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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6 and 9 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 6 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the length" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-3, 9, 10, 15-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webasto (WO 2020/015907; applicant cited) in view of Volkswagen (DE 1480500; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Webasto discloses a fixed roof element for a vehicle roof, said fixed roof element comprising; a panel 14 to the underside of which at least one guide rail 24A (Fig. 2a, 2b) of a shading system 16 is joined via a plastic molded portion 26A, wherein the plastic molded portion 26A receives a clamping unit 32, which keeps the guide rail 24A at the panel. It is unclear if Webasto discloses the use of an insert molded part in the clamping unit. Volkswagen discloses a roof structure including a molded part 3, 5 for the blind cover 1, wherein the molded plastic part 3, 5 includes a clamping unit 3 formed by an insert molded part 3a (Fig. 3a). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the insert molded part of Volkswagen in the clamping unit of Webasto in order to increase the effective clamping force of the part to further increase the retention of the guide rail to the roof system.
Regarding Claim 2, Volkswagen discloses that the clamping unit 3a includes a plate portion (Fig. 3a; upright parallel portions are plate like) and an angled portion (rounded bottom connecting the plate like portions) which is resilient and acts on a flank.
Regarding claim 3, Volkswagen discloses that the clamping element 3a includes two angled portions (platelike portions are angled to the main curved bottom) on opposite sides.
Regarding Claim 9, the plastic molded portion of Webasto 26A at least widely extends over the length of the guide rail 24A and in that the guide rail rests against segments of the plastic molded portion (Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 10, the guide rail of Webasto 26A has a fixing unit to keep it to the panel (guide rail is fixed via foam through a foaming process to the panel; page4, lines 24-26).
Regarding Claim 15, the guide rail of Webasto 24A has an elastic locking rib 34.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Webasto and Volkswagen discloses a panel 14 to the underside of which at least one element of a shading system (Webasto; 16) is joined via a plastic molded portion (Webasto; 26A), wherein the plastic molded portion receives a support component (Webasto; 24A) at which the element of the shading system is locked and which is an insert part (Volkswagen; 3a) of the plastic molded portion.
Regarding Claim 17, Webasto includes that the support component 24A has a supporting surface on which the shading element 18 rests (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Webasto discloses that the support component 24A has an anchor geometry 34.
Regarding Claim 20, the shading system of Webasto 16 includes a bearing unit for a winding shaft of a roller blind 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11-14 and 18 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, the use of two angled portions being offset from each other in a longitudinal direction of the guide rail, is novel.
Regarding Claim 5, the angled portions having a length of 10mm to 30 mm in the longitudinal direction of the guide rail, is novel.
Regarding Claim 6, the use of multiple clamping elements spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the guide rail and being spaced by 150mm to 300mm, is novel.
Regarding Claim 7, the guide rail being an extruded part with the clamping unit being insert extruded within it, and the direction being determined by the clamping unit, is novel.
Regarding Claim 8, the guide rail having a trapezoidal cross section in the area of the insert clamping element, is novel.
Regarding Claims 11-14, the clamping unit comprising a plastic element as the insert, with formed clamping ribs thereon to which the guide rial is locked, is novel.
Regarding Claim 18, the support component having a locking geometry into which the element of the shading system reaches from below with a locking counter-geometry, is novel.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to roof structures, sunroof structures and their associated covers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612