DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on March 20, 2026.
The amendments to the specification filed March 20, 2026 have been approved.
The replacement figures filed March 20, 2026 have been approved.
The replacement abstract filed March 20, 2026 has been approved.
Status of claims: claim 4 is cancelled; claims 1-3, 5 and 6 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 .
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0238804 to Hikichi et al. (hereinafter “Hikichi”) in view of US 9759003 to Hirakawa et al. (hereinafter “Hirakawa”).
Hikichi discloses an opening trim weather strip 17 made of resin and attached to a flange 16 of a vehicle body, (see FIGS. 1 and 2 and [0023]) the opening trim weather strip comprising:
an attachment base 20 (see annotated FIG. 2 below) that has a substantially U-shaped cross section and includes a vehicle outer side wall 23, a vehicle inner side wall 24, a bottom wall 25, and an open portion (see annotated FIG. 2 below), the bottom wall connecting the vehicle outer side wall and the vehicle inner side wall, the open portion being open at an end on a side opposite to the bottom wall; and
a hollow seal portion 21 that has an arc shape, is integrated with the vehicle outer side wall of the attachment base, and protrudes convexly in a direction away from the vehicle outer side wall,
wherein
the hollow seal portion is formed using a material having hardness lower than hardness of the attachment base, (see [0026])
the hollow seal portion includes
a first root connected to an end of the vehicle outer side wall opposite to the open portion, (see annotated FIG. 2 below)
a second root connected to the vehicle outer side wall closer to the bottom wall than the first root, (see annotated FIG. 2 below) and
a wall portion connected to the first root and the second root, (see annotated FIG. 2 below)
the first root is formed in a shape in which a wall thickness decreases in a direction of the wall portion, and includes a connecting portion (see annotated FIG. 2 below) connected to the wall portion at an apex portion of the first root, and
wherein a coating layer 43 having a hardness (note the coating layer has a stronger tear strength than the tear strength of the hollow seal portion (see [0027]) is formed on an outer surface of the wall portion between the connecting portion and the second root and does not cover the first root and the second root.
Hikichi fails to disclose the coating layer having hardness higher than hardness of the hollow seal portion.
Hirakawa teaches of a similar device with a coating layer 100 having hardness higher than hardness of the hollow seal portion 12. (see claim 1 and FIG. 1)
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 coating layer disclosed in Hikichi such that the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the hollow seal portion, as taught by Hirakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to preserve the outer surface of the hollow seal part, to strengthen the weather strip, and to minimize wear and tear of the weather strip, particularly when the weather strip comes in contact with the door.
Furthermore, 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 coating layer disclosed in Hikichi such that the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the hollow seal portion, as taught by Hirakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success 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. (claim 1)
Hikichi, as applied above, further discloses wherein the wall portion includes a top portion (see annotated FIG. 2 below) having a maximum degree of curvature on a side closer to the bottom wall than the connecting portion, and a thick-walled portion (see annotated FIG. 2 below) capable of coming into contact with a door is formed between the connecting portion and the top portion. (claim 2)
Hikichi, as applied above, further discloses wherein the top portion of the wall portion is located between the bottom wall and the second root (see annotated FIG. 2 below) and between the open portion and the bottom wall in a direction parallel to the vehicle outer side wall. (claim 3)
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second root)][AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion)][AltContent: textbox (First root)][AltContent: textbox (Hollow wall)][AltContent: textbox (Wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Opening portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
496
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hikichi, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first root is formed in a substantially triangular shape. (see annotated figure below; note “substantially” is a broad term. And further note that this shape closely resembles the shape of the first root in applicant’s FIG. 3) (claim 6)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
94
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikichi, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 9759003 to Hirakawa et al. (hereinafter “Hirakawa”).
Hikichi fails to disclose wherein the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the attachment base.
Hirakawa teaches of a hardness of a coating layer 100 is higher than the hardness of the attachment base. (see claim 1 and FIG. 1; note FIG. 1 illustrates the hollow seal portion 12 is formed of the same material as the attachment base 11).
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 coating layer disclosed in Hikichi such that the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the attachment base, as taught by Hirakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to preserve and strengthen the weather strip and to minimize wear and tear of the weather strip, particularly when the weather strip comes in contact with the door.
Furthermore, 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 coating layer disclosed in Hikichi such that the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the attachment base, as taught by Hirakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success 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. (claim 5)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0238804 to Hikichi et al. (hereinafter “Hikichi”) in view of US 9759003 to Hirakawa et al. (hereinafter “Hirakawa”).
Hikichi discloses an opening trim weather strip 17 made of resin and attached to a flange 16 of a vehicle body, (see FIGS. 1 and 2 and [0023]) the opening trim weather strip comprising:
an attachment base 20 (see annotated FIG. 2 below) that has a substantially U-shaped cross section and includes a vehicle outer side wall 23, a vehicle inner side wall 24, a bottom wall 25, and an open portion (see annotated FIG. 2 below), the bottom wall connecting the vehicle outer side wall and the vehicle inner side wall, the open portion being open at an end on a side opposite to the bottom wall; and
a hollow seal portion 21 that has an arc shape, is integrated with the vehicle outer side wall of the attachment base, and protrudes convexly in a direction away from the vehicle outer side wall,
wherein
the hollow seal portion is formed using a material having hardness lower than hardness of the attachment base, (see [0026])
the hollow seal portion includes
a first root connected to an end of the vehicle outer side wall opposite to the open portion, (see annotated FIG. 2 below)
a second root connected to the vehicle outer side wall closer to the bottom wall than the first root, (see annotated FIG. 2 below) and
a wall portion connected to the first root and the second root, (see annotated FIG. 2 below)
the first root is formed in a shape in which a wall thickness decreases in a direction of the wall portion, and includes a connecting portion (see annotated FIG. 2 below) connected to the wall portion at an apex portion of the first root, and
wherein a coating layer 43 having a hardness (note the coating layer has a stronger tear strength than the tear strength of the hollow seal portion (see [0027]) is formed on an outer surface of the wall portion between the connecting portion and the second root and does not cover the first root and the second root.
Hikichi fails to disclose the coating layer having hardness higher than hardness of the hollow seal portion.
Hirakawa teaches of a similar device with a coating layer 100 having hardness higher than hardness of the hollow seal portion 12. (see claim 1 and FIG. 1)
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 coating layer disclosed in Hikichi such that the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the hollow seal portion, as taught by Hirakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to preserve the outer surface of the hollow seal part, to strengthen the weather strip, and to minimize wear and tear of the weather strip, particularly when the weather strip comes in contact with the door.
Furthermore, 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 coating layer disclosed in Hikichi such that the hardness of the coating layer is higher than the hardness of the hollow seal portion, as taught by Hirakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success 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. (claim 1)
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second root)][AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion)][AltContent: textbox (First root)][AltContent: textbox (Hollow wall)][AltContent: textbox (Wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Opening portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
496
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikichi in view of Hirakawa, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20100263292 to Harland.
Hikichi, as applied above, discloses the first root formed in a shape.
Harland teaches of first root that is formed in a substantially triangular shape.
[AltContent: textbox (First root)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
324
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 shape of the first root of Hikichi with the shape of the first root taught in Harland with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthen the first root as well as since a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 20 of the applicant’s response filed March 20, 2026, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image4.png
262
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully submits that Hirakawa was not cited to teach location of the coating layer. Rather, Hirakawa was cited to teach material characteristics. And Hikichi discloses a coating layer 43 (see annotated FIG. 2 above) “formed on an outer surface of the wall portion between the connecting portion and the second root and does not cover the first root and the second root,” as recited in claim 1. Note, the claim 1 amendment does not state “exclusively” or “entirely” “between the connecting portion and the second root.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 8-5 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
Prosecution Insights