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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-2, 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US 4,362,258) in view of Veturapacorn et al. (CN 205087033) and Tezza, II et al. (US2020/0377001).
With respect to claim 1, French discloses the claimed lifting roof except that he is silent on how the outer shell and inner shell are attached and he is silent on the inclusion of metal parts that are configured to receive functional elements. French discloses a lifting roof for a vehicle, having
an outer shell 34 and an inner shell 33,
wherein the outer shell 34 and the inner shell 33 are made of a material comprising plastic (French, col. 1, lines 58-62),
Veturapacorn et al. teach a vehicle roof made of a plastic outer shell 17 and a plastic inner shell 18 (see middle of pg. 2 of the machine translation of Veturapacorn et al.) that are adhesively bonded to one another (at 42, see top of machine translation of Veturapacorn et al.)
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Veturapacorn et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French for the advantage of the lightweight adhesive has compared to other hardware bonding devices.
Tezza, II et al. teach a similar lifting roof wherein the lifting roof further comprises metal parts 40a/40b (Tezza, II et al., paragraph [0025]; Fig. 2) that are configured to receive functional elements 60a-d, the metal parts 40a/40b comprising at least one receptacle 40a/40b made of metal (as shown in Fig. 3 of Tezza, II et al.), the at least one hinge receptacle 40a/40b being configured to attach at least one hinge 60.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Tezza, II et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French for the advantage of the strength and rigidity provided by metal parts when used in conjunction with plastic roof members.
Note: since the claim is directed to an apparatus, the method of forming the apparatus holds no patentable weight in the claim unless the method results in a structural difference in the apparatus. In this case, the step of foaming or laminating the metal parts does not result in a structural difference in the lifting roof.
With respect to claim 2, French discloses that the outer shell and the inner shell consist of plastic (French, col. 1, lines 58-62).
With respect to claim 11, French discloses that the vehicle is a campervan (see abstract and Fig. 2 of French).
With respect to claim 21, French discloses the claimed lifting roof except that he is silent on how the outer shell and inner shell are attached and he is silent on the inclusion of metal parts that are configured to received functional elements. French discloses a lifting roof for a vehicle, having
an outer shell 34 and an inner shell 33,
wherein the outer shell 34 and the inner shell 33 are made of a material comprising plastic (French, col. 1, lines 58-62),
Veturapacorn et al. teach a vehicle roof made of a plastic outer shell 17 and a plastic inner shell 18 (see middle of pg. 2 of the machine translation of Veturapacorn et al.) that are adhesively bonded to one another (at 42, see top of machine translation of Veturapacorn et al.)
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Veturapacorn et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French for the advantage of the lightweight adhesive has compared to other hardware bonding devices.
Tezza, II et al. teach a similar lifting roof wherein the lifting roof further comprises metal parts 40a/40b (Tezza, II et al., paragraph [0025]; Fig. 2) that are configured to receive functional elements 60a-d, the metal parts 40a/40b comprising at least one hinge receptacle 40a/40b made of metal (as shown in Fig. 3 of Tezza, II et al.), the at least one hinge receptacle 40a/40b being configured to attach at least one scissor hinge 60 that is capable of being connectable to an installation frame used to retrofit the vehicle with the lifting roof, the at least one scissor hinge 60 being configured to outwardly fold the lifting roof open (as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B of Tezza, II et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Tezza, II et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French for the advantage of the strength and rigidity provided by metal parts when used in conjunction with plastic roof members.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US 4,362,258) in view of Veturapacorn et al. (CN 205087033) and Tezza, II et al. (US2020/0377001). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyake et al. (2017/0174057).
With respect to claim 3, French, as modified, discloses the claimed lifting roof except for the at least one closure made of metal that is configured to secure the lifting roof to an installation frame.
However, Miyake et al. teach a similar lifting roof including at least one closure 21 made of metal (Miyake et al., paragraphs [0060]-[0061]) that is configured to secure a lifting roof 10 to an installation frame 1 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Miyake et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Miyake et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French, as modified, for the advantage of a durable device for securing the lifting roof in place on the vehicle.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US 4,362,258) in view of Veturapacorn et al. (CN 205087033) and Tezza, II et al. (US2020/0377001), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuntze et al. (WO 2015/123295).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, French, as modified, discloses the claimed lifting roof and method except for the plurality of elements that are molded to project toward the inside of the lifting roof. However, Kuntze et al. teach a similar lifting roof including an inner shell 22 and an outer shell 12, the inner shell 22 having a plurality of elements 24, 32 that are molded to project toward the inside of the lifting roof (Kuntze et al., pg. 5, lines 3- 20).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kuntze et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French, as modified, for the advantage of the structural reinforcement provided by the plurality of elements (Kuntze et al., pg. 5, lines 28-30).
With respect to claim 5, Kuntze et al. teach that the plurality of elements 24,32 have at least two longitudinal struts 32 (at least substantially longitudinal as shown in Fig. 6 of Kuntze et al.) running in a longitudinal direction of the roof and at least two transverse struts 24 running in a transverse direction of the roof (as shown in Fig. 6 of Kuntze et al.).
With respect to claim 6, Kuntze et al. teach that at least some of the elements 24,32 are configured as reinforcing elements (Kuntze et al., pg. 5, lines 28-30).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gozzi (US 2023/0136637) in view of Veturapacorn et al. (CN 205087033) and Tezza, II et al. (US2020/0377001).
With respect to claim 7, Gozzi discloses the claimed lifting roof except that he is silent on how the outer shell and inner shell are attached and he is silent on the inclusion of metal parts that are configured to receive functional elements. Gozzi discloses a lifting roof for a vehicle, having
an outer shell 41 and an inner shell 42 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Gozzi),
wherein the outer shell 41 and the inner shell 42 are made of a material comprising plastic (Gozzi, paragraph [0058]).
Gozzi further teaches that at least one cavity 43 is formed between the outer shell 41 and the inner shell 42 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Gozzi) into which fittings are integrated (“electrical cables,” Gotti, paragraph [0060]), the fitting includes at least one of cables (“electrical cables,” Gotti, paragraph [[060]), ventilation and air conditioning, lighting, roof linings, electrical connectors or glass roofs.
Veturapacorn et al. teach a vehicle roof made of a plastic outer shell 17 and a plastic inner shell 18 (see middle of pg. 2 of the machine translation of Veturapacorn et al.) that are adhesively bonded to one another (at 42, see top of machine translation of Veturapacorn et al.)
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Veturapacorn et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by Gozzi for the advantage of the lightweight adhesive has compared to other hardware bonding devices.
Tezza, II et al. teach a similar lifting roof wherein the lifting roof further comprises metal parts 40a/40b (Tezza, II et al., paragraph [0025]; Fig. 2) that are configured to receive functional elements 60a-d, the metal parts 40a/40b comprising at least one receptacle 40a/40b made of metal (as shown in Fig. 3 of Tezza, II et al.), the at least one hinge receptacle 40a/40b being configured to attach at least one hinge 60.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Tezza, II et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by Gozzi for the advantage of the strength and rigidity provided by metal parts when used in conjunction with plastic roof members.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US 4,362,258) in view of Wieber (ES 2303878) and Tezza, II et al. (US2020/0377001).
With respect to claim 1, French discloses the claimed lifting roof except that he is silent on how the outer shell and inner shell are attached and he is silent on the inclusion of metal parts that are configured to receive functional elements. French discloses a lifting roof for a vehicle, having
an outer shell 34 and an inner shell 33,
wherein the outer shell 34 and the inner shell 33 are made of a material comprising plastic (French, col. 1, lines 58-62),
Wieber teaches a vehicle roof made of an outer shell 16 and an inner shell 18 that are adhesively bonded to one another (via adhesive 86, see middle of pg. 4 of machine translation of Wieber)
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Wieber with the lifting roof disclosed by French for the advantage of the lightweight adhesive has compared to other hardware bonding devices.
Tezza, II et al. teach a similar lifting roof wherein the lifting roof further comprises metal parts 40a/40b (Tezza, II et al., paragraph [0025]; Fig. 2) that are configured to receive functional elements 60a-d, the metal parts 40a/40b comprising at least one receptacle 40a/40b made of metal (as shown in Fig. 3 of Tezza, II et al.), the at least one hinge receptacle 40a/40b being configured to attach at least one hinge 60.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Tezza, II et al. with the lifting roof disclosed by French for the advantage of the strength and rigidity provided by metal parts when used in conjunction with plastic roof members.
Note: since the claim is directed to an apparatus, the method of forming the apparatus holds no patentable weight in the claim unless the method results in a structural difference in the apparatus. In this case, the step of foaming or laminating the metal parts does not result in a structural difference in the lifting roof.
With respect to claim 9, Wieber teaches that the inner shell peripherally comprises a plurality of tabs 42 which are configured to be adhesively bonded to the outer shell 16 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Wieber).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
In the combination now applied to amended claim 1, Tezza, II et al. do not teach that any external hardware for attaching the metal parts. Thus, the method of foaming or laminating the metal parts to the external surface does not structurally distinguish from the prior art.
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, while the examiner disagrees that “Iwabuchi does not disclose a lifting roof,” this reference has been withdrawn from the rejection in view of a different combination being applied to meet the limitations of amended claim 7. Gozzi has been applied to claim 7, as outlined above, for the teaching of the cavity into which fittings are integrated.
Regarding new claim 21, the newly applied combination that was applied to claim 1 above is also applied to claim 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612