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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). The drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Figs. 2a-3b appear to be multi-generation copies which are extremely light (i.e. will not reproduce well – for example, see published application - US Pub. No. 20240181853). The lines and numbers are not all solid. Further, some of the smaller/finer elements are not clear due to the lightness of the elements.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “at a longitudinal position between the first and second slide shoes considered in the closed position of the closure panel”. This limitation is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. It is not understood what exactly is meant by “considered in the closed position”. It appears that maybe the applicants are describing that screwed connections are positioned between the first and second slide shoes when the closure panel is in the closed position. However, such is not clear.
It is noted that there are no art rejections based on claim 8 as it appears that claim 8, when combined with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims may be novel. However, should amendments made, to claim 8, that are necessary to overcome the 112 rejection cause the examiner’s understanding to change, the examiner reserves the right to apply art as necessary.
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 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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oechel (US 20050231007).
Regarding claim 1: Oechel discloses a roof system for a vehicle having a roof opening in a roof part thereof (Fig. 1; abstr.; [0002]). Oechel discloses a closure panel 9 which is movable between a closed position in which the closure panel closes the roof opening and an open position in which the closure panel opens the roof opening and is positioned at least partially above an adjoining portion of the roof part (Figs. 1, 11-13; [0022], [0043], [0045]). Oechel discloses the closure panel comprising a panel support 16 (Fig. 1; [0022]). Oechel discloses a stationary guide rail 10 at each longitudinal side of said roof opening (Fig. 1; [0022]). Oechel discloses an operating mechanism slidably guided in each stationary guide rail and configured to operate the closure panel in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Figs. 1, 2; [0024]). Oechel discloses each operating mechanism comprising a rear device 14 connected to the panel support and configured to move a rear edge of the closure panel towards a raised position relative to the closed position and above an adjoining portion of the roof part (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0024]). Oechel discloses a front device 12 connected to the panel support and including a first lever 40 configured to move a front edge of the closure panel in a vertical direction (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0024], [0042]). Oechel discloses a driving slide 18 slidably accommodated in the stationary guide rail (Figs. 1, 2; [0023]). Oechel discloses a drive member connected to the driving slide in order to move the closure panel both in vertical and in horizontal direction through the front device and rear device (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0042]-[0045). Oechel discloses that the first lever of the front device is pivotally connected to the panel support only and is provided with a first slide shoe 37 which is in engagement with a stationary guide curve 38 of the stationary guide rail (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0042]). Oechel discloses a downwardly and forwardly inclining front portion (Fig. 13), such that the first lever slides and tilts when the first slide shoe travels through the front portion of the stationary guide curve (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0042]-[0045).
Regarding claim 2: Oechel discloses that the first lever comprises a second slide shoe 36 at a distance in longitudinal direction behind the first slide shoe (Figs. 11-13).
Regarding claim 3: Oechel discloses that the second slide shoe is in engagement with the stationary guide curve (Figs. 11-13).
Regarding claim 4: Oechel discloses that the second slide shoe is in engagement with a substantially straight portion of the stationary guide curve connecting to a rear end of the front portion thereof (Figs. 11-13).
Regarding claim 5: Oechel discloses that the panel support is connected to the first lever at a position above and in front of the first slide shoe (Figs. 11-13).
Regarding claim 6: Oechel discloses that the first lever comprises a third slide shoe 37 substantially in line with the first slide shoe and in engagement with a second stationary guide curve 38 of the stationary guide rail, the second stationary guide curve being parallel to the stationary guide curve (Figs. 1-13 – Oechel discloses 2 guide rails 10 and therefore has two slide shoes on each side (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th slide shoes).
Regarding claim 7: Oechel discloses that the third slide shoe is laterally spaced from the first slide shoe and that the first and second slide shoes are positioned on one side of the panel support and the third slide shoe is positioned on opposite side of the panel support (Figs. 1-13 – Oechel discloses 2 guide rails 10 and therefore has two slide shoes on each side (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th slide shoes).
Regarding claim 9: Oechel discloses that the front device comprises a second lever 12 which is pivotally connected to the panel support on one end of the second lever and which is controlled by the driving slide, such that the second lever is allowed to pivot when the closure panel is moved in the vertical direction, and which is driven by the driving slide when the closure panel is moved in the longitudinal direction (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0022], [0042]-[0045).
Regarding claim 10: Oechel discloses that the driving slide and the second lever are in engagement with each other through a curve 20 and pin connection, that the curve has a sliding portion enabling the pin to move with respect to the curve in a longitudinal direction of the stationary guide rail and a locking portion disabling the pin to move with respect to the curve in the longitudinal direction of the stationary guide rail (Figs. 1, 2, 11-13; [0024], [0042]-[0045).
Regarding claim 11: Oechel discloses that the second lever is positioned at a distance behind the first lever (Figs.11-13).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oechel (US 20050231007) in view of Geerets (US 20090091160).
Oechel discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: Oechel discloses that the panel support is fixedly attached to the closure panel [0022] but does not explicitly disclose that the attachment is via a plurality of screwed connections and that a front screwed connection is arranged at a longitudinal position between pivotal connections of the first and second lever to the panel support. Geerets discloses that the attachment is via a plurality of screwed connections ([0017]). 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 Oechel so that the panel support is fixedly attached to the closure panel via a plurality of screwed connections as taught by Geerets . As both Oechel and Geerets are directed to sun roofs, as Bechamel and Geerets both disclose fixed attachment of the panel support to the panel, as Oechel is silent regarding the attachment method, and as Geerets explicitly teaches screwed connections, it would have been within routine skill to select a specific attachment scheme from a finite selection of attachment schemes (i.e. screwed, welded, or glued). Such an addition or substitution, selection, and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Oechel, as modified by Geerets, does not explicitly disclose that a front screwed connection is arranged at a longitudinal position between pivotal connections of the first and second lever to the panel support. 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 Oechel, as modified by Geerets, so that a front screwed connection is arranged at a longitudinal position between pivotal connections of the first and second lever to the panel support. As both Oechel and Geerets disclose fixed attachments between the panel support and the closure panel, as Geerets discloses attachment through a plurality of screwed connections, and mechanical connections through screwed fasteners is very well known through the arts, it would have been within routine skill to select a specific attachment scheme from a finite selection of attachment schemes (i.e. make exact connection placements as desired to obtain the necessary mechanical integrity in the connections of the structures being connected). Such an addition/substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). (i.e. the exact placement of the screwed connections along the length on the two parts being connected can be an obvious matter of design choice).
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
1/7/2026