DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the claims filed on August 7, 2026.
Status of claims: claims 5 and 6 remain cancelled; claims 1-4 and 7-14 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 1, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 11 – “wherein guide” should be amended to “wherein the guide”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5617675 to Kobrehel in view of US 11318813 to Arimoto et al. (hereinafter “Arimoto”) in view of US 5987820 to Shibanushi.
Kobrehel discloses an adjustment device for a window pane of a motor vehicle, the adjustment device comprising:
a window lifter 26,46 to adjust the window pane along an adjustment travel path; (see FIG. 1) and
a guide system for a cable that serves to conduct current to and/or to control the window pane and is connected or connectable to the window pane, and a sliding element 46 (on element 20; see FIG. 1) coupled to the window pane, the sliding element being guided by and slidable along a guide rail element 20 that is separated from the window lifter along the adjustment travel path,
wherein the sliding element of the guide system is coupled to the window pane or to a pane adapter connected to the window pane,
wherein the window lifter has at least one guide rail 26 with a driver 46 for the window pane, the driver being guided along the at least one guide rail by a sliding movement, and
wherein the at least one guide rail of the window lifter is separated from the guide rail element of the guide system.
Kobrehel fails to disclose a functionalized window pane and the guide system having a flexible component to receive the cable.
Arimoto teaches of a functionalized window pane 28 and a flexible component 56 that receives a cable 44. (see FIG. 8 and col. 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kobrehel window pane and guide system with a functionalized window pane, flexible component and cable, as taught by Arimoto with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide defrosting capabilities to the Kobrehel window pane.
Kobrehel, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the sliding element of the guide system is coupled to the window pane or to a pane adapter connected to the window pane via a flexible connecting element, wherein the flexible connecting element extends from the sliding element and is hinged to the functionalized window pane or to the pane adapter.
Shibanushi teaches of a sliding element 24 of a guide system is coupled to a pane adapter 30 connected to a window pane via a connecting element 12, and wherein the connecting element extends from the sliding element and is hinged to the functionalized window pane or to the pane adapter. (see FIGS. 3 and 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding element disclosed in Boettger with the connecting element and pane adapter taught in Shibanushi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize “wrenching forces” on the window pane due to tilting of the window pane during window pane movement. (see columns 1 and 2 of Shibanushi) (claim 1)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the flexible component is a hollow tube or a corrugated pipe, and/or wherein the flexible component is guided on and/or below the guide rail element of the guide system. (see FIG. 8 of Arimoto) (claim 2)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the flexible component encloses the cable at least in sections or at least substantially completely. (see FIG. 8 of Arimoto) (claim 3)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein a first end of the flexible component is held in place by the sliding element 14 of the guide system and a second end of the flexible component is fixedly held by a body part of the motor vehicle, the body part being a door module or a door shell. (see FIGS. 2A-2C of Arimoto) (claim 4)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the guide rail element of the guide system has a guide area for the flexible component, the guide area running in a longitudinal rail direction of the guide rail. (see FIG. 1 of Kobrehel) (claim 7)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the window lifter has an adjustable drive or an electromotive drive 42 that is connected to the driver via a traction cable 40, and wherein the guide rail element for the sliding element of the guide system is arranged parallel to the at least one guide rail of the window lifter. (see FIG. 1 of Kobrehel) (claim 8)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sliding element of the guide system is coupled to the window lifter exclusively via the functionalized window pane. (see FIG. 1 of Kobrehel) (claim 9)
Kobrehel discloses a guide system for a cable that is connected or connectable to a window pane and serves to conduct current to and/or to control the window pane, the guide system comprising:
a sliding element 46 that is coupled to the window pane (see FIG. 1), wherein the sliding element is guided by and slidable along a guide rail element 20,
wherein the guide rail element of the guide system is separated from a guide rail 26 of a window lifter along which a driver 46 for the window pane is slidable. (see FIG. 1)
Kobrehel fails to disclose the window pane is a functionalized window pane and a flexible component that receives the cable.
Arimoto teaches of a functionalized window pane 28 and a flexible component 56 that receives a cable 44. (see FIG. 8 and col. 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kobrehel window pane and guide system with a functionalized window pane, flexible component and cable, as taught by Arimoto with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide defrosting capabilities to the Kobrehel window pane.
Furthermore, by combining the teachings of Arimoto with Kobrehel, Kobrehel, as applied above, discloses the sliding element is connected to the flexible component. (see Fig. 8 of Arimoto)
Kobrehel fails to disclose the sliding element is coupled to the window pane via a flexible connecting element and wherein the flexible connecting element extends from the sliding element and is hinged to the functionalized window pane or to a pane adapter connected to the functionalized window pane.
Shibanushi teaches of a sliding element 24 that is coupled to the functionalized window pane via a connecting element 12, wherein the connecting element extends from the sliding element and is hinged to the functionalized window pane or to a pane adapter 30 connected to the functionalized window pane. (see FIGS. 3 and 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding element disclosed in Boettger with the connecting element and pane adapter taught in Shibanushi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize “wrenching forces” on the window pane due to tilting of the window pane during window pane movement. (see columns 1 and 2 of Shibanushi) (claim 10)
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobrehel in view of Arimoto in view of Shibanushi, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above.
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the flexible connecting element is hinged to the functionalized window pane or to the pane adapter via a pivot pin provided at a free end of the pane adapter that pivots within eyelets of the flexible connecting element. Kobrehel, as applied above, fails to disclose the pivot pin is provided at a free end of the flexible connecting element that pivots within eyelets of the functionalized window pane or the pane adapter.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to swap the positions of the pivot pin and eyelets since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (claims 11 and 13)
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobrehel in view of Arimoto in view of Shibanushi, as applied to claims 7 and 10 above, in further view of DE 102009037674 to Boettger et al. (hereinafter “Boettger”)
Kobrehel, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the guide area is a groove in the guide rail element that extends along the longitudinal direction.
Boettger teaches of a guide area is a groove 30 in the guide rail element that extends along the longitudinal rail direction, and wherein a component 3 is accommodated in the groove. (see FIG. 2B of Boettger)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kobrehel guide area with a groove, as taught by Boettger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the flexible component from dirt, debris, and moisture. (claim 12)
Kobrehel, as applied above, further discloses wherein the guide rail element has a guide area for the flexible component, the guide area running in a longitudinal rail direction of the guide rail element (see FIG. 1 of Kobrehel).
Kobrehel, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the guide area is a groove in the guide rail element that extends along the longitudinal direction, and wherein the flexible component is accommodated in the groove.
Boettger teaches of a guide area is a groove 30 in the guide rail element that extends along the longitudinal rail direction, and wherein a component 3 is accommodated in the groove. (see FIG. 2B of Boettger)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kobrehel guide area with a groove, as taught by Boettger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the flexible component from dirt, debris, and moisture. (claim 14)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on references that were the focus of applicant’s arguments.
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 MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
