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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As concerns Claim 1, line 5 recites "to inner surface" which is lacking a proper article such as 'an' or 'the'.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Nozaki (US 5,820,198).
Nozaki (US 5,820,198) discloses:
1. A vehicle garnish comprising:
a body (12) having an outer surface (outer half of 12) forming part of a vehicle exterior surface, an inner surface (inner, flat half of 12) opposite the outer surface in a thickness direction of the body, and a peripheral edge portion (slanted portion of outer half which abuts 76 and 66); and
a one-piece seal (60) nonremovably secured to the inner surface (indirectly via fasteners 88) of the body and extended at least partially along the peripheral edge portion (Figure 7), wherein the seal is configured to have two or more different cross-sectional profiles at different sealing surfaces of the seal along the peripheral edge portion. (Abstract: "The center pillar weather strips gradually increase in spacing downwardly along the length of the center pillar.")
2. The vehicle garnish of claim 1, wherein the seal is heat staked to the inner surface. (Under the BRI, heat staked is understood to be analogous to any type of fastening method, such as via fasteners 88.)
3. The vehicle garnish of claim 1, wherein the seal is overmolded onto the inner surface of the body. (Under the BRI, overmolding is understood to be analogous to any type of fastening method, such as via fasteners 88.)
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 of this title, 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 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (US 5,820,198) in view of Blottiau (US 9,840,207).
As concerns claim 16, Nozaki discloses a method of producing a vehicle garnish, comprising:
providing a one-piece seal (60) configured to have two or more different cross-sectional profiles at different sealing surfaces of the seal;
providing a garnish having a body (12) with an outer surface, an inner surface opposite the outer surface in a thickness direction of the body, and a peripheral edge portion; and
nonremovably securing the seal to the inner surface (indirectly via fasteners 88) of the body such that the seal is extended at least partially along the peripheral edge portion. (Figure 7)
While injection molding of element 80 is disclosed, the injection molding of the seal itself, in this case, is not anticipated by Nozaki.
Blottiau (US 9,840,207) however teaches injection molding of a one-piece seal for the purpose of providing an effective seal within a desired space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nozaki as taught by Blottiau to include an injection molded seal, for the expected benefit of providing an appropriately sized and placed seal within a desired location, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
17. The method of claim 16, including heat staking the seal to the inner surface. (Under the BRI, heat staked is understood to be analogous to any type of fastening method, such as via fasteners 88.)
18. The method of claim 16, including overmolding the seal onto the inner surface of the body. (Under the BRI, overmolding is understood to be analogous to any type of fastening method, such as via fasteners 88.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 4-10 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As concerns claims 4, 11, and 19, all three claims require that the same seal provide different cross sectional profiles across two different portions of the garnish body.
Nozaki (US 5,820,198) illustrates wherein the sealing element (60) provides at least two different profiles however they are located along a shared edge.
Of note, Sasaki (US 2014/0306480) also discloses a prior art system that closely resembles Applicant's invention. To provide adequate sealing between the garnish and windshield, however, it is found that multiple seals, 19, and 29, are used along the length of the garnish, in order to provide varying thicknesses as claimed.
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 AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
