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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph [0042] and [0044], “ends 402, 404” should read “first end 402 and second end 404” or “(first and second) ends 402, 404”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al. (Patent No. 4,417,762). Re: claim 11, Imai et al. teaches a vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising: an outer body panel (Fig. 5 - 2); a roof panel (4) connected to the outer body panel such that the outer body panel and the roof panel collectively define a roof ditch (8); a sealant (11) positioned within the roof ditch (See Fig. 5), wherein the sealant is applied along an interface (8a) between the outer body panel (2) and the roof panel (4) to interrupt a fluid path into the vehicle (Fig. 5); and a guide (8b & 8c) positioned within the roof ditch (8), wherein the guide (8b & 8c) is configured to provide tactile feedback during removal of excess sealant (11) to facilitate proper application thereof (See Note Below).
It is noted by the examiner that the cited guide of Imai et al. has the ability to function in a way that would give feedback during removal of excess sealant from the interface.
Re: claim 14, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (8b & 8c) includes opposite first (Annotated Fig. 1 – first end) and second ends (Annotated Fig. 1 – second end) (See Note below) and extends continuously therebetween (Col. 1 – Lines 27-44 – Disclosure of the joint running along the length of the vehicle).
It is noted by the examiner that Figure 5 is the planar view of the ditch which runs along the length of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (Patent No. 4,417,762) in view of Ortega Martinez et al. (Patent No. 7,021,704).
Re: claim 1, Imai et al. teaches a vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising: an outer body panel (Fig. 5 – 2); a roof panel (4) connected to the outer body panel at an interface (8a) such that the outer body panel and the roof panel collectively define a roof ditch (8); and a guide (8b & 8c) positioned laterally between the interface (a) and an outboard edge of the roof panel (Annotated Fig. 5 – roof panel edge); and a sealant (11) extending along the interface (8a) to inhibit water from entering the vehicle between the outer body panel (2) and the roof panel (4), wherein the guide (8b & 8c) is configured to provide tactile feedback during removal of excess sealant to facilitate proper connection of the roof brackets within the roof ditch without exposing the interface (See Fig. 5 & Note below). Imai et al. fails to teach an outer body panel including first openings; wherein the roof panel includes: second openings aligned with the first openings, wherein the first openings and the second openings are configured to receive fasteners to facilitate connection of roof brackets to the vehicle.
It is noted by the examiner that the cited guide of Imai et al. has the ability to function in a way that would give feedback during removal of excess sealant from the interface.
However, Ortega Martinez et al. teaches an outer body panel (Fig. 6 – 2) including first openings (Annotated Fig. 6 – first opening); wherein the roof panel (1) includes: second openings (Annotated Fig. 6 – second opening) aligned with the first openings (See Annotated Fig. 6), wherein the first openings and the second openings are configured to receive fasteners (16) to facilitate connection of roof brackets (5, 8, 9) to the vehicle.
Imai et al. and Ortega Martinez et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle roof connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Imai et al.’s roof panel and outer body panel with those of Ortega Martinez et al.’s openings, fastener, and bracket in order to provide the advantage of a more secured system in the form of mechanical connections that also assists in the prevention of water from entering the internal of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
442
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Imai et al. teaches wherein the outer body panel (2) includes a first flange (Annotated Fig. 5 – first flange), and the roof panel (4) includes a second flange (Annotated Fig. 5 – second flange) adjacent to the first flange such that the first flange and the second flange are positioned in overlapping relation (See Annotated Fig. 5).
Re: claim 3, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (8b & 8c) and the sealant (11) are positioned within the roof ditch (8).
Ortega Martinez et al. teaches wherein the first opening (Annotated Fig. 6 – first opening) and the second opening (Annotated Fig, 6 – second opening) are positioned within the roof ditch (Annotated Fig. 6 – roof ditch).
Re: claim 4, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 5 - 8b & 8c) extends axially along a length of the vehicle (Col. 1 – Lines 27-44 – Disclosure of the joint running along the length of the vehicle).
Re: claim 5, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 5 - 8b & 8c) includes at least one projection extending vertically outward (8b) from the roof panel (4).
Re: claim 8, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (8b & 8c) includes opposite first (Annotated Fig. 1 – first end) and second ends (Annotated Fig. 1 – second end) (See Note below) and extends continuously therebetween (Col. 1 – Lines 27-44 – Disclosure of the joint running along the length of the vehicle).
It is noted by the examiner that Figure 5 is the planar view of the ditch which runs along the length of the vehicle.
Re: claim 9, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (8b & 8c) includes a single projection (8b).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. in view of Ortega Martinez et al. in further view of Brodt et al. (FR 2769570 A1).
Re: claim 6, Imai et al. and Ortega Martinez et al. fail to teach wherein the guide includes opposite first and second ends and extends intermittently therebetween.
However, Brodt et al. teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 8 – 10) includes opposite first (Annotated Fig. 8 – first end) and second ends (Annotated Fig. 8 – second end) and extends intermittently therebetween (Annotated Fig. 8 – gaps).
Imai et al., Ortega Martinez et al., and Brodt et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle roof connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Imai et al.’s annotated guide with Brodt et al.’s surfaces in order to provide the advantage of a system that would have more stable engagement with a cover/mount/bracket, while still allowing access to the fasteners.
PNG
media_image5.png
336
784
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 7, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (8b & 8c) includes a projection (8b) along the length of the vehicle (Col. 1 – Lines 27-30). Imai et al. and Ortega Martinez et al. fail to teach wherein the guide includes a plurality of projections spaced axially along the length of the vehicle.
However, Brodt et al. further teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 8 -10) includes a plurality of projections (See Fig. 8) spaced axially (Annotated Fig. 8 - gaps) along the length of the vehicle (See Fig. 1 & Fig. 8 – VII & VI [zoomed in section]).
Re: claim 10, Imai et al. and Ortega Martinez at al. fail to teach wherein the guide is configured as a rib including a generally linear configuration.
However, Brodt et al. teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 8 -10) is configured as a rib (See the structure of element 10 on Fig. 8) including a generally linear configuration (See Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (Patent No. 4,417,762) in view of Brodt et al. (FR 2769570 A1).
Re: claim 12, Imai et al. fails to teach wherein the guide includes opposite first and second ends and extends intermittently therebetween.
However, Brodt et al. teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 8 – 10) includes opposite first (Annotated Fig. 8 – first end) and second ends (Annotated Fig. 8 – second end) and extends intermittently therebetween (Annotated Fig. 8 – gaps).
Imai et al. and Brodt et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle roof ditches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Imai et al.’s annotated guide with Brodt et al.’s surfaces in order to provide the advantage of a system that would have more stable engagement with a cover/mount/bracket.
Re: claim 13, Imai et al. teaches wherein the guide (8b & 8c) includes a projection (8b) along the length of the vehicle (Col. 1 – Lines 27-30). Imai et al. fails to teach wherein the guide includes a plurality of projections spaced axially along the length of the vehicle.
However, Brodt et al. further teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 8 -10) includes a plurality of projections (See Fig. 8) spaced axially (Annotated Fig. 8 - gaps) along the length of the vehicle (See Fig. 1 & Fig. 8 – VII & VI [zoomed in section]).
Re: claim 15, Imai et al. fails to teach wherein the guide is configured as a rib including a generally linear configuration.
However, Brodt et al. teaches wherein the guide (Fig. 8 -10) is configured as a rib (See the structure of element 10 on Fig. 8) including a generally linear configuration (See Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 16, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach “removing excess sealant in an outboard direction until contact is made with a guide positioned within the roof ditch” in combination with the limitations set by claim 16.
Claims 17-20 depends on indicated allowable claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612