CTNF 18/377,583 CTNF 88275 3672 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8 and 11 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 8 recites the limitation " at the other end " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitations: one of the free ends of the support elements (line 1); the free ends (line 1): and the free end of the other support element (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07 AIA 07-07-aia The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that 522 form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Huelke et al. (US 20160144801) . Regarding claim 1: Huelke discloses a fastening clamp to fasten a molded headliner to a vehicle roof ([0015]). Huelke discloses that the fastening clamp comprises a base element 18 that is formed plate-shaped (Fig. 1; [0015]). Huelke discloses two support elements 24a, 24b arranged opposite one another and extending away from the base element and at least substantially towards one another (Fig. 1; [0016]). Huelke discloses a latching element 50, 55, 56 projects from the support element and is arranged on each support element to latch the fastening clamp to the molded headliner or to the vehicle roof (Fig. 1; [0017], [0018]). Huelke discloses the latching element being held in an elastically displaceable manner at an end of the respective support element on a side facing away from the base element and extends in a direction of the base element (Fig. 1; [0017], [0018]). Huelke discloses that the latching element has, spaced from the base element, a latching lug 50, 55, 56 to engage behind an edge section of the molded headliner or the vehicle roof (Fig. 1; [0017], [0018]). Huelke discloses that the respective latching lug projects from an outer side of the support element that faces away from the opposite support element (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2: Huelke discloses that the base element has two guide rails 20 arranged substantially parallel to one another and each extending from one support element to the opposite support element and projecting laterally from the support element for a rail guide (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3: Huelke discloses that the support elements and the latching elements are each formed strip-shaped (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4: Huelke discloses that the respective latching element has a free end spaced from the base element (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 5: Huelke discloses that the respective free end has a retaining element that extends parallel to the base section at least in the unloaded state of the fastening clamp (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6: Huelke discloses that the support elements are formed integrally with the base element and have at least one bend in their course (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7: Huelke discloses that the latching elements at one end are formed integrally with the respective support element (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8: Huelke discloses that at the other end the latching elements are formed integrally with the base element (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 10: Huelke discloses that free ends of the support elements abut and/or are fastened to each other (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11: Huelke discloses that one of the free ends of the support elements has a bending tab that is adapted to engage around the free end of the other support element. (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 12: Huelke discloses a fastening system to fasten a molded headliner to a vehicle roof, a panoramic roof or a sliding roof ([0015]). Huelke discloses that the fastening system comprises a bearing element (surface of 20) that is adapted to be fastened to the molded headliner or the vehicle roof (Fig. 2; [0015]). Huelke discloses a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp and the fastening clamp being adapted to be held positively on the bearing element (Fig. 2) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huelke et al. (US 20160144801) in view of Karuppaswamy et al. (US 5803532) . Huelke discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above. Regarding claim 9: Huelke does not discuss the manufacturing steps of the clip and thus does not explicitly disclose that the fastening clamp is formed as a stamped-bent part. Karuppaswamy discloses that a fastening clamp can be formed as a stamped-bent part (Figs. 1-6; col. 2, lines 17-23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Huelke so that the fastening clamp is formed as a stamped-bent part as taught by Karuppaswamy. As both Huelke and Karuppaswamy are directed to automobile fastening clips, as Huelke is silent regarding the manufacture of the clip, and as Karuppaswamy explicitly discloses a clip manufacturing operation, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired and well-known clip manufacturing process from a finite selection of clip manufacturing process (i.e. stamped or machined). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huelke et al. (US 20160144801) in view of Kirchen et al. (US 20120014766) . Huelke discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above. Regarding claim 12: Huelke discloses a fastening system to fasten a molded headliner to a vehicle roof, a panoramic roof or a sliding roof ([0015]). Huelke discloses that the fastening system comprises a bearing element (surface of 20) that is adapted to be fastened to the molded headliner or the vehicle roof (Fig. 2; [0015]). Huelke does not explicitly disclose a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp and the fastening clamp being adapted to be held positively on the bearing element. Kirchen discloses a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp and the fastening clamp being adapted to be held positively on the bearing element (Fig. 3). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Huelke so that a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp and the fastening clamp being adapted to be held positively on the bearing element as taught by Kirchen. As both Huelke and Kirchen are directed to automobile fastening clips, as Huelke discloses one type of bearing surface but is silent regarding a bearing surface comprising a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp and the fastening clamp being adapted to be held positively on the bearing element, as automobile fastening clips are very well-known, and as Kirchen explicitly discloses a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp and the fastening clamp being adapted to be held positively on the bearing element, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired and well-known clip configuration from a finite selection of clip configurations (i.e. with a separate bearing or without). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results. Regarding claim 13: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses that the fastening clamp is arranged with its side edges displaceably in an insertion receptacle of the bearing element (Kirchen – Fig. 3). Regarding claim 14: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses that the sliding direction of the fastening clamp on the bearing element is oriented transversely to a sliding direction of the latching elements on the vehicle roof or the molded headliner (Kirchen – Fig. 3). Regarding claim 15: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses a roof assembly 10 for a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle, the roof assembly comprising a vehicle roof, a panoramic roof, or sliding roof, that has a roof frame in which a roof opening is formed; a glass roof element 11 that extends over the roof opening, and a molded headliner 82 fastened to an underside of the vehicle roof, which underside is associated with a vehicle interior, by a fastening system (Kirchen – Fig. 1-3; [0018], [0027]). Regarding claim 16: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses that the vehicle roof is a panoramic or sliding roof. (Kirchen – Fig. 1-3; [0018], [0027]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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. /Taras P Bemko/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 11/24/2025 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 2 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 3 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 4 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 5 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 6 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 7 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/377,583 Page 8 Art Unit: 3672