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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-5 fail to include the proper cross sectional shading as set forth in MPEP 608.02(IX). For example, figure 1 fails to include any cross sectional shading while the cross sectional views in figure 2 indicate that the glass run body 2 and the sealing part 3 are made from a metal.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]o provide” on line 1 can be easily implied and, therefore, should be deleted.
On line 2, “difficult to come apart” is grammatically awkward. It is suggested the applicant amend the abstract to recite that the glass-run body and the sealing part are more difficult to separate to avoid confusion.
On line 3, “a glass-run body” is confusing since it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the glass-run body set forth above or if the applicant is attempting to set forth a glass-run body in addition to the one set forth above.
. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Recitations such as “a front door and a rear door” on line 6 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or if the applicant is attempting to set forth front and rear doors in addition to the door set forth above.
Recitations such as “a vehicle-interior side” on lines 2-3 of claim 3 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the vehicle-interior side set forth above or if the applicant is attempting to set forth a vehicle-interior side in addition to the one set forth above.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morihara (US 2021/0229539) in view of Nozaki et al. (US 2002/0178656).
Morihara discloses a corner structure (not numbered, but shown in figure 1) of a glass run 20 configured to be attached to an automobile, the structure comprising:
a glass-run body 15 (fig. 1) configured to be attached to a periphery of a door of the automobile; and
a sealing part 13 (fig. 1) configured to fill a parting portion which is present between a front door and a rear door of the automobile, or a parting portion which is present between the rear door and a vehicle body of the automobile,
wherein the glass-run body 15 and the sealing part 13 are integrally molded as set forth on lines 3-8 of paragraph 67.
Morihara is silent concerning a hollow sealing part.
However, Nozaki et al. discloses a sealing part 102 (fig. 12) wherein the sealing part 102 is hollow as shown in figure 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the sealing part 13 of Morihara with a hollow construction, as taught by Nozaki et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the flexibility of the sealing part so as to form a more effective seal between the sealing part and the vehicle.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morihara in view of Nozaki et al. as applied to claim 1 above. Morihara, as modified above, is silent concerning a core removal hole.
However, Nozaki et al. further discloses sealing part 102 having a core removal hole (labeled below) configured to be positioned on a vehicle-interior side of the automobile, the core removal hole being configured to allow removal of a core 103 inserted in the sealing part 102.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Morihara, as modified above, with a core and a core removal hole, as taught by Nozaki et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately control the integral molding of the glass run body with the sealing part while allowing for the removal of the core to reduce the weight of the corner structure while improving the sealing capabilities of the corner structure.
With respect to claim 3, the sealing part 102 has a slit 107 configured to be positioned on a vehicle-interior side of the automobile, the slit 107 extending in a longitudinal direction of the sealing part 102 as shown in figure 12, and the slit 107 and the core removal hole are connected also shown in figure 12.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morihara (US 2021/0229539) in view of Nozaki et al. (US 2002/0178656).
Morihara discloses a method of manufacturing a corner structure (not numbered, but shown in figure 1) of a glass run 20 configured to be attached to an automobile, the method comprising:
forming, by extrusion molding, a sealing part 13 configured to fill a parting portion which is present between a front door and a rear door of the automobile, or a parting portion which is present between the rear door and a vehicle body of the automobile; and
placing the sealing part 13 formed by the extrusion molding in a molding die for shaping the corner structure of a glass-run body, to integrally mold the glass-run body and the sealing part 13 as set forth on lines 3-8 of paragraph 67.
Morihara is silent concerning a hollow sealing part.
However, Nozaki et al. discloses a sealing part 102 (fig. 12) wherein the sealing part 102 is hollow as shown in figure 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the sealing part 13 of Morihara with a hollow construction, as taught by Nozaki et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the flexibility of the sealing part so as to form a more effective seal between the sealing part and the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
1662
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights