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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/26/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US patent 12263722 to Haruta (hereinafter Haruta) in view of US patent 9845001 to Kojima (hereinafter Kojima) and US patent 8327584 to Goto (hereinafter Goto).
Regarding claim 1, the run channel is shown in Haruta in figures 1-10 and 14-20 with
at least first (horizontal portion 50, figures 1 and 2) and second (vertical portion on center pillar, not shown, further taught column 7 lines 63-66) profiles each comprising at least one sealing lip (59) and connected to one another in a secant manner by at least one connecting portion (Mo), said first profile (50) comprising an appearance finish coating (90,F) which extends along this first profile and which comprises at least one first finish (at least F) chosen from a gloss, a matting, a coloration and a surface finish (column 10 lines 19-25 can be colored) different from that of the rest of the profile, wherein:
the first profile (horizontal 50) is formed by co-extrusion (further taught column 10 lines 42-44) with said appearance finish coating (90,F),
the second profile (not shown) is formed by co-extrusion (further taught column 7 lines 64-65), and
said at least one connecting portion (Mo) is formed by an overmolding material (further taught column 7 lines 67-column 8 line 2), and
wherein the run channel (50) comprises at least one appearance finish end piece (54) which is located at at least one longitudinal end (figure 1) of said first profile (horizontal 50) and of said appearance finish coating (90,F), the end piece (54) having at least one second finish chosen from a gloss, a matting, a coloration and a surface finish (column 12 lines 19-25 can be colored at least black).
While examiner maintains Haruta teaches both first and second profiles, the second profile is not shown so if applicant disagrees examiner notes first and second profiles are shown in Kojima in figures 1-8 where glass run (20) has first profile (21, horizontal) and second profile (23, vertical).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta with the second profile member of Kojima because glass runs were known in the art to guide all three sides (upper horizontal and left and right vertical) of moving vehicle windows and thus having the second vertical profile would facilitate guiding.
Both finish coating (90,F) and end piece (54) are colored in Haruta, however it is unclear if the colors (and thus the finish) are identical.
Same colors are shown in Goto in figures 1-3 where glass run (30) has a finish coating (67a) that is the same color as the glass run (30) including the end piece (41) ( entire glass run 30 including channel portions 31-34 and ends 41-43 are made of thermoplastic elastomer column 3 lines 1-8, thermoplastic elastomer made of EPDM, PP, and colorant column 4 lines 37-63, coating same as body column 4 lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta with the identical finishes (i.e. colors) of Goto because the matching colors provides an improved aesthetic in keeping with the goal of Haruta (see column 2 lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 2, the appearance finish coating (at least 90) has a flexural modulus between 850 and 4500 MPa (further taught column 9 lines 42-47) in Haruta. While examiner maintains this overlap, with the prior art range covering the majority of the claimed range of 200-300 MPa, is sufficient to be considered anticipatory as set forth in MPEP 2131.03, if applicant disagrees examiner maintains the claims range is obvious over the prior art range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the claimed range of 200-3000 MPa because the lower range of flexural modulus would allow for a more flexible material and thus allow for easy conformation of the coating over the glass run profile.
Regarding claim 3, as noted with claim 2 Haruta teaches a flexural modulus range of 850-4500 MPa, which does not anticipate the claimed range of 200-500 MPa as there is no overlap. However, examiner maintains the claimed range would be obvious in view of Haruta. The goal of the flexural modulus in Haruta is for the decorative coating to be more rigid than the glass run profile (see column 9 lines 42-43). While Haruta is silent as to the flexural modulus of the glass run profile, the profile is taught as being of materials such as EPDM rubber, TPE, TPO, or TPS, either foamed or solid (see column 9 lines 37-39). A flexural modulus of 200-500MPa for the coating would still allow for the coating to be higher in rigidity than the glass run profile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the claimed range of 200-500 MPa because the lower range of flexural modulus would allow for a more flexible material and thus allow for easy conformation of the coating over the glass run profile.
Regarding claim 5, the finish coating (90,F) may include resin (column 1 lines 23-24) or metal (column 10 lines 22-23) in Haruta. Examiner maintains the resin layer reads on free of metal particles, however, if applicant disagrees examiner notes a metal free coating is shown in Goto in figures 1-3 where glass run (30) first portion (31,50) has a finish coating (67a) that is free of metal particles (made of EPDM, PP, and plasticizer or colorant as further taught in column 4 lines 37-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the coating free of metal of Goto because the coating free of metal allowed for lower material usage (i.e. coating is same material as glass run and coating is single integral layer rather than two parts) while still providing good aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 6, the end piece (54) is formed by overmolding (die-mold around space R in figure 6D, further taught in column 12 lines 7-13) in Haruta.
Regarding claim 7, the finish coating (90,F) comprises a material based on polypropylene (at least 90, further taught column 9 lines 48-49) in Haruta.
Regarding claim 10, the appearance finish coating has a thickness of not more than 1mm (at least 90, further taught column 9 lines 42-44) in Haruta. While examiner maintains this overlap, with the prior art range covering the entirety of the claimed range of less than 1mm with only the 1mm thickness itself being the difference, is sufficient to be considered anticipatory as set forth in MPEP 2131.03, if applicant disagrees examiner maintains the claims range is obvious over the prior art range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the claimed range of less than 1 mm because the coating is intended to be relatively thin in Haruta and the difference of no more than 1mm to less than 1 mm would be within the scope of obvious to try or routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 11, the glass run (50) is on a vehicle (further taught column 7 lines 57-61) in Haruta.
Regarding claim 17, the glass run (50) comprises a material based on TPS (further taught column 9 lines 37-39) and this material would include the end piece (54) in Haruta.
Regarding claim 18, the appearance finish coating has a thickness of not more than 1mm (at least 90, further taught column 9 lines 42-44) in Haruta. Examiner maintains the claimed range is obvious over the prior art range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the claimed range of 0.25-0.90 mm because the coating is intended to be relatively thin in Haruta and the difference of no more than 1mm to 0.90 mm (the upper end of the claimed range) would be within the scope of obvious to try or routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 19, the appearance finish coating (90,F) covers a median portion (figure 3) of a U-section longitudinal portion (51) of the first profile in Haruta.
Regarding claim 20, the appearance finish coating (90,F) covers a lateral wall (57) of the median portion in Haruta.
Regarding claim 21, the appearance finish coating (90,F) covers a lateral arm (portion of 57 extending below 56) which extends in the prolongation of the median portion in Haruta.
Regarding claim 22, the at least one appearance finish end piece (54) covers an edge (see figures 4 and 5) of the appearance finish coating (90,F) in Haruta.
Regarding claim 23, the coloration of first finish (at least F) is different than black (column 10 lines 19-25 recites plural colors so one color of the plurality must be different than black) in Haruta.
Regarding claim 24, when provided with the identical colors of Goto, the end piece (54) would be the color of the appearance finish coating (90,F), which is different than black as noted with claim 23, in Haruta.
Regarding claim 25, the glass run (50) is on a motor vehicle (further taught column 7 lines 57-61, automobile encompasses motor vehicle per definitions of automobile) in Haruta.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta (and Kojima) and Goto as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, and 17-25) above, and further in view of US patent 6401397 to Klein (hereinafter Klein).
Regarding claim 4 and 16, the end piece (54) includes a color and the finish coating (90,F) includes a color (at least F, column 10 lines 22-25) in Haruta and, when provided with the identical finishes of Goto, the colors are the same.
However, Goto is silent as to a difference in color.
A low difference in color (i.e. color matching) is shown in Klein in figure 1 where seal (1,2) has a finish coating (7) that is matched to other portions of the vehicle (i.e. low color difference, further taught column 4 lines 1-9). Examiner notes that the specific ΔE of less than 15 (claim 4) or 7 (claim 16) is encompassed by the concept of color matching, i.e. the specific ΔE just indicate the level of closeness of the colors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the color matching of Klein because color matching provides an improved aesthetic appearance in keeping with the goal (see column 2 lines 16-21) of Haruta (see also MPEP 2144.04 I aesthetic design changes obvious).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta (and Kojima) and Goto as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, and 17-25) above, and further in view of KR 10-2014-0043618 to Heo (hereinafter Heo).
Regarding claim 9, the finish of the end piece (54) is colored in Haruta.
A matte finish is shown in Heo in figures 2-3 where glass run (200) has a finish (400) that is matte (further taught page 4 first sentence of translated disclosure enclosed herewith).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass run of Haruta, having the second profile member of Kojima and the identical finishes of Goto, with the matte finish of Heo because the end piece in Haruta is meant to be discrete and attractive (see column 12 lines 19-25) and a matte finish would improve the discrete features of the end piece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments directed to the objections and 112s, examiner notes all issues have been resolved and the objections and 112s have been withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s arguments directed to the extrusion molding of claim 1, examiner notes the claim is directed to a product and as such extrusion molding is a product by process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 the patentability of a product depends on the product itself. As both profile and finish are extrusion molded the product of Haruta is capable of being made by the claimed process of co-extrusion and the resulting product of Haruta, as modified above, reads on the claimed product examiner maintains the product by process limitation is read over.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights