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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004003075 A1 (cited by Applicant) in view of DE102009039619 A1 (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, DE 102004003075 A1 discloses (as shown in Figure 2 and paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0015], [0016], [0023] and [0024]) a convertible arrangement, comprising: a displaceable convertible top (convertible with hardtop hood 1) which is displaceable between a covering position, in which it spans a vehicle interior, and a storage position, in which the vehicle interior is exposed at the top and the convertible top (convertible with hardtop hood 1) is received by a convertible top storage space (in paragraph [0016]; the first sentence of the paragraph).
DE 102004003075 A1 does not directly mention wherein an environment sensor and/or an environment sensor accessory are/is disposed at the convertible top.
The expert receives the information that the sensor used in
DE 102004003075 A1 can be a “proximity sensor” (ultrasonic sensor). This means that the expert knows that, in terms of function, the expert needs a sensor element that can scan or observe the environment but the expert knows from specialist knowledge that environmental sensors can be used for this.
DE102009039619 A1 (in paragraphs [0005] and [0007]) teaches that environmental sensor can be formed from ultrasonic sensors that detect the external environment of the motor vehicles (as environmental sensors).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the convertible top of DE 102004003075 A1 with environment sensor, as taught by DE102009039619 A1, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect people and/or object the external environment around the motor vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, DE 102004003075 A1 discloses (as shown in Figure 2 and paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0015], [0016], [0023] and [0024]) a convertible arrangement, comprising a displaceable convertible top (convertible with hardtop hood 1) which is displaceable between a covering position, in which it spans a vehicle interior, and a storage position (in paragraph [0016]; the first sentence of the paragraph), in which the vehicle interior is exposed at the top and the convertible top (convertible with hardtop hood 1) is received by a convertible top storage space (in paragraph [0016]; the first sentence of the paragraph); and
a convertible top box lid (in paragraphs [0016], [0023] and [0024]; trunk hood 8 as shown in Figure 2), which is displaceable between a closed position closing the convertible top storage space (in paragraph [0016]; the first sentence of the paragraph) and an open position exposing the convertible top storage space
(in paragraph [0016]; the first sentence of the paragraph) at the top.
DE 102004003075 A1 does not directly mention wherein an environment sensor, which is disposed at the convertible top box lid and/or an environment sensor accessory are/is disposed at the convertible top box lid.
The expert receives the information that the sensor used in
DE 102004003075 A1 can be a “proximity sensor” (ultrasonic sensor). This means that the expert knows that, in terms of function, the expert needs a sensor element that can scan or observe the environment but the expert knows from specialist knowledge that environmental sensors can be used for this.
DE102009039619 A1 (in paragraphs [0005] and [0007]) teaches that environmental sensor can be formed from ultrasonic sensors that detect the external environment of the motor vehicles (as environmental sensors).
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the convertible top of DE 102004003075 A1 with environment sensor, as taught by DE102009039619 A1, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect people and/or objects in the external environment around the motor vehicle.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004003075 A1 (cited by Applicant) in view of DE102009039619 A1 (cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102015017149 A1.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 11, DE 102004003075 A1, as modified, discloses the convertible arrangement according to claim 1, but does not show
wherein the convertible top comprises a front bow at the upper side of which the environment sensor is disposed (claim 2); the convertible top comprises a lowerable bow, at which the environment sensor is disposed (claim 4); and wherein the lowerable bow is a lowerable rear bow (claim 11).
DE 102015017149 A1 teaches a canopy is known from practice and can be designed as a folding top with a folding top cloth or as a folding top or RHT (retractable hard top) with rigid top shells. The top includes a hood frame, by means of which, depending on the version of the top cloth can be clamped or the rigid top shells can be adjusted; front bow (32) as shown in Figure 1; and lowerable rear bow (38) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the convertible with hardtop hood 1, as modified, of DE 102004003075 A1 with a convertible top comprising a front bow and a lowerable rear bow, as taught by DE 102015017149 A1, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a convertible top with a folding top cloth.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004003075 A1 (cited by Applicant) in view of DE102009039619 A1
(cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PCT reference WO 2008052522 A1.
Regarding 5, DE 102004003075 A1, as modified, discloses the convertible top arrangement according claim 1, but does not show wherein the environment sensor has at least one field of view, which changes as a function of the position of the convertible top.
PCT reference teaches a method for providing an anti-trapping device for movable parts of a motor vehicle (1), particularly of a displaceable roof (2a, 2b) of a convertible vehicle, comprising the following steps: creating at least one sensor field of view (12a, 13a) (FOV) being directed away from the vehicle (1) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the environment sensor, as modified, of DE 102004003075 A1 with at least one field, which changes as a function of the position of the convertible top, as taught by PCT reference, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to recognize persons or obstacles which approach a danger zone, in particular a relocation zone, of a convertible top.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004003075 A1 (cited by Applicant) in view of DE102009039619 A1 (cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of PCT reference WO 2008052522 A1.
Regarding claim 7, DE 102004003075 A1, as modified, the convertible arrangement according to claim 6, but does not show wherein the environment sensor has a field of view oriented towards the vehicle rear when the convertible top box lid is in the closed position.
PCT reference teaches a method for providing an anti-trapping device for movable parts of a motor vehicle (1), particularly of a displaceable roof (2a, 2b) of a convertible vehicle, comprising the following steps: creating at least one sensor field of view (12a, 13a) (FOV) being directed away from the vehicle (1) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the environment sensor, as modified, of DE 102004003075 A1 with at least one field of view oriented towards the vehicle rear when the convertible top box lid is in the closed position, as taught by PCT reference, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to recognize persons or obstacles which approach a danger zone, in particular a relocation zone, of a convertible top.
Regarding claim 8, DE 102004003075 A1, as modified, the convertible arrangement according to claim 6 but does not show wherein a rear window of the convertible top is located in the field of view of the environment sensor when the convertible top is in the covering position.
PCT reference teaches a method for providing an anti-trapping device for movable parts of a motor vehicle (1), particularly of a displaceable roof (2a, 2b) of a convertible vehicle, comprising the following steps: creating at least one sensor field of view (12a, 13a) (FOV) being directed away from the vehicle (1) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the environment sensor, as modified, of DE 102004003075 A1 with a rear window of the convertible top is located in the field of view of the environment sensor when the convertible top is in the covering position as taught by PCT reference, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to recognize persons or obstacles which approach a danger zone, in particular a relocation zone, of a convertible top.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9 and 10 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:
Regarding claim 3, wherein the front bow forms at least part of a convertible top box lid, which closes the convertible top storage space in the storage position of the convertible top is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 9, wherein a deploying bracket of the convertible top or a roof shell of the convertible top rests on the convertible top box lid when the convertible top is in the covering position and a sensor see-through area, which borders on the vehicle environment independently of the covering position, is formed at the convertible top box lid is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the convertible top box lid has a dome, which receives the environment sensor and/or the environment sensor accessory is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Prior Art
No Prior Art
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is (571)272-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-4:30 PM (EST) Monday-Friday.
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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612