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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueno et al.
For claim 1, Ueno et al. (2022/0204089) discloses a roof structure for a vehicle, the roof structure comprising:
a plurality of roof rail assemblies (30, FIG.1) disposed along a vehicle width direction of a vehicle body and connected to a pair of side structures (20) that are disposed on each side of the vehicle body along a front to rear direction of the vehicle body; and
a roof module (50) connected to the plurality of roof rail assemblies.
For claim 2, each of the plurality of roof rail assemblies (seen in section, FIG.3) comprises an upper rail panel and a lower rail panel connected together to define a closed cross-section.
For claim 7, Ueno et al. disclose a roof structure for a vehicle, the roof structure comprising:
a plurality of roof rail assemblies (30) each comprising
an upper rail panel and a lower rail panel (FIG.3) connected to each other,
each of the plurality of roof rail assemblies extending along a vehicle width direction of a vehicle body with each end respectively being connected to one of a pair of side structures (20) extending along each side of the vehicle body in a front to rear direction of the vehicle body;
a roof module (50) connected to the plurality of roof rail assemblies; and
a module mounting unit (generally at 46,60, FIG.3) coupling the roof module and the plurality of roof rail assemblies along a vertical direction.
For claims 3 and 8, the upper rail panel comprises
upper flange portions (38F) disposed on both edge portions along the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and an upper rail portion disposed between the upper flange portions; and
the lower rail panel comprises lower flange portions (34F) disposed on both edge portions along the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and a lower rail portion disposed between the lower flange portions.
For claims 4 and 9, the upper flange portions and the lower flange portions are connected to each other; and a closed space (FIG.3, not numbered) is defined between the upper rail portions and the lower rail portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claims 12 and 14, Ueno et al. disclose a roof structure for a vehicle, the roof structure comprising:
a plurality of roof rail assemblies (30) each comprising
an upper rail panel and a lower rail panel (FIG.3) connected to each other,
each of the plurality of roof rail assemblies extending along a vehicle width direction of a vehicle body with each end respectively being connected to one of a pair of side structures (20) extending along each side of the vehicle body in a front to rear direction of the vehicle body;
a plurality of roof modules (50) disposed in the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and connected to respective ones of the plurality of roof rail assemblies;
a plurality of module mounting units (generally 46, 60, FIG.3) coupling the roof modules and the roof rail assemblies along a vertical direction; and
an adhesive sealer (G2) between
lower edge portions of bases provided in the roof modules and roof sides of the side structures (20, FIG.2) and
between the lower edge portions of the bases provided in the roof modules and the upper rail panels (FIG.3).
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rompage et al. (2018/0297644).
For claim 7, Rompage et al. disclose a roof structure for a vehicle, the roof structure comprising:
a plurality of roof rail assemblies (186,188,190) each comprising
an upper rail panel and a lower rail panel (see for example 240,242, FIGS. 5-6) connected to each other,
each of the plurality of roof rail assemblies extending along a vehicle width direction of a vehicle body (as seen in FIG.4) with each end respectively being connected to one of a pair of side structures (180,182) extending along each side of the vehicle body in a front to rear direction of the vehicle body;
a roof module (200) connected to the plurality of roof rail assemblies; and
a module mounting unit coupling the roof module and the plurality of roof rail assemblies along a vertical direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
172
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 8, the upper rail panel comprises
an upper flange portion (258, 272) disposed on both edge portions along the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and an upper rail portion (240) disposed between the upper flange portions; and
the lower rail panel comprises
a lower flange portion disposed on both edge portions along the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and a lower rail portion (242) disposed between the lower flange portions.
For claim 10, the module mounting unit comprises:
a mounting bracket (230) connected (via 262) to a lower surface of a base provided in the roof module;
an engage bolt (274) fixed to the mounting bracket so as to pass through the upper flange portion and the lower flange portion connected together in the vertical direction; and
a fastening nut (268) engaged with the engage bolt.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. as applied above in view of the well known prior art.
For claim 5, Ueno et al. fail to provide the roof module comprises a sensor roof module, an air conditioning roof module, or a glass roof module.
The examiner takes official notice that the recited listed roof modules are well known in the prior art. That is, roof modules comprising a glass roof module are known from at least Cocaign (20040075304) and Snider (2008/0106124). Sensor roof modules have been exhibited by Taylor et al. (2020/0101905), Maranville et al. (2017/0190300), Gallagher et al. (2017/0305242), and Mousavi Ehteshami et al. (2019/0232315). Roof modules including an air conditioning roof module (18) is taught by Harmon et al. (2022/0288993).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a roof module of glass, sensors, or air conditioning elements as taught by the well known prior art for use in conjunction with the roof rail assemblies and in place of one or more of the roofs (50) of Ueno et al. as an obvious expedient.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
For claims 6 and 18, Ueno et al., as now modified, provides a plurality of roof modules (50) but is silent on the order (front to back) in the longitudinal vehicle direction being that of sensor, air conditioning, and glass roof modules.
PNG
media_image3.png
381
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have reconfigured the order of the roof modules of Ueno et al. to match that which is recited as an obvious variant as the court has held that ‘shifting the position’ of the components would not have modified the operation of the device but is a mere matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Furthermore, a PHOSITA understands that reordering does not appear to create an improved version or arrangement of the recited hardware but could amount to simply experimental details that a PHOSITA, “armed with the principles disclosed in the prior art,” would have utilized in routine experimentation. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc. 874 F.3d 724, No. 17-1115, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21201 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2017).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. in view of Schwarz (6332645).
For claim 13, Ueno et al. disclose the roof module comprises a plurality of roof modules having a sealer (S) but fails to include a weather strip between adjacent modules.
Schwarz (6332645) teaches two adjacent roof modules with weather strip (edge seals 8,9) peripherally attached (FIG.1, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
277
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided weather stripping as taught by Schwarz to the peripheral edges of adjacent roof modules of Ueno et al. in order to further thoroughly seal the components.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rompage et al. as applied above.
For claim 11, Rompage et al. disclose a module mounting unit comprises: a mounting bracket (232) connected to a lower surface of a base provided in the roof module (200); and an adhesive (156) connected to the upper rail portion along the vertical direction.
As seen with the roof rail assembly (186) an engage bolt and fastening nut can be used as a mechanical connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of the adhesive (156) an engage bolt and fastening nut as an obvious expedient to secure the components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in the claims is the inclusion of the specific drainage path in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
With regard to claim 15, DE 844 provides a drainage path (10) is defined along the vehicle width direction of the vehicle body adjacent an adhesive sealer (11) but does not include the additional adhesive sealer adjacent to the first on upper surfaces of the upper rail panels with the drainage path provided therebetween.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 844 discloses a roof structure for a vehicle, the roof structure comprising:
a roof rail assembly (1, FIGs.1 or 2) disposed along a vehicle width direction of a vehicle body and connected to a pair of side structures (not shown, inherent) that are disposed on each side of the vehicle body along a front to rear direction of the vehicle body; and
a roof module (6) connected to the roof rail assembly.
For claim 2, the roof rail assembly comprises an upper rail panel and a lower rail panel connected together to define a closed cross-section.
For claim 7, a module mounting unit ([0015]) coupling the roof module and the roof rail assembly along a vertical direction.
For claims 3 and 8, the upper rail panel comprises
upper flange portions (3a,b) disposed on both edge portions along the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and an upper rail portion disposed between the upper flange portions; and
the lower rail panel comprises lower flange portions (2a,b) disposed on both edge portions along the front to rear direction of the vehicle body and a lower rail portion disposed between the lower flange portions.
For claims 4 and 9, the upper flange portions and the lower flange portions are connected to each other; and a closed space (4,5, FIGs.1 or 2) is defined between the upper rail portions and the lower rail portions.
PNG
media_image5.png
197
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For claims 12 and 14, DE 844 further discloses an adhesive sealer (11) between
between the lower edge portions of the base provided in the roof module and the upper rail panel (FIGs.1 or 2).
DE 844, however, lacks the roof rail assembly being a plurality of assemblies, the roof module being a plurality of roof modules and the sealer provided between lower edge portions of bases in the roof modules and roof sides of the side structures and as seen in FIG.2 discloses a drainage path (10) but fails to provide the additional adhesive sealer opposite (11).
Ratajski et al. (2008/0129025) (below) discloses a roof rail assembly of the type recited.
PNG
media_image6.png
207
648
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614