DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on June 29, 2026.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 15, 2026 has been entered.
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 8225554 to Nozaki in view of US 9759003 to Hirakawa et al. (hereinafter “Hirakawa”).
Nozaki discloses an opening trim weather strip 52 made of resin (see col. 6; at least a portion is formed of resin) and attached to a flange 16 of a vehicle body, (see annotated figure below) the opening trim weather strip comprising:
an attachment base 54 that has a substantially U-shaped cross section and includes a vehicle outer side wall 58, a vehicle inner side wall 60, a bottom wall, and an open portion, 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; (see annotated figure below) and
a hollow seal portion 56 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 col. 6 and 7; note the attachment base includes “the insert member 64 is made of a metallic plate or a hard resin.”)
the hollow seal portion includes
a first root 74 connected to an end of the vehicle outer side wall opposite to the open portion,
a second root 76 connected to the vehicle outer side wall closer to the bottom wall than the first root, and
a wall portion 78 connected to the first root and the second root,
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 connected to the wall portion at an apex portion of the first root, (see annotated figure below) and
wherein a coating layer 82 having a hardness 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, the second root, and the connecting portion.
Nozaki 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 Nozaki 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 Nozaki 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: textbox (Top portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Thick-walled portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
362
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nozaki, as applied above, further discloses wherein the wall portion includes a top portion (see annotated figure above) 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 above; note the portion is thick) capable of coming into contact with a door is formed between the connecting portion and the top portion. (claim 2)
Nozaki, as applied above, further discloses wherein the top portion of the wall portion is located between the bottom wall and the second root and between the open portion and the bottom wall in a direction parallel to the vehicle outer side wall. (see annotated figure above) (claim 3)
Nozaki, 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)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki in view of Hirakawa, as applied to claim 1 above.
Nozaki 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 Nozaki 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 Nozaki 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
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.
/MARCUS MENEZES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights