DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The claims filed on December 1, 2023 have been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on December 1, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “body panel end” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 8-14 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.
Claim 2: Claim 2 recites the limitation "body panel end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as to which part is consider to the be the “body panel end” as it appears in as if the gutter flange is the body panel end. From review of the Specification as filed on December 1, 2023 (hereinafter Specification), Figure 4 shows gutter flange 30 located at the end of the body panel 14 and there is no part number for the “body panel end” in the Specification. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitation "the roof door end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as to which part is consider to the be the “roof door end”. A review of the Specification as filed on December 1, 2023 (hereinafter Specification) fails to find any mention of “a roof door end” and the drawings do not disclose a door much less a “roof door end”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpretate the “roof door end” to actually be the “roof panel end”, which is supported by the Specification. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 9-14 are subsumed by the previously noted rejections because of their dependance either directly or indirectly. Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ido et al., US 2005/0116509 (hereinafter Ido) (all citations are to the English translation dated 2026).
Claim 1: Ido discloses a vehicle sealing junction (Fig 3) comprising:
a roof panel (roof panel 2), a body panel (roof side rail 3) and a frame (rail roof side inner panel 5) (Fig 2-3, par [0027]);
the roof panel (2) having a terminal end (joint portion 15) directed toward the body panel (3) with an apex (semicircular curved surface 12) on the roof panel end (15) extending toward an arcuate portion (recessed portion 16) of the body panel (3) (Fig 2-3, par [0028]);
the body panel (3) including a gutter flange (joint surface 7) extending toward the roof panel end (15), the gutter flange (7) positioned under the roof panel end (15) (Fig 2-3, par [0027]-[0029]); and
the frame (5) providing a securement surface (upper joint surface 10) for the gutter flange (7) (Fig 2-3, par [0027]-[0029]).
Claim 8: Ido discloses a vehicle (see Fig 1) comprising:
a roof panel (roof panel 2), a body panel (roof side rail 3) and a frame (rail roof side inner panel 5) (Fig 2-3, par [0027]);
the roof panel (2) having a terminal end (joint portion 15) directed toward the body panel (3) with an apex (semicircular curved surface 12) on the roof panel end (15) extending toward an arcuate portion (recessed portion 16) of the body panel (3) (Fig 2-3, par [0028]);
the body panel (3) including a gutter flange (joint surface 7) extending toward the roof panel end (15), the gutter flange (7) positioned under the roof door end (15) (Fig 2-3, par [0027]-[0029]); and
the frame (5) providing a securement surface (upper joint surface 10) for the gutter flange (7) (Fig 2-3, par [0027]-[0029]).
Claims 2 and 9: Ido discloses wherein a gap (within recess portion 16) is formed between the roof panel end (15), body panel end (vertical surface 6) and gutter flange (7).
Claims 5 and 12: Ido discloses wherein the roof panel (2) is secured (via weld A) to the body panel (3) (see Fig 4, par [0033]).
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) 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido.
Claims 3 and 10: Ido discloses wherein the roof panel end acts as a flange (at joint surface 14) (Fig 3, par [0030]).
Ido is silent as to the flange having a length greater than or equal to 5.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the flange to have a length greater than or equal to 5.5 mm, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claims 4 and 11: Ido discloses wherein the gutter flange (joint surface 7) has a length (see Fig 3, par [0029]-[0031]).
Ido is silent as to the flange having a length greater than or equal to 6.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the flange to have a length greater than or equal to 6.0 mm, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claims 6 and 13: Ido discloses a distance from a roof radius (at end of joint portion 15 end of joint surface 14) to the frame (upper joint surface 10 of rail roof inner side panel 5) (see Fig 3, par [0029]-[0031]).
Ido is silent as to a distance from a roof radius to the frame is less than 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for a distance from a roof radius to the frame is less than 3 mm, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claims 7 and 14: Ido discloses a distance from the body panel (at joint surface 7 of body panel 3) to the frame (5) (see Fig 3, par [0029]-[0031]).
Ido is silent as to distance from the body panel to the frame is less than 2.6 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for distance from the body panel to the frame is less than 2.6 mm, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Katsuma, US 2004/0212222 which discloses a vehicle body structure, Reed et al., US 6,578,909 which discloses a vehicle roof structure, and Yoshihide et al., Japanese Patent No. JP 2000247259 A which discloses a roof-molding free body structure are relevant to the claims but were not relied upon in the current rejections.
Claims 1-14 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676