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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/14/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 12/22/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2315059 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes applicant has requested the USPTO electronically retrieve the priority document via the priority document exchange program (PDX) and provided the access code on the ADS, however, the retrieval has failed as noted in the Priority Document Exchange Status Report mailed 5/22/2025. As set forth in MPEP 215.02(a) and noted in the ADS form, under the PDX program applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a copy is received and as such examiner advises applicant to file a copy to ensure the priority can be properly documented with the next office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(1) reference characters should not be used in association with brackets. Brackets/parentheses should be removed from figures 1-8. The proper way to indicate a structure or section generally, such as first profile 2 in figure 2, is with an arrow per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(r)(1).
Reference numeral 100 indicates a vehicle, however, there is no vehicle shown in any of the figures. The vehicle does not need to be shown to illustrate the invention. The reference numeral 100 should be removed from the figures and the specification. Applicant may add the note “(not shown)” in the specification.
Figure 2 appears to show the glass run 1 as part of the window frame 12 (see above objection regarding brackets/parentheses). This contradicts paragraph [0048] of the disclosure indicated that the glass run is part of the door 10.
The reference arrow for window 16 in figure 2 points to the space below the window. Arrowhead should be changed to point towards the window.
There appear to be an unnecessary amount of reference numerals for the connecting portions. Connecting end portion 4 is made up of first and second connecting portions 42 and 44, which are in turn made up of portions 4a,4b and 4a respectively. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(4) each structure should be indicated with a single reference character. As such the first and second connecting portions being indicated with both reference numerals 42 and 44 and reference numeral 4 is improper, i.e. end portion 4 includes no structures not already indicated by 42 and 44 and simply uses one reference numeral (4) to refer to two different structures (42 and 44) in addition to their separate reference numerals (42 and 44).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0057] includes the typo “second first intermediate lip 226” instead of “first intermediate lip 226”.
Paragraph [0094} includes the typo “second radial end 32” instead of “second radial end 3b”.
Paragraph [ 0104] includes the typo “first profile 3” instead of “first profile 2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 recites “this run channel”. The term “this” is not a proper antecedent, either a or the should be used. In the present instance the correct antecedent is “the run channel”.
A similar issue occurs in claim 1 lines 4 and 11.
A similar issue occurs in claim 4 lines 3 (twice) and 4.
A similar issue occurs in claim 10 line 2.
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 4, 7, 10, and 11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation less than 15, and the claim also recites preferably less than 7 and more preferably less than 2 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites “the appearance finish end piece and/or the appearance finish coating comprise a material with a color difference”. Per applicant’s disclosure paragraph [0081] a color difference is the difference between two colors, i.e. a comparison. It is unclear what colors are being compared in the present claim, i.e. the end piece or the coating have a color difference relative to what other structure? The term “and/or” is typically used in situations meaning either and or or, i.e. A and or B means the claim requires either A, or B, or both A and B. In the present claim the term renders the claim more difficult to interpret. If the color difference is between the end piece and the coating then only and applies (i.e. A and B). If the color difference is between either the end or the coating and some other colored structure then both and and or could apply, however, it is then unclear what the other colored structure is. Examiner notes that while paragraph [0087] seems to indicate the difference is between coating 24 and end piece 5, this is somewhat contradicted by paragraph [0125] which give no indication what the color difference of the end piece 5 is relative to. Limitation will be interpreted broadly as the end or coating have a color difference with something
Claim 7 lines 1-2 recite “said appearance coating, or even said appearance finish end piece, comprises”. It is unclear what the scop of “or even” is. The use of the additional term “even” seems to imply something different than a regular alternative statement of “or” is meant but it is unclear what that something different is.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation less than 1 mm, and the claim also recites preferably between 0.25 and 0.90 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation vehicle, and the claim also recites in particular a motor vehicle which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 6, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, 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).
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.
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, 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, 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 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, 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta (and Kojima) as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11) above, and further in view of US patent 6401397 to Klein (hereinafter Klein).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the finish coating (90,F) includes a color (at least F, column 10 lines 22-25) in Haruta. However, Haruta 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).
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, with the color matching of Klein because color matching the seal or glass run coating to other components of the vehicle provides an improved aesthetic appearance in keeping with the goal (see column 2 lines 16-21) of Haruta.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta (and Kojima) as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11) above, and further in view of US patent 8327584 to Goto (hereinafter Goto).
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, 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 8, both finish coating (90,F) and end piece (54) are colored in Haruta (see above claim 1), 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, having the second profile member of Kojima, 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).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta (and Kojima) as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11) 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, 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 improves end appearance while also not being visible from the exterior) and a matte finish would improve the discrete features of the end piece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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