DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 05/18/2026.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
PNG
media_image1.png
547
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama et al. (US 6616216) (hereinafter “Furuyama”).
Claims 1 and 17
(Furuyama discloses)
“A door module (figures 1-6 and 13) of a vehicle door (1), the door module comprising:” (claim 1);
“A vehicle door (1), comprising a door module (figures 1-6 and 13) including:” (claim 17);
a carrier plate (13; figure 5) mounted in an interior of the vehicle door (Annotated figure 12 below), said carrier plate having an outer edge (13a);
a cable window regulator (5) having at least one guide rail (7), said cable window regulator being mounted onto said carrier plate (figure 5);
a door structure (2) being separate from and configured to be joined to said carrier plate (figure 5), said door structure having a receiving contour (2b; figure 13);
said guide rail having a cable deflection region (Annotated figure 13 below) extending beyond said outer edge of said carrier plate (Annotated figure 13 below);
said cable deflection region having a joining contour (9) protruding from said guide rail (Annotated figure 13 below), said joining contour being permanently form-lockingly inserted in said receiving contour as a door subassembly of the vehicle door upon assembling the vehicle door (figures 3-4 and 13);
said joining contour configured to be inserted in said receiving contour in a rail longitudinal direction of said guide rail (Annotated figure 13 below; the joining contour is inserted and moved along the rail longitudinal direction to lock with the receiving contour), said rail longitudinal direction being oriented approximately parallel to a vehicle height direction (figures 3-4); and
said joining contour engaging behind said receiving contour and holding and stabilizing said cable deflection region in a direction perpendicular to said cable deflection region (Annotated figure 13 below) (claims 1 and 17).
In figure 13 of Furuyama, the joining contour seems to be formed in one piece with the guide rail. Regardless, Furuyama is silent regarding the joining contour being formed in one piece with said guide rail.
Examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the joining contour to be integral to the guide rail for eliminating the assembly of the joining contour with the guide rail thereby improving the speed of the assembly process of the door module. Additionally, integrating the joining contour with the guide rail will decrease the chances of the guide rail separating from the door structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
643
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 13
PNG
media_image3.png
383
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 12
Claim 4
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 1 , wherein at least said cable deflection region is an injection-molded part (note that this was interpreted as product-by-process limitation; see MPEP 2113).
Claim 5
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 4, wherein said joining contour is injection-molded without a slide (note that this was interpreted as product-by-process limitation; see MPEP 2113).
Claim 6
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 1 , wherein said joining contour has a T-shaped cross-sectional shape (lines 52-57 of col. 7).
Claim 7
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 6, wherein said T-shaped cross-sectional shape of said joining contour includes:
a vertical T-shaped limb (Annotated figure 13 above) engaging form-lockingly in a guide slot (vertical narrow slot of 2b; figure 13) of said receiving contour, and
a horizontal T-shaped limb (Annotated figure 13 above) engaging behind said receiving contour (Annotated figure 13 above).
Claim 8
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 1 , wherein said joining contour has two bearing surfaces facing one another for said door structure (Partial Annotated figure 13 below), and said receiving contour has a mating surface form-lockingly gripped between said bearing surfaces (Annotated figure 13 above).
PNG
media_image4.png
548
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 13
Claim 9
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 8, wherein said mating surface has a stepped contour encompassed by said bearing surfaces (figure 13 only shows a small portion of the receiving contour, however figure 7 shows a stepped contour of the mating surface of the receiving contour).
Claim 10
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 8, wherein at least one of said bearing surfaces has a free end side with a lead-in portion (Partial Annotated figure 13 above).
Claim 11
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 8.
Furuyama is silent regarding wherein said joining contour is at least partially resilient.
However, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the joining contour of Furuyama such that it is at least partially resilient, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the predictable benefits of dampening vibration and noise while also providing sealing capabilities with the receiving contour.
Claim 12
(Furuyama discloses) The door module according to claim 1 , wherein said joining contour has a reinforcing rib (Partial Annotated figure 13 above).
Claim 13
(Furuyama discloses) The door module according to claim 1 , wherein said joining contour is engaged behind said receiving contour in a vehicle transverse direction (Annotated figure 13 above).
Claim 14
(Furuyama discloses) The door module according to claim 1 , wherein said joining contour is hooked behind said receiving contour (figure 13).
Claims 15 and 18
(Furuyama discloses)
“The door module according to claim 1” (claim 15);
“The vehicle door according to claim 17” (claim 18);
wherein said form-locking insertion of said joining contour into said receiving contour produces a mechanical coupling between said cable deflection region and said door structure mechanically stabilizing said cable deflection region regarding forces occurring during operation (see entire assembly in figures 3-4).
Claims 16 and 19
(Furuyama discloses)
“The door module according to claim 1” (claim 16);
“The vehicle door according to claim 17” (claim 19);
wherein said form-locking insertion of said joining contour into said receiving contour is present during operation of a vehicle (figures 3-4; door in figure 1 is for a vehicle).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama, as applied to claims 1 and 4-19 above, in view of Staser et al. (US 7882658) (hereinafter “Staser”).
Claim 2
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 1.
Furuyama is silent regarding wherein said cable deflection region has a bearing point without screws or bolts, and a cable deflection pulley is rotatably mounted on said bearing point.
(However, Staser teaches) wherein a cable deflection region (deflection region shown in Staser figure 16) has a bearing point (22) without screws or bolts (Excerpt 1 from col. 10 below discussing the pulley is held via features such as 36 and 38), and a cable deflection pulley (24) is rotatably mounted on said bearing point.
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 cable deflection region of modified Furuyama with the bearing point without screws or bolts as taught by Staser, with a reasonable expectation of success, for limiting the loose fastening parts as such limiting the use of assembly tools such as screw driver while also eliminating the risk of the screws or bolts from loosening overtime.
PNG
media_image5.png
131
499
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
Claim 3
(Furuyama, as modified above, discloses) The door module according to claim 2, wherein said joining contour is disposed on a side of said cable deflection region opposing said bearing point (see figures 4 and 6 showing the bearing point of Furuyama at the front and the joining contour at the back).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and responses to the objections have been considered.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding “Counsel argued that the limitation in claims 1 and 17 calling for "a carrier plate mounted inside the vehicle door'' is not met by Furuyama since element 13 in Furuyama is the door trim which faces the passenger when the door is closed and is therefore not in the door”, this was found unpersuasive as parts of the carrier plate (shown in the annotated figure 12 above) are mounted in the interior of the vehicle door.
Regarding “Claims 1 and 17 called for "a joining contour protruding from and being formed in one piece with said cable deflection region" which Counsel argued is not shown by elements 7 and 9 in Fig. 13 of Furuyama since elements 7 and 9 are not one piece”, Furuyama is silent regarding whether its joining contour in figure 13 is actually formed in one piece with the guide rail, however this argument was found unpersuasive as the courts have decided that the use of a one piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice - see rejection above.
Regarding “Although the receiving contour 2b of Furuyama is recessed relative to the remaining inner panel 2 by a stepped offset (see Fig. 7), the contour of the steps is not gripped between the bearing surfaces, but is clearly and distinctly spaced away from the area of the fixing element 9”, examiner emphasizes that the claims recite “stepped contour” and not “contour of the steps”. As applicant noted, Furuyama discloses a stepped or recessed surface, and that surface (which is part of the mating surface shown in the annotated figure 13 above) is being encompassed and gripped by the bearing surfaces. The claims do not require the steps themselves being gripped or encompassed by said bearing surfaces.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights