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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the quality is poor. Additionally, in Fig 5, reference character “71” on the left hand side lacks a lead line. 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.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “A carrier plate to which a window glass is attached via a holder and which slides on or along a guide rail, the carrier plate comprising: an attachment portion to which the holder is attached…” It is unclear what elements are structurally required of the claim. The preamble recites “to which a window glass is attached via a holder and which slides on or along a guide rail.” It is unclear if the window glass, holder, and guide rail are part of an intended use of the carrier plate or are structurally part of the carrier plate. This results in the rest of the claims being unclear and it is not understood what is being positively recited and required of the carrier plate. Claim 1 further recites “a wall that is provided in a position away from the guidance portion toward a region by a predetermined distance and regulates an attachment position of the holder. It is not understood how a wall “regulates” a position of the holder. It is understood that the attachment portion of the instant application has a hole 731b to which the holder is positioned and it is understood that the hole is fixed thus it is not understood how the wall regulates the holder’s position.
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected for inheriting these issues.
In view of the rejections above, the claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (JP 2021127579A), hereinafter referred to as Kimura.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 112 issues discussed above, Kimura discloses a carrier plate (Figs 2-4) to which a window glass is attached via a holder and which slides on or along a guide rail, the carrier plate (20) comprising:
an attachment portion (21) to which the holder (6) is attached (Fig 4);
a guidance portion (22, drainage channel) that is provided on one side of the attachment portion (Fig 4) and guides water downward, the water having fallen along a one-side edge of the holder (Fig 4); and
a wall (back wall of 24) that is provided in a position away from the guidance portion (22) toward a region by a predetermined distance and regulates an attachment position of the holder, the region being a region in which the holder is attached (paragraph [0091]), wherein the carrier plate is configured such that the water that has fallen along the one-side edge of the holder flows between the guidance portion and the wall (paragraph [0093]).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kimura discloses wherein the wall includes an inclined surface (back wall of 24) that is inclined toward a side of the guidance portion.
Regarding claim 3, Kimura discloses further comprising: a bead portion (23) on a side of the attachment portion, the bead portion guiding water downward (Fig 4), the side of the attachment portion being opposite to a side of the attachment portion on which the wall (24) is provided (Fig 4), the water having fallen along an other-side edge of the holder, the other-side edge being opposite to the one-side edge of the holder.
Regarding claim 4, Kimura discloses wherein one end of the bead portion (23) extends toward the guidance portion (sloped wall towards 22), and a joining region is formed at an outlet of a flow path formed between the wall (24) and the guidance portion (22), the joining region (portion between 22, 23, and 24) being partially surrounded by a leading-end portion of the bead portion, the wall, and the guidance portion, allowing water flowing out from the flow path and water guided by the bead portion to join in the joining region, and causing the joined water to flow downward along the guidance portion from between the leading-end portion of the bead portion and the guidance portion (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura discloses wherein a notch is formed by cutting out an upstream-side part of a flow path formed between the wall (24) and the guidance portion (22) (Fig 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
748
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kimura discloses a window regulator comprising the carrier plate according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Tenorio et al. (US 7,555,868, hereinafter referred to as Tenorio.
Regarding claim 6, Kimura teaches an edge portion of the attachment portion being an edge portion on a side on which the window glass is attached (Fig 4). Kimura fails to teach that the edge portion of the attachment portion includes an inclined surface inclined toward the side on which the guidance portion is provided. However, Tenorio teaches a carrier plate of a window regulator having an inclined surface (84) (Fig 4) for deflecting water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kimura and provide the edge portion with an inclined surface, as taught by Tenorio, in order to deflect water thus improving drainage. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches wherein the edge portion includes a flat surface on which a part of the holder is placed (see Fig 4 of Kimura).
Regarding claim 8, as modified above, Kimura teaches a flat portion and Tenorio teaches an inclined surface it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the inclined surface of Tenorio into Kimura such that the edge portion includes a surface that substantially perpendicularly intersects the flat surface on one side of the surface and intersects the inclined surface on another side of the surface. Such modification involves a mere arrangement of parts and change in shape that would not lead to any new or unpredictable results. It is further understood that a perpendicular wall would not alter the function of drainage as taught by Kimura in view of Tenorio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takaoka (US 11,884,140) teaches a carrier plate having drainage means, as shown in Fig 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights