DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 3/23/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-17 are pending with claims 4-5 and 7-8 being currently cancelled and claim 17 being currently added.
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 522 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 17 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 elements 50, 55, 56, each latching element being arranged on and projecting from a respective one of the support elements to latch the fastening clamp to the molded headliner or to the vehicle roof (Fig. 1; [0017], [0018]). Huelke discloses each of the latching elements 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 extending in a direction of the base element (Fig. 1; [0017], [0018]). Huelke discloses that each of the latching elements 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). Huelke discloses that a first end of each of the latching elements is formed integrally with the respective support element (Fig. 1) and that a second end of each of the latching elements is formed integrally with the base element (Fig. 1), or a second end of each of the latching elements is a free end that is spaced from the base element (Fig. 1), each respective free end having a retaining element (curved portion of 55) that extends parallel to the base element at least in an unloaded state of the fastening clamp (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 so as to be slidable within 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 6: Huelke discloses that the support elements are formed integrally with the base element and have at least one bend along a length thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10: Huelke discloses that a free end of each of the support elements abut and/or are fastened to each other (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11: Huelke discloses that the free end of one 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 17: Huelke discloses that the retaining element that extends parallel to the base element has an upper surface and a lower surface, that the upper surface extends in parallel to the lower surface, and that both the upper surface and the lower surface extend in parallel to the base element (Figs. 1, 2 – curved surface of 55).
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 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.
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.
Claims 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, the vehicle roof, the panoramic roof or the sliding roof (Fig. 2; [0015]).
Huelke does not explicitly disclose that the bearing element has a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp such that the fastening clamp is held positively on the bearing element. Kirchen discloses that the bearing element has a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp such that the fastening clamp is 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 the bearing element has a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp such that the fastening clamp is 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 that the bearing element has a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp such that the fastening clamp is held positively on the bearing element, as automobile fastening clips are very well-known, and as Kirchen explicitly discloses the bearing element has a receptacle to positively lock the fastening clamp such that the fastening clamp is 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 side edges of the fastening clamp are displaceably arranged in the receptacle of the bearing element such that the fastening clamp is slidable within the receptacle of the bearing element (Kirchen – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses that a sliding direction of the fastening clamp within the receptacle of the bearing element is oriented transversely to a sliding direction of the latching elements on the vehicle roof, the panoramic roof, the sliding roof, or the molded headliner (Kirchen – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses a roof assembly 10 for a 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, the underside being associated with a vehicle interior, that the molded headliner is fastened to the underside of the vehicle roof by the fastening system (Kirchen – Fig. 1-3; [0018], [0027]).
Regarding claim 16: Huelke, as modified by Kirchen, discloses that the vehicle roof is a panoramic roof or a sliding roof. (Kirchen – Fig. 1-3; [0018], [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 3/23/26, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants argue that Huelke fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1 because claim 1 now requires a second end of each of the latching elements to either be formed integrally with the base element, or, be a free end that is spaced apart from the base element and has a retaining element that extends parallel to the base element. The examiner disagrees with applicants’ analysis and conclusion. Huelke’s structure 55 meets the limitation as recited.
Applicants argue that structure 55 is part of wing clip 48. However, structure 55 can be interpreted as part of the latching elements based on the broad recitation of claim 1.
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 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
4/10/2026
Prosecution Insights