DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendments to claims 1 and 6, filed 2 April 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 9-11 have been added. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. 11,912,109) in view of Mugishima (U.S. 2006/0112660).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a window glass for vehicle comprising: a fixed glass (100) with an opening formed therein (101) configured to be fixed to a vehicle (170); a movable glass (210) configured to be fitted into the opening (101) in the fixed glass (100); a support member (200) configured to slidably support the movable glass (210) relative to the fixed glass (100); and a seal member (230) configured to seal a gap (as seen in fig 6) between a peripheral edge of the movable glass (210) and a peripheral edge of the opening in the fixed glass (100) when the movable glass (210) is fitted into the opening in the fixed glass (101), wherein a frame (220) is provided on the peripheral edge of the movable glass (210), the frame (220) includes a groove (as defined in annotated fig 6) into which the seal member (230) is fitted, the seal member (230) includes a deformable cylindrical part (as seen in fig 6) deformable at the time of sealing (see fig 6), and an engaging part (as defined in annotated fig 6) extending from the deformable cylindrical part (see annotated fig 6) toward a bottom surface of the groove (see annotated fig 6), and a height of a mouth of the groove (as defined in fig 6) is larger than a thickness of a root of the engaging part (as seen in fig 6, the root of the engaging part is deformed in the installation position), the seal member (230) is the only seal of the window glass for vehicle (as seen in fig 6).
Kim is silent as to the description of the material of the engaging part and the deformable cylindrical part.
Mugishima teaches a similar weather strip for a vehicle where the engaging part that is that attaches to the vehicle is made of solid rubber, which is a hard elastic ([0025]), and the sealing portion and seal lip are made of a sponge rubber, which is a soft elastic ([0025]).
Kim and Mugishima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle seals for windows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Mugishima and utilize a hard elastic material for the engaging part of the seal and a soft elastic material for the deformable cylindrical part of the seal. Doing so would utilize a hard material for mounting the seal in place, but a softer material where the material seals against the window, in order to ensure full deformation and creating a proper seal.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim and Mugishima disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the hard elastic body of which the engaging part (as defined in annotated fig 6 above) is formed has a specific gravity of 0.7 or higher and 1.2 or lower, and has a Shore A hardness of 50 or higher and 90 or lower as measured according to JIS K 6253 (2012), and the soft elastic body of which the deformable cylindrical part (as defined in annotated fig 6 above) is formed has a specific gravity of 0.2 or higher and 0.7 or lower, and has a Shore A hardness of 20 or higher and 50 or lower as measured according to JIS K 6253 (2012). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a material with the specific gravity and hardness specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It is known that a solid material of the engaging part would have higher specific gravity and hardness than the sponge material of the deformable cylindrical part, and therefore discovering the optimum material involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim and Mugishima further teach wherein a protrusion (as defined in annotated fig 6) is provided at a tip of the engaging part in a direction in which the engaging part extends (as seen in annotated fig 6), the protrusion (as defined in annotated fig 6) extending in a direction inclined at 60° or larger and 120° or smaller with respect to the direction in which the engaging part extends before the engaging part is engaged into the groove (as can be seen in annotated fig 6, the angle of the protrusion would be within the claimed range), and the protrusion (as defined in annotated fig 6) is formed by using an elastic body softer ([0025] Mugishima teaches the seal lip made of sponge rubber) than the hard elastic body ([0025] Mugishima teaches a fixing base made of solid rubber) of which the engaging part (as defined in annotated fig 6) is formed (as per the combination above).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim and Mugishima further teach wherein a wall-like part (as defined in annotated fig 6) is provided on a movable-glass side of a boundary between the deformable cylindrical part and the engaging part (see annotated fig 6), the wall-like part (as defined in annotated fig 6) extending in a direction inclined at 20° or larger and 110° or smaller with respect to the direction in which the engaging part (as can be seen in annotated fig 6, the angle of the wall-like part would be within the claimed range) extends, and the wall-like part is formed by using the same hard elastic body ([0025] Mugishima teaches this to be a solid rubber) as that of which the engaging part is formed (as per the combination above).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 4. Kim and Mugishima further teach wherein a protrusion is provided at a tip of the engaging part (see annotated fig 6) in a direction in which the engaging part extends, the protrusion extending in a direction inclined at 60° or larger and 120° or smaller with respect to the direction in which the engaging part (as can be seen in annotated fig 6, the angle of the protrusion would be within the claimed range) extends before the engaging part is engaged into the groove (see annotated fig 6), the protrusion is formed by using an elastic body softer ([0025] Mugishima teaches the seal lip made of sponge rubber) than the hard elastic body ([0025] Mugishima teaches a fixing base made of solid rubber) of which the engaging part is formed, and a distance between the wall-like part and the protrusion (see annotated fig 6) is 1.5 mm or longer before the engaging part is engaged into the groove.
Kim and Mugishima disclose the claimed invention except for a distance between the wall-like part and the protrusion is 1.5mm or longer before the engaging part is engaged into the groove. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a distance between the wall-like part and the protrusion that is 1.5mm or longer, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 4. Kim further teaches wherein the frame (220) includes a projection (see annotated fig 6) projecting toward the fixed glass (100) and forming a part of a side wall of the groove (see annotated fig 6), and a distance between a tip of the wall-like part and the protrusion (see annotated fig 6) is 0.3 mm or longer when the engaging part is engaged into the groove (see annotated fig 6).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the seal member (230) includes a contact part (see annotated fig 6), the contact part being a part that comes into contact with the fixed glass (100) before any of other parts thereof (as seen in fig 6) does when the movable glass (210) is fitted into the opening in the fixed glass (101), and the contact part (as defined in annotated fig 6) is positioned on an extension line of a center line of the groove (as seen in fig 6).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim further teaches comprising a drain cover (130) attached to a lower part of the support member (200), wherein moisture accumulated in the seal member (230) in a state where the movable glass (210) is fitted into the opening in the fixed glass (101) is drained to outside of the vehicle through the frame (as seen in fig 6, represented by the dotted arrow line) and the drain cover (130) when the movable glass (210) is displaced from the opening in the fixed glass (101).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 7. Kim further teaches wherein the contact part is positioned on the center line of the groove (see annotated fig 6) and the contact part is maintained at a predetermined position without being affected by compression or extension of the seal member (230) due to a curvature of the seal member (as seen in fig 6, the contact part of Kim is maintained in position similar to the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a wall-like part (as defined in annotated fig 6) is provided on a movable-glass side of a boundary between the deformable cylindrical part and the engaging part (see annotated fig 6); the frame (220) includes a projection projecting toward the fixed glass (110) and forming a part of a side wall of the groove; and the wall-like part extends above the projection (see annotated fig 6).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim and Mugishima teaches the window glass of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a wall-like part is provided on a movable-glass side of a boundary between the deformable cylindrical part and the engaging part (as defined in annotated fig 6); and a tip of the wall-like part does not come into contact with other members in a state where the engaging part is engaged into the groove (as seen in annotated fig 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include the limitation that the seal member is the only seal member of the window glass for vehicle. The examiner has conducted a further prior art search based on this amendment and discovered the prior art of Kim, who teaches a single seal in a window glass for a vehicle with a fixed glass and movable glass element, where the single seal is comprised of an engaging portion and a deformable cylindrical portion. Kim, combined with the prior art of Mugishima, then teaches the claims as amended, including newly introduced claims 9-11, as described in this rejection.
Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the claim objection from the non-final office action of 23 January 2026 and the claim objection has been withdrawn.
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 Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights