thickness of the bracket in a vehicle width direction, between the inner door panel and the door sash body at a joining position between the inner door panel and the door sash body across which the weather strip door extends. See lines 9-12 of claims 1 and 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the indication of allowable subject matter.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634