/26/25Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 2/26/2025 (an IDS).
3. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
4. Applicant filed an IDS on 2/26/2025; it is considered.
Claimed Interpretations
5. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
6. Per claims 18-20: Applicant claims a limitation of: determining whether the vehicle speed is greater than a predetermined value The examiner is unclear for this indefinite “a predetermined value” here can be 10 miles/hr or 70 miles/hr);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
8. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “...configured to...” or “using a different feature of the vehicle than the at least one non-driving feature”, (see pending claim 15).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
9. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
10. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
11. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
12. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “...are configured to cause the system to...” (see pending claim 1 line 7); or “......a first lip configured to attach the first seal to the vehicle body..”, (see pending claim 2 lines 1-2), or “......are configured to cause the system to..”, (see pending claim 11 line 7).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
13. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
14. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
15. Claims 1, 5, 11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret (US Pub.20120234621 A1 hereafter Syvret’621) in view of Syvret et al (EP 2470389 B1 hereafter Syvret’389) and in view of Yang (US Pat 11933096 B2).
A. Per claims 1, 11, 16-18, and 20: Syvret’621 teaches a system, and a method comprising:
a vehicle door comprising a window (see Syvret’621 FIG. 1, para. [0001]) ;
a vehicle body comprising a recess for moving up/down a window’s glass 28, the recess
comprising a first seal and a second seal (see Syvret’621 FIG. 1, para.[0059]-[0060], [0075]);
one or more processors; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions
that, when executed by the one or more processors (see Syvret’621 FIG. 11, para. [0064]), are configured to cause the system to:
in response to determining that the vehicle body has exceeded a predetermined speed threshold (then automatically activating a vehicle’s part, (see Syvret’621 para. [0011]), and see Yang’096 col. 9 line 59 to col. 10 line 5); automatically cause the window to move from a first closed position in which the first seal engages with an internal surface of the window and the second seal is
positioned above a top edge of the window to a second closed position (see Syvret’621 para. [0014]) ;
Syvret’389 also suggest a window seal engages with the internal surface of the window and the second seal compresses around the top edge of the window (see Syvret’389 “DE102007031409 which represents the closest prior art, describes a method and device for controlling a motor vehicle window. DE3512117 describes a motor vehicle the interior of which can be closed to the outside by a door, window pane, and possibly also a sliding plate on the roof, which can be opened. To improve driving safety at high speeds, the door, the window pane and/or the sliding plate are controlled according to speed, automatically lockable against opening above a predetermined driving speed and releasable below the predetermined driving speed. The various control logic methods described above may be overridden manually by the use of the window switches 34, 54 and, in particular, the computer controller 38 may not run the method of Figure 15 or any other method which automatically results in a closing movement of any window if that window has been user operably lowered using one of the switches 34, 54.”
“According to this embodiment, the automatic window closing operation selected by the selection switch 20 is disabled automatically by the OR gate 16, the AND gate 15 and the reversing control circuit 17 any time when either or both of the speed change rate detection circuit 11 or the sensor 7 detects the pinching of foreign object 1a. The manual window closing operation selected by the selection switch 20 is disabled automatically by the AND gate 24 and the reversing control circuit 17 only when the speed change rate detection circuit 11 detects the pinching of foreign object 1a. Thus, even when a foreign object, such as a passenger or a burglar, touches the sensor 7 on the window frame 2 inadvertently during the manual window closing operation, the window closing operation can be continued unless the motor speed change rate increases excessively.”.
It 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 to implement Syvret’621 and Syvret’389 with Yang’096 to automatically raising a window glass if a vehicle speed exceed a certain threshold for a vehicle’s occupant safety while traveling.
B. Per claims 16-17: Since dependent claims 16-17 are directed to a structure, their limitations comprise physical components that making up that claimed structure; therefore, a window’s glass function of moving up/down a window’s automatically based on a vehicle’s speed are suggested by Syvret’621 and Yang’096 , (see Syvret’621 para. [0011]), and see Yang’096 col. 9 line 59 to col. 10 line 5).
C. Per dependent claim 5: Syvret’621 also suggests a seal comprises one or more internal compartments (e.g., an air gap 172 or a cavity, Syvret’621 para. [0060]).
16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret’621 in view of Syvret’389 in view of Yang’096, further in view of Larsen (US Pat. 10661644 B1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Syvret’621 does not disclose that a vehicle’s window seal comprises a pillow and a second lip, wherein the pillow comprises an internal indentation on a wall of the pillow that is proximate the second lip; and in response to the window being placed in the second closed position, the pillow is configured to compress around a top portion of the window and the second lip is configured to bend towards the window at least in part at the internal indentation of the pillow and press against an outer portion of the window to secure the window in place; however, Larsen suggests these claimed functions of a vehicle’s window (see Larsen col. 4 line 57 to col. 5 line 9).
It 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 to implement Syvret’621 with Larsen’644 to expressly disclose fundamental functions of lips and pillows of a car window.
17. Claims 2-5, 7, 12, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret’621 in view of Syvret’389 in view of Yang’096, further in view of Blottiau (US 20180141421 A1).
A. Per dependent claims 2, 12, and 19:
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
In the same field of endeavor, Blottiau teaches a vehicle body further comprises a first lip (see Blottiau, claim 9) to attach the first seal to the vehicle body along a portion of the vehicle body that is proximate to a frameless portion of the window when the vehicle door is closed.
It 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 to implement Syvret’621 and Syvret’389 , and Yang’096 with Blottiau to expressly disclose applicant’s window glass’s fundamental functioning.
B. Per dependent claims 3- 4, 7, and 14- 15: Since these claimed limitations are fundamental functions of a vehicle’s window glass, The above rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are also applied for obvious rejections.
C. Per dependent claim 5: Syvret’621 also suggests a car window seal comprises an internal compartment (e.g., an air gap 172, see Syvret’621 para. [0060]).
18 . Claims 6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret’621 in view of Syvret’389 in view of Yang’096, in view of Blottiau, further in view of Scott-Collins (US 20220305993 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 12 are incorporated.
compartments comprise one or
Syvret’621 does not teach a compartment having an S-shape; however, Scott-Collins suggest that feature (see Scott-Collins para. [0078]).
It 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 to implement Syvret’621 and Syvret’389 , Yang’096 and Blottiau with Scott-Collins to use available real-estate inside a car widow for a certain function.
Conclusion
19. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights