DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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:
The abstract repeatedly uses the implied phrase “the invention relates to…”
The abstract does not contain any information beyond that which can be implied from the title.
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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure lacks section headings as required by 37 CFR 1.77.
Page 31, lines 1-2 indicate that Fig. 7 shows the pop-up roof in the “driving mode,” but this appears to be incorrect, as Fig. 7 actually shows the sleeping mode, while Fig. 8 shows the driving mode.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 states that “the pop-up roof can be reversibly brought by a drive element at least partially from a driving mode into a sleeping mode and vice versa from the driving mode into the sleeping mode…” This appears to be an error, as the second phrase is a repeat of the first phrase. It is suggested that this limitation be changed to --…at least partially from a driving mode into a sleeping mode and into the driving mode--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 currently ends with a period, rather than a semicolon or other punctuation. A period should only be present at the very end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “liquid, r a gas” in line 3 should be changed to --liquid[[,]] or a gas--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 29 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: MPEP 608.01(m) states that “each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.” Thus, the individual method steps of claims 29 and 30 should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 31 states that “the pop-up roof has at least one scissor hinge,” but this claim element is redundant because the scissor hinge has already been recited in claim 19, upon which claim 31 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32 states that “the pop-up roof has at least one damper,” but this claim element is redundant because the damper has already been recited in claim 20, upon which claim 32 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “a substantially medium-tight manner” is present in claim 21. The specification states that “medium-tight can mean in particular watertight and/or airtight. In other words, it may be advantageous if substantially no medium can penetrate through the material of the first, second and/or third hollow body, in particular in the closed state…” (Page 7, lines 5-8). Thus, the phrase “closed in a substantially medium-tight manner” is interpreted herein such that the body allows substantially no medium (whether liquid or gas) to penetrate it.
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 16-35 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.
With regard to claim 16, the phrase “to minimize the construction height of the pop-up roof” is confusing, as it is unclear what is meant by the term “construction height.” It is unknown what is added by the word “construction” to the word “height.” It is suggested that this entire phrase be deleted.
Additionally, regarding claim 16, it is unclear what is meant by the phrases “which can be arranged on the floor,” and “which can be arranged on the at least three walls.” This phrasing renders the claim ambiguous as to whether an actual attachment to the between the floor, walls, and ceiling is required.
It is noted that the use of the phrase “can be” in claims 16-18, 27, and 33 is ambiguous. For example, claim 33 states that “the volume of the third hollow body can be reversibly reduced and increased by introducing a third medium via a third connecting piece which can be arranged on the third hollow body for increasing the volume…” This limitation is unclear, as it raises the question whether the third connecting piece is part of the claim or not. It is suggested to replace the phrase “can be” with a different construction such as “adapted to” or “configured to,” e.g. “the volume of the third hollow body [[can]] configured to be reversibly reduced and increased by introducing a third medium via a third connecting piece
With regard to claim 18, this claim is ambiguous because it recites a “second hollow body” but fails to recite a first hollow body. Thus, it is unclear if the first hollow body is required or not.
With regard to claim 21, this claim is ambiguous because it recites a “third hollow body,” but fails to recite either a first or second hollow body. Thus, it is unclear if the first and second hollow bodies are required.
With regard to claim 23, the terms “the first, second, or third medium” lack antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 24, the terms “the first, second or third hollow body” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, the use of the term “advantageously” is confusing because it is unclear whether the limitation that follows is actually required.
With regard to claim 28, this claim is directed to a method, but fails to recite any steps. Thus, the claim is indefinite per MPEP 2173.05(q).
With regard to claims 29 and 30, these claims are indefinite for the following reasons:
The claims are directed to methods, but are constructed in a non-standard manner. Rather than positively claiming process steps utilizing “-ing” terms, the claims refer to “stages” and uses terms like “actuation” rather than “actuating.”
The claims eventually depend upon claim 16, and thus already contain a pop-up roof. However, the claims recite the step of “providing a pop-up roof,” which is already understood to be provided given that claim 16 is directed to a pop-up roof.
It is unclear what is meant by the term “disassembled” in lines 2 and 3 of claim 29. If the device is indeed disassembled, it is unclear how the remaining process steps of claim 29 would be possible. In the same way, the term “disposable” in line 30 is unclear, as the process steps would not be possible unless the walls are actually disposed on the floor.
The term “the drive element” in line 7 of claim 29, and line 8 of claim 30 lacks antecedent basis, and leads to a lack of clarity because it is unclear whether “a drive device” and “the drive element” are the same thing. The claims will be treated as if they are the same thing.
With regard to claims 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, and 31-35, these claims stand rejected based on their dependence upon a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 16, 21-30, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Vanlife exklusiv: HYMER Concept Car VisionVenture” YouTube video (hereinafter Hymer).
With regard to claim 16, as best understood, Hymer discloses a Pop-up roof for a vehicle or trailer (see Figs. below, which show pop-up roof installed atop a camper van),
wherein the pop-up roof has a floor (see picture of interior of pop-up area below) and at least three walls (the roof has at least two side walls and a rear wall as shown in the figures) which can be arranged on the floor, and
the pop-up roof has a ceiling (see Figs. below) which can be arranged on the at least three walls,
wherein the pop-up roof can be reversibly brought by a drive element (the video illustrates both the inflation and deflation of the pop-up roof, which inherently requires a source of air) at least partially from a driving mode into a sleeping mode and vice versa from the driving mode into the sleeping mode (driving and sleeping modes are shown in the video), wherein in the sleeping mode the ceiling, the floor and the at least three walls form an interior sleeping space volume which extends an interior space of the vehicle or trailer (note the presence of access stairs and an access opening in the Figs. below), wherein, in the driving mode, the ceiling and the floor are substantially adjacent to each other to minimize the construction height of the pop-up roof (in the driving mode, the ceiling and floor are close together as the pop-up roof retracts to a compact position).
PNG
media_image1.png
944
1444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
948
1438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
942
1442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
944
1442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
948
1440
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
950
1440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
952
1444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, Hymer teaches that the pop-up roof has a third hollow body (any one of the quilted elements of the wall shown in the image of the interior of the sleeping area can be considered a “third hollow body”), wherein the third hollow body is closed in a substantially medium-tight manner (i.e. airtight).
With regard to claim 22, Hymer teaches that at least the ceiling or the at least three walls have an outwardly facing surface (see images of Hymer).
With regard to claim 23, as best understood, Hymer teaches that at least the first, second or third medium comprises at least a liquid or a gas (i.e. air).
With regard to claim 24, as best understood, Hymer teaches that at least the first, second or third hollow body has at least one layer (note that the claim only requires one of the bodies to have one layer, and Hymer teaches this, as at least one layer is inherently present to enable inflation) or that the at least first, second or third hollow body comprises at least one inner layer and comprises an outer layer, wherein the inner and outer layers are inseparably connected to each other, wherein the inner layer comprises a plastic, advantageously rubber, and the outer layer comprises a material resistant to wear, advantageously a woven sheath of polyester fibers, or a drop stitch material (these elements are not required due to the “or” construction of the claim).
With regard to claim 25, Hymer teaches that the pop-up roof is positionable on the roof of the vehicle or the trailer (i.e. a camper van, see images above).
With regard to claim 26, Hymer teaches that the roof has an opening which connects the pop-up roof to an interior space of the vehicle or of the trailer (see overhead image, and image of interior space of the pup-up roof, which show the access opening and stairway to the sleeping space).
With regard to claim 27, Hymer teaches that the pop-up roof can be arranged substantially behind a wind deflector of the vehicle or trailer (the exterior images show the pop-up roof behind wind deflectors. Regardless, the “can be” terminology does not actually require the wind deflector).
With regard to claim 28, as best understood, Hymer teaches a method for using a pop-up roof for a vehicle or a trailer in particular according to claim 16.
With regard to claims 29 and 30, as best understood, Hymer teaches that the method comprises providing a pop-up roof comprising a floor and at least three walls disassembled/disposable on the floor (see images above), and a ceiling disassembled/disposable on the at least three walls (see images above), wherein the pop-up roof is initially in a driving mode (see images above which show the roof retracted), wherein in the driving mode the ceiling and the floor are substantially adjacent to each other to minimize the overall height of the pop-up roof (see images above); activation of a drive device (i.e. an air supply device, which is inherently necessary to inflate the pop-up roof) - Actuation of the drive element to reversibly bring the pop-up roof at least partially from the driving mode to a sleeping mode (transition from driving mode to sleeping mode visible in the images above) - Wherein in the sleeping mode the ceiling, the floor and the at least three walls form an interior sleeping space volume which extends an interior space of the vehicle or trailer (see interior images of the sleeping area, shown above).
With regard to claim 34, Hymer teaches that the roof of the vehicle or of the trailer serves at least partially as a floor for the pop-up roof (see images of the interior of the sleeping area, which show the flow of the sleeping area and an access opening within the roof of the camper van).
With regard to claim 35, Hymer teaches that the opening allows at least one person to enter or exit the interior sleeping space volume of the pop-up roof in the sleeping mode (via the provided stairs).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hymer in view of Lazar (US 4,101,062).
With regard to claim 17, Hymer teaches that the pop-up roof comprises a slatted frame (see Fig. above showing the slatted floor of the sleeping area) that is .
However, Hymer fails to teach that the slatted frame is movable between a driving height and a sleeping height by introducing a first medium via a first connection piece into a first hollow body, and lowered by withdrawing the medium from the first hollow body.
Lazar teaches an inflatable rooftop sleeping area positioned on the roof of a vehicle, where the floor (22) of the sleeping area is movable between a lowered position (note shown) and a raised position (all of the figures show the inflated position) by filling a first hollow body (24) with a medium (i.e. air) via a first connection piece (47).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Hymer by providing the first hollow body of Lazar under the slatted frame of Hymer, in order to “distribute concentrated loads from the mattress over the car top so that the pressure intensity on the cartop is nowhere more than the acceptable amount” (Lazar, column 2, lines 25-29).
Claim(s) 18 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hymer in view of Chen et al. (US 11,352,808, hereinafter Chen).
With regard to claims 18 and 33, (note that these claims are grouped together because they recite essentially the same subject matter, given that they depend separately from claim 16 and thus do not require the first, second, and third hollow bodies together, but only one of the three) Hymer teaches that the drive element has a second (or third) hollow body (i.e. the quilted inflatable walls of the sleeping area, as shown in the image of the interior of the sleeping area), the second (or third) hollow body being closed in a substantially medium-tight manner (i.e. airtight), and the volume of the second hollow body can be reversibly reduced and increased by introducing a second medium; to increase the volume (i.e. increasing and decreasing by adding or removing air), and on the basis of its folding, the pop-up roof can be brought at least partially into the driving mode, wherein the second hollow body can be arranged at least in sections between the edge region of the ceiling and the roof of the vehicle or trailer (this folding of the second hollow body is shown in the final image above, which represents the last section of the YouTube video).
Hymer fails to teach that a second medium supply device can be introduced into the second hollow body to insert or remove air from the second hollow body. Hymer is simply silent as to the exact details of how the second hollow body is inflated, forcing one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere for specific solutions regarding the introduction of air into the hollow bodies.
Chen teaches a rooftop sleeping area (see especially Fig. 5) having a first inflatable hollow body (20) and a second inflatable hollow body (11), where the first and second bodies are inflated via separate inlets (13, 24) in each body.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Hymer by providing an inlet for a medium supply device within the second hollow body, as taught by Chen, as there are a finite number of identified solutions for inflating the hollow bodies (i.e. they can inflated together or separately), and thus It would have been obvious to try the solution of Chen to inflate the hollow bodies separately.
Claim(s) 19, 20, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hymer in view of The Hilo Roof Company Ltd. (GB 2494750 B, hereinafter Hilo).
With regard to claims 19, 20, 31, and 32, Hymer fails to teach the pop-up roof having a scissor hinge or a damper.
Hilo discloses a pop-up roof for a camper van having a scissor hinge (18) and a damper (20).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Hymer by providing the scissor hinge and damper of Hilo, as these elements can work together to “facilitate raising and lowering the rood in a controlled manner” (Hilo, top of page 6) and “so that the raising roof can be locked in a raised position” (Hilo, bottom of page 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of pop-up roofs for campers or inflatable tents in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676