DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 4/24/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the configuration including “a tool adapted for connection can reversibly be connected to the fixture” (as best understood, no “reversible connection” of the tool is shown in the figures and this configuration is unclear) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because the drawings are generally of poor quality and the details of the Figures are unclear. For example, what is being indicated at element 220 in Figure 2? Element 105 in Figure 4B is very light and unclear. Drawing lines in Figures 7A and 7B are very light and unclear. In Figure 7C, elements 104 and 520 are unclear (what is element 104? How is element 520 a “channel”? In Figure 8, elements 310, 220, 522, 524 are unclear (i.e. what is element 310 point to? What is element 220? No element 220 can be found in the specification. How are elements 522 and 524 considered a “tool channel”? No detail with regard to these elements can be found in the specification. Elements 522 and 524 do not appear to be a “channel”)
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 8/25/2025 are not proper black and white line drawings. This is frequently the result of drawings which are filed in a very dark grey (so dark that it is appears black such as RGB value 37, 37, 37) instead of pure black (RGB value 0, 0, 0). While very dark grey may appear black, it causes artifacts and inconsistent line thickness. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the window lifter assembly properly mounted on the fixture”. This is unclear due to the term “properly” (i.e. what is considered “proper”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “a tool adapted for adjusting the window lifter assembly”. This is unclear since “a tool” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, and it is unclear if multiple distinct tools are being required in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the opening is arranged along a vertical above the mounting opening”. This is awkwardly worded and unclear (i.e. what is “a vertical”? A vertical what?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “a tool adapted for adjusting the mounted window lifter assembly”. This is unclear since “a tool” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, and it is unclear if multiple distinct tools are being required in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11, and 13 are objected to as depending from a base claim with an objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a tool adapted for connection can reversibly be connected to the fixture”. This limitation is unclear and renders the claim indefinite since no “reversible connection” of the tool is shown in the Figures or sufficiently described in the specification, and it is therefore unclear what exactly is being claimed (i.e. how is the tool “reversibly” connected? What is exactly is being claimed by this limitation?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 and 16 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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, 6-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hampel et al. (US 2013/0111820) (hereinafter Hampel).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hampel discloses a fixture (at least elements 110 and 120) for mounting a window lifter assembly in a vehicle door (See at least Abstract and paragraphs [0001-0002]), [wherein the fixture can be mounted in the vehicle door]* and at least includes: at least one mounting portion (at least element 120) via which the window lifter assembly [can be mounted on the fixture in a plurality of mounting positions]*, and at least one tool interface (considered combination of at least elements 130, 131, and 121), via which a tool (element 200) adapted for connection can reversibly be connected to the fixture, [wherein the window lifter assembly properly mounted on the fixture can be shifted from one of the mounting positions into another one of the mounting positions by a torque introduced into the connected tool]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a fixture for mounting a window lifter assembly in a vehicle door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the fixture disclosed by Hample is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Hampel discloses wherein the mounting portion is formed with a mounting opening (element 121) into which a connecting element (considered elements 130 and 131) can be introduced for mounting the window lifter assembly on the fixture)
Regarding claim 3, Hampel discloses wherein the mounting opening is formed with an oblong hole (See at least Figures 1a-1c, element 121 is considered to be “an oblong hole”).
Regarding claim 6, Hampel discloses wherein the tool interface is formed with a protruding or receding structure with respect to the fixture (elements 130 and 131 are considered to be protruding structures).
Regarding claim 7, Hampel discloses wherein the tool interface is formed with an oblong hole (element 121 is an “oblong hole” that is considered to be part of the tool interface).
Regarding claim 8, Hampel discloses wherein the fixture includes at least one connecting opening (See at least Figures 1a-1c, considered bottom portion of element 120 directly connected to element 12) [for connecting the fixture to a door module carrier]*.
Regarding claim 9, Hampel discloses wherein the fixture includes at least one holding portion (See at least Figures 1a-1c, considered bottom portion of element 120 directly connected to element 12) protruding with respect to a flat portion of the fixture for positively connecting the fixture
Regarding claim 10, Hampel discloses a vehicle door assembly including: a door module carrier (See at least Figures 1a-1c, considered portion of element 12 directly connected to and fixed to element 120), the fixture according to claim 1 mounted on the door module carrier, the window lifter assembly (at least element 11) mounted on the fixture via the at least one mounting portion, and a door body (element 12) connected to the door module carrier, comprising at least one adjustment opening (See at least Figures 1a and 1b, considered hole through which element 200 is inserted) for adjusting the mounted window lifter assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Hampel discloses wherein the adjustment opening is aligned with the at least one mounting portion (See at least Figueres 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 12, Hampel discloses wherein the adjustment opening is formed in such a way that a tool (element 200) adapted for adjusting the window lifter assembly can be guided through the adjustment opening (See Figueres 1a and 1b).
Regarding claim 16, Hampel discloses a method for adjusting the window lifter assembly of the vehicle door assembly according to claim 10, wherein the window lifter assembly is detached from the at least one mounting portion by means of a tool (element 200) adapted for adjusting the mounted window lifter assembly, the window lifter assembly.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Florentin et al. (US 7,640,697) (hereinafter Florentin).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Florentin discloses a fixture (considered at least combination of elements 10 and 3b) for mounting a window lifter assembly (at least element 1) in a vehicle door, [wherein the fixture can be mounted in the vehicle door]* and at least includes: at least one mounting portion (considered at least area of element 11) via which the window lifter assembly [can be mounted on the fixture in a plurality of mounting positions]*, and at least one tool interface (at least element 32), via which a tool (element 8) adapted for connection can reversibly be connected to the fixture, [wherein the window lifter assembly properly mounted on the fixture can be shifted from one of the mounting positions into another one of the mounting positions by a torque introduced into the connected tool]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a fixture for mounting a window lifter assembly in a vehicle door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the fixture disclosed by Florentin is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Florentin discloses wherein the mounting portion is formed with a mounting opening into which a connecting element (at least element 6) can be introduced for mounting the window lifter assembly on the fixture).
Regarding claim 3, Florentin discloses wherein the mounting opening is formed with an oblong hole (either of elements 12 or 12’).
Regarding claim 4, Florentin discloses wherein a boundary of the mounting opening
Regarding claim 5, Florentin discloses wherein the opening extends up to an edge of the fixture (See Figure 9).
Regarding claim 6, Florentin discloses wherein the tool interface is formed with a protruding or receding structure with respect to the fixture (element 32 is a protruding structure).
Regarding claim 8, Florentin discloses wherein the fixture includes at least one connecting opening (element 12 or 12’) [for connecting the fixture to a door module carrier]*.
Regarding claim 9, Florentin discloses wherein the fixture includes at least one holding portion (area of element 12 or 12’) protruding with respect to a flat portion (area of element 13 or 14) of the fixture [for positively connecting the fixture to a door module carrier]*.
Regarding claim 10, Florentin discloses a vehicle door assembly including: a door module carrier (Figure 6, element 20), the fixture according to claim 1 mounted on the door module carrier, the window lifter assembly (element 1), mounted on the fixture via the at least one mounting portion, and a door body (element 2) connected to the door module carrier, comprising at least one adjustment opening (See Figure 14) for adjusting the mounted window lifter assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Florentin discloses wherein the adjustment opening is aligned with the at least one mounting portion (See Figure 14, adjustment opening and element 12 are aligned along element 2).
Regarding claim 12, Florentin discloses wherein the adjustment opening is formed in such a way that a tool adapted for adjusting the window lifter assembly can be guided through the adjustment opening.
Regarding claim 14, Florentin discloses wherein the mounting portion of the fixture is formed with a mounting opening (Figure 9, element 12’) into which a connecting element (element 6) can be introduced for mounting the window lifter assembly on the fixture, wherein a boundary of the mounting opening includes an opening [for pushing the connecting element into the mounting opening]*, and the opening is arranged along a vertical above the mounting opening. Examiner notes that the opening of element 12’ can be considered to be “arranged along a vertical above the mounting opening”, since the limitation “above the mounting opening” is based on perspective and orientation of the assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Florentin discloses a method for adjusting the window lifter assembly of the vehicle door assembly according to claim 10, wherein the window lifter assembly is detached from the at least one mounting portion
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florentin et al. (US 7,640,697) (hereinafter Florentin).
Regarding claim 7, Florentin discloses wherein the tool interface is formed with a hole (See Figure 15, element 35). Although the hole of Florentin is not explicitly shown as being “oblong”. it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shape of the tool interface hole such that it is “oblong”, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and an oblong shaped hole would be desirable for particular configurations of the assembly, or for ergonomic desirability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampel et al. (US 2013/0111820) (hereinafter Hampel) in view of Pavlovic et al. (US 2009/0007494) (hereinafter Pavlovic)
Regarding claim 13, Hampel does not explicitly disclose [wherein the adjustment opening can be closed in a waterproof way]*. Pavlovic, however teaches that it is known in the art to use a polymeric plug for the purpose of covering an aperture used for accessing a window regulator adjustment feature (paragraph [0005], “some proposed window regulator lifter plate assemblies require access for adjustment from their outboard side, which is the side facing the exterior sheet metal of the vehicle door in which they are mounted. As a result, apertures are sometimes provided in the exterior sheet metal of the door to provide access. These apertures must then be covered by some suitable means, such as a polymeric plug”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a polymeric plug for covering the adjustment opening of Hampel, since this would be logical and obvious for the purpose of sealing the access hole, in order to keep unwanted debris, water, etc. out of the inner door compartment. Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to plug the adjustment opening of Hampel, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(E)), and plugging an access hole on a vehicle door for the purpose of keeping unwanted debris, water, etc. out of the inner door compartment is an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner additionally notes that the claim limitation “wherein the adjustment opening can be closed in a waterproof way” is an intended use limitation, and the adjustment opening of Hampel is entirely capable of being “closed in a waterproof way”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florentin et al. (US 7,640,697) (hereinafter Florentin) in view of Pavlovic et al. (US 2009/0007494) (hereinafter Pavlovic)
Regarding claim 13, Florentin does not explicitly disclose [wherein the adjustment opening can be closed in a waterproof way]*. Pavlovic, however teaches that it is known in the art to use a polymeric plug for the purpose of covering an aperture used for accessing a window regulator adjustment feature (paragraph [0005], “some proposed window regulator lifter plate assemblies require access for adjustment from their outboard side, which is the side facing the exterior sheet metal of the vehicle door in which they are mounted. As a result, apertures are sometimes provided in the exterior sheet metal of the door to provide access. These apertures must then be covered by some suitable means, such as a polymeric plug”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a polymeric plug for covering the adjustment opening of Florentin, since this would be logical and obvious for the purpose of sealing the access hole, in order to keep unwanted debris, water, etc. out of the inner door compartment. Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to plug the adjustment opening of Florentin, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(E)), and plugging an access hole on a vehicle door for the purpose of keeping unwanted debris, water, etc. out of the inner door compartment is an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner additionally notes that the claim limitation “wherein the adjustment opening can be closed in a waterproof way” is an intended use limitation, and the adjustment opening of Florentin is entirely capable of being “closed in a waterproof way”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights