Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/051,888

REMOVABLE POP OUT WINDOWS AND CORRESPONDING LATCHES, ACTUATORS, LIVING HINGES, AND MODULAR DESIGNS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Examiner
STRIMBU, GREGORY J
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rivian Ip Holdings LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
508 granted / 911 resolved
+3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +80% interview lift
Without
With
+80.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
952
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 911 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Groups A and IV in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 6 and 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 28, 2026. Drawings The drawings are objected to because figures 2-5, 7-9, 13, 14, 17 and 20 each include multiple figures of the invention. Thus, each of the multiple figures in figures 2-5, 7-9, 13, 14, 17 and 20 require a separate figure designation and description in the specification. For example, see figure 2 which includes at least three figures. Thus, each of the three figures in figure 2 requires a separate figure designation and description in the specification. Figure 5 is objected to because it is unclear what the two arrow heads are intended to represent. See annotated figure 5 below. PNG media_image1.png 1158 890 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “and combination thereof” on lines 2-3 is confusing because it is grammatically incorrect. It is suggested the applicant change “combination” to --combinations-- to avoid confusion. On line 5, “of” is grammatically incorrect. Did the applicant mean to recite --or--? A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because “is locked” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the window is locked relative to. Note that it appears that the arm 553 is locked to the keyed socket 531 as shown in figure 5. Claim 3 is objected to because “on opposite sides” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention includes the opposite sides to which the applicant is referring. Also, it is unclear how a sphere/ball has sides. Appropriate correction is required. 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, 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. (US 8671619) in view of WO 2025/003108. Stenzel et al. discloses a window drive mechanism 1 (fig. 1) comprising a base 8 (fig. 1) affixed to a window 6; and a collar 9 coupled to the base 8, and further comprising: an arm 4; and an actuator 2 coupled to the arm 4 and configured to move the arm 4 based on a control signal to cause the window 6 to move relative to a support 17. Stenzel et al. is silent concerning a window disconnect. However, WO 2025/003108 discloses a window disconnect comprising: a keyed ball (labeled below); and a keyed socket 19 configured to engage and disengage the keyed ball, wherein: in a first rotational orientation of the keyed socket as shown in figure 4b, the keyed ball is locked in the keyed socket 19 such that a closure 2 is locked; and in a second rotational orientation of the keyed socket as shown in figure 4c, the keyed ball is unlocked and removable from the keyed socket 19 such that the closure is removable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arm and the collar of Stenzel et al. with a keyed ball and keyed socket connector, as taught by WO 2025/003108, with a reasonable expectation of success enabler a user to securely attach the arm 4 to the window 6 while allowing the selective release of the arm 4 from the window 6 for repair and/or maintenance work on the window 6 or the actuator. With respect to claim 3, Stenzel et al., as modified above, discloses that the keyed socket 19 comprises a slot, as shown in figure 4a, and the keyed ball comprises a ball having flats (labeled below) on opposite sides as shown in figure 3a. With respect to claim 4, Stenzel et al., as modified above, discloses that the first rotational orientation of the keyed socket 19, the flats are parallel with the sides of the slot, as shown in figure 4a, such that the keyed ball can translate into and out of the keyed socket 19; and in the second rotational orientation of the keyed socket 19, the flats are misaligned with the sides of the slot such that the keyed ball cannot translate into or out of the keyed socket 19, as shown in figure 4b. With respect to claim 7, Stenzel et al., as modified above, discloses that the arm 4 is coupled to the keyed ball; and an actuator 2 is coupled to the arm 4 and configured to move the arm 4 based on a control signal to cause the window 6 to move relative to a support 17 when the keyed ball is locked in the keyed socket 19. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. in view of WO 2025/003108, as applied to claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 above. Stenzel et al., as modified above, discloses that the first rotational orientation and the second rotational orientation are in rotational separate positions, as shown in figures 4a-4c, but is silent concerning the degrees that the first and second rotational orientations are apart. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to position the first rotational position between 80 and 100 degrees apart from the second rotational position, with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the keyed ball and the keyed socket do not unexpectedly separate from one another. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. in view of WO 2025/003108, as applied to claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 above. Stenzel et al., as modified above, discloses a base 8 affixed to the window 6; and a collar 7 coupled to the base 8, wherein the keyed socket is arranged at an end of the collar 7. Stenzel et al. is silent concerning the collar being rotatably coupled to the base such that the keyed socket rotates with the collar. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to make the collar and keyed slot rotatable relative to the base, with a reasonable expectation of success to enabler a user to easily connect and disconnect the arm 4 from the window 6. PNG media_image2.png 1652 1136 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-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. /GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 12, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12565086
OFF-ROAD VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560018
AUTOMATED WINDOW MECHANISM WITH RELEASABLE CLUTCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12497805
A VEHICLE DOOR ASSEMBLY INCLUDING A DOOR LATCH STOPPER BRACKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12492590
Integrated Operating Apparatus for Different Type Gates
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12480352
POWER SLIDING DOOR ACTUATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+80.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 911 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month