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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-4, 6-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charge et al. (US 20180186225 A1) in view of Lorentsson et al. (US 20200247220 A1) and Blottiau et al. (US 11299022 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Charge discloses a door arrangement (Charge, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Charge, abstract), comprising a front door (Charge, paragraph 48), a rear door (Charge, paragraph 47), and an applique arrangement (Charge, Fig. 4), wherein the front door has a front door bodywork (Charge, 10 in Fig. 1) and a front door window (Charge, 110 in Fig. 1), wherein the rear door has a rear door bodywork (Charge, paragraphs 4 and 47, can also apply to rear door, therefore the rear door can have bodywork as well) and a rear door window (Charge, paragraphs 4 and 47, teaching from the front door can apply to rear door), wherein the applique arrangement comprises: a single applique (Charge, 121 in Fig. 4) and an applique support (Charge, 13 in Fig. 4) to which the applique is mounted, wherein the applique support is rigidly connected to the rear door bodywork (Charge, paragraph 78, screwed means rigidly connected), wherein the rear door window is a sliding window which is guided by a guide arrangement (Charge, Fig. 4), wherein the guide arrangement comprises a front guide shoe (Charge, 116/118 in Fig. 1 and 4, teachings also apply to rear door as described in paragraphs 4 and 47 therefore rear door can similar have shoes 116 and 118 one of which is a front shoe) which is attached to an inner surface (Charge, Fig. 4, surface facing the mounting mechanisms and guides) of the rear door window, and a front guide rail (Charge, 112A/112B in Fig. 1 and 4) which guides the front guide shoe for movement in a sliding direction (Charge, claim 1), wherein the front guide rail is integrally connected with an intermediate layer element (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4, they are integral as a single part) which is at least partly arranged between the applique and the applique support (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4).
Charge discloses the claimed invention but did not explicitly disclose rear door’s guide and applique arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the arrangement shown for the front door to use on a rear door such that the claimed limitation is met, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows smooth interface between the front door and the rear door since their respective rear edge and front edge will be adjacent to each other. Also allow easy assembly and manufacturing due to having same arrangements.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 4 from Charge
Charge fails to disclose a B-pillar of a body of the vehicle, the applique configured to be arranged between the front door window and the rear door window, and wherein the intermediate layer element extends at least from a rear edge to a front edge of the applique.
Lorentsson teaches a B-pillar (Lorentsson, B in Fig. 1 and paragraph 43) of a body (Lorentsson, Fig. 1) of the vehicle, and applique arranged between the front door window and the rear door window (Lorentsson, Fig. 1).
Lorentsson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door applique arrangement as Charge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Charge to incorporate the teachings of Lorentsson with a reasonable expectation of success to have b-pillar and have the doors arranged such that the applique is between the two windows. Doing so provides enhanced vehicle structural integrity and provides necessary seal and protection for the doors and windows.
Blottiau teaches intermediate layer element extends at least from a rear edge to a front edge of the applique (Blottiau, see annotated Fig. 10, the intermediate layer of Charge can similarly be extended such that it extends from a rear edge to the a front edge).
PNG
media_image2.png
310
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 10 from Blottiau
Blottiau is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door applique arrangement as Charge in view of Lorentsson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Charge in view of Lorentsson to incorporate the teachings of Blottiau with a reasonable expectation of success and have the intermediate layer extends edge to edge. Doing so provides additional material making the part stronger against unintentional detachments.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson and Blottiau teaches the door arrangement of claim 1, wherein the applique support and the applique are configured so that an applique outer surface is flush (Charge, paragraph 80, in the plane therefore is flush) with at least one of a front window outer surface or a rear window outer surface.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson and Blottiau teaches the door arrangement of claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer element includes a nose portion (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4) which extends to an inside of the door arrangement in a transversal direction (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4, within the door arrangement inboard of the window and the applique).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson and Blottiau teaches the door arrangement of claim 3, wherein the nose portion fastens the intermediate layer element to a rear door body work protrusion (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson and Blottiau teaches the door arrangement of claim 1, wherein the applique support comprises at least one reinforcing crimp (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4, ridge part on the applique support 13, it extends in the vertical direction since Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional view in the vertical direction) which extends in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson and Blottiau teaches the door arrangement of claim 1, wherein the applique support is at least one of formed integrally with or rigidly fastened to the rear door bodywork (Charge, paragraph 78, screwed means rigidly fastened).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson and Blottiau teaches the door arrangement of claim 1, wherein a rear applique sealing (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4, when used on the rear door it is the rear applique sealing) is connected to an interior side of the applique and includes a sealing lip (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4) which engages a front edge (it will be the front edge when used on the rear door) of the rear door window.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charge et al. (US 20180186225 A1) in view of Lorentsson et al. (US 20200247220 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Charge discloses an applique arrangement (Charge, Fig. 4) for a vehicle (Charge, abstract) which has a front door (Charge, paragraph 48) with a front door window (Charge, 110 in Fig. 1) and a rear door (Charge, paragraph 47) with a rear door window (Charge, paragraphs 4 and 47, teaching from the front door can apply to rear door), the applique arrangement comprising: a single applique (Charge, 121 in Fig. 4) and an applique support (Charge, 13 in Fig. 4) to which the applique is mounted, wherein the applique support is configured to be rigidly connected to one of a rear door bodywork, a front door bodywork (Charge, paragraph 78, screwed means rigidly connected), or a B-pillar of a body of the vehicle.
Charge fails to disclose a B-pillar of a body of the vehicle, and applique arranged between the front door window and the rear door window.
Lorentsson teaches a B-pillar (Lorentsson, B in Fig. 1 and paragraph 43) of a body (Lorentsson, Fig. 1) of the vehicle, and applique arranged between the front door window and the rear door window (Lorentsson, Fig. 1).
Lorentsson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door applique arrangement as Charge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Charge to incorporate the teachings of Lorentsson with a reasonable expectation of success to have b-pillar and have the doors arranged such that the applique is between the two windows. Doing so provides enhanced vehicle structural integrity and provides necessary seal and protection for the doors and windows.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein the applique support and the applique are configured so that an applique outer surface is flush (Charge, paragraph 80, in the plane therefore is flush) with at least one of a front window outer surface or a rear window outer surface.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein an intermediate layer element (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4) is at least partly arranged between the applique and the applique support, and wherein a front guide rail (Charge, 112A in Fig. 4) for guiding the front door window is integrally connected (Charge, Fig. 4, they are integral as a single part) with the intermediate layer element.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein an intermediate layer element (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4) is at least partly arranged between the applique and the applique support, and wherein a rear guide rail (Charge, 112A/112B in Fig. 1 and 4) for guiding the rear door window is integrally (Charge, Fig. 4, they are integral as a single part) connected with the intermediate layer element.
Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the claimed invention but did not explicitly disclose rear door’s guide and applique arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the arrangement shown for the front door to use on a rear door such that the claimed limitation is met, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows smooth interface between the front door and the rear door since their respective rear edge and front edge will be adjacent to each other. Also allow easy assembly and manufacturing due to having same arrangements.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein the applique support is formed from a single layer portion (Charge, Fig. 4, single sheet) or from a multi-layer sheet portion.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein the applique support comprises at least one reinforcing crimp which extends in a vertical direction (Charge, see annotated Fig. 4, ridge part on the applique support 13, it extends in the vertical direction since Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional view in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 20, Charge discloses a door arrangement (Charge, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Charge, abstract), comprising a front door (Charge, paragraph 48), a rear door (Charge, paragraph 47), and an applique arrangement (Charge, Fig. 4), wherein the front door has a front door bodywork (Charge, 10 in Fig. 1) and a front door window (Charge, 110 in Fig. 1), wherein the rear door has a rear door bodywork (Charge, paragraphs 4 and 47, can also apply to rear door, therefore the rear door can have bodywork as well) and a rear door window (Charge, paragraphs 4 and 47, teaching from the front door can apply to rear door), wherein the applique arrangement comprises: a single applique (Charge, 121 in Fig. 4) and an applique support (Charge, 13 in Fig. 4) to which the applique is mounted, and wherein the applique support is configured to be rigidly connected to one of a rear door bodywork, a front door bodywork (Charge, paragraph 78, screwed means rigidly connected), or a B-pillar of a body of the vehicle.
Charge fails to disclose a B-pillar of a body of the vehicle, and applique arranged between the front door window and the rear door window.
Lorentsson teaches a B-pillar (Lorentsson, B in Fig. 1 and paragraph 43) of a body (Lorentsson, Fig. 1) of the vehicle, and applique arranged between the front door window and the rear door window (Lorentsson, Fig. 1).
Lorentsson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door applique arrangement as Charge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Charge to incorporate the teachings of Lorentsson with a reasonable expectation of success to have b-pillar and have the doors arranged such that the applique is between the two windows. Doing so provides enhanced vehicle structural integrity and provides necessary seal and protection for the doors and windows.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Veille et al. (US 20200338966 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein the applique support and the applique are configured so that a front gap (Charge, Fig. 4, gap between window 110A and applique 121) between a front edge of the applique and a rear edge of the front door window.
The combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson fails to teach smaller than 10 mm.
Veille teaches a gap smaller than 10 mm (Veille, paragraph 79).
Veille is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door applique arrangement as Charge in view of Lorentsson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Charge in view of Lorentsson to incorporate the teachings of Veille with a reasonable expectation of success and have the gap be less than 10 mm. Doing so provides a more flush finish and prevents elemental intrusion from the exterior.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the applique arrangement of claim 12, wherein the applique support and the applique are configured so that a rear gap (Charge, Fig. 4, gap between window 110A and applique 121; can have same arrangement on the rear window to meet this limitation) between a rear edge of the applique and a front edge of the rear door window.
Charge in view of Lorentsson teaches the claimed invention but did not explicitly disclose rear door’s guide and applique arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the arrangement shown for the front door to use on a rear door such that the claimed limitation is met, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows smooth interface between the front door and the rear door since their respective rear edge and front edge will be adjacent to each other. Also allow easy assembly and manufacturing due to having same arrangements.
The combination of Charge in view of Lorentsson fails to teach smaller than 10 mm.
Veille teaches a gap smaller than 10 mm (Veille, paragraph 79).
Veille is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door applique arrangement as Charge in view of Lorentsson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Charge in view of Lorentsson to incorporate the teachings of Veille with a reasonable expectation of success and have the gap be less than 10 mm. Doing so provides a more flush finish and prevents elemental intrusion from the exterior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the nose portion is engaged by a front applique sealing which extends from the front door as applied to claim 5 and the applique support is formed integrally with the rear door bodywork, wherein the applique covers at least a part of the B-pillar, and wherein a rear door swivel axis is arranged between a front edge and a rear edge of the applique as applied to claim 8. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art is Charge as applied in the rejections above, where Charge discloses a nose portion (see annotated Fig. 4). However, Charge fails to teach the nose portion is engaged by a front applique sealing which extends from the front door.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle door and window applique arrangements with guide rails and guide shoes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights