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 .
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 7 and 11 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 7 recites the limitation "the opening or the bottom opening" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom opening" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagashima et al. (US 6644728 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagashima discloses a vehicle roof (Fig. 1) having a frame device (6 in Fig. 3) of a roof module (sunroof in Fig. 1) and having a guide rail (3 in Fig. 3) attached to the frame device for the movable mounting of a vehicle component (abstract, movable panel), wherein the guide rail is arranged on a frame part (Fig. 3, part of 61 that supports the rail) of the frame device with a seal (9 in Fig. 3) positioned in between (Fig. 5), and in that a reference point (see annotated Fig. 3, can be on the screws which is on the frame part after coupling, or the surfaces around the screw apertures on the frame part) is provided for positioning the guide rail with a defined installation distance (Fig. 2 and 5, distance between the rail and the frame part; the reference points will be able to set this distance by prevent the rail from moving further downward when installing; also prevents horizontal movement due to the screws) between the guide rail and the frame part, wherein the reference point is formed on the frame part, defined on the frame part or assigned to the frame part (see annotated Fig. 3, screw reference points are assigned to or formed on the frame part, reference points on the aperture surfaces are formed on and defined on the frame part).
Regarding claim 7, Nagashima discloses the vehicle roof as claimed in claim 1, wherein the seal crosses under the guide rail laterally (Fig. 3, lateral to the length direction of the rail) next to and spaced from (see annotated Fig. 3, next to and spaced from the fasteners and the fastener openings, which are the reference points) the reference point or next to the opening or the bottom opening and adjacent thereto.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 3 from Nagashima
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al. (US 6065801 A).
The combination of Nagashima in view of Kawamura teaches a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 8 when used in normal and usual operation. Nagashima discloses mounting a guide rail (Nagashima, 3 in Fig. 3) on a frame device (Nagashima, 6 in Fig. 3) of a roof module (Nagashima, sunroof in Fig. 1) of a vehicle roof (Nagashima, Fig. 1), wherein the guide rail is provided for the movable mounting of a vehicle component (Nagashima, abstract, movable panel), and the vehicle roof as claimed in claim 1 is formed, comprising: applying the seal to the frame part (Nagashima, Fig. 3, seal 9 on frame part 61), positioning the guide rail above the frame part (Nagashima, Fig. 2-3) and with its opening above the reference point (Nagashima, see annotated Fig. 3, fastener opening in guide rail is above the reference point of the opening of the frame part) or the spacer.
Nagashima fails to disclose a mounting tool contacting the top side of the guide rail in the region of the opening, the mounting tool moving the guide rail against the frame part in an infeed movement, compressing the seal, and ending the infeed movement of the mounting tool when the mounting tool has reached a defined position relative to the reference point or to the spacer, in which the guide rail has taken up its intended installation position.
Kawamura teaches a mounting tool (Nagashima, Col. 7 line 38, screw driver) contacting the top side (after combination, contacting indirectly through the screw in Fig. 3 of Nagashima) of the guide rail in the region of the opening, the mounting tool moving the guide rail against the frame part in an infeed movement (after combination, threading the screw tighter will move the guide rail against the frame part and compress the seal), compressing the seal, and ending the infeed movement of the mounting tool when the mounting tool has reached a defined position relative to the reference point or to the spacer, in which the guide rail has taken up its intended installation position (after combination, when the screw is properly tightened).
Kawamura is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle roof with a rail as Nagashima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mounting method as taught by Nagashima to incorporate the teachings of Kawamura with a reasonable expectation of success and use a screw driver such that it is a mounting tool that moves the parts into their intended installation position. Doing so ensures proper joining of the roof parts and allows convenient assembly by a user.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 20190299761 A1) in view of Duenzinger (DE 19821694 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiramatsu discloses a vehicle roof (Hiramatsu, Fig. 1) having a frame device (Hiramatsu, 55 in Fig. 9c) of a roof module (Hiramatsu, sunroof 12 in Fig. 9c) and having a guide rail (Hiramatsu, 41 in Fig. 9c) attached to the frame device for the movable mounting of a vehicle component (Hiramatsu, paragraph 31, movable panel), wherein the guide rail is arranged on a frame part (Hiramatsu, 551 in Fig. 9c) of the frame device (Hiramatsu, Fig. 9c), and in that a reference point (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c, can be the fastener F3 which is on the frame part after coupling, or the aperture surface) is provided for positioning the guide rail with a defined installation distance (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c, the fastener and the fastener aperture can both set the installation distance to align the guide rail relative to the frame part) between the guide rail and the frame part, wherein the reference point is formed on the frame part, defined on the frame part or assigned to the frame part (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c, fastener reference points are assigned to or formed on the frame part, reference points on the aperture surface are formed on and defined on the frame part).
PNG
media_image2.png
288
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 9c from Hiramatsu
Hiramatsu fails to disclose with a seal positioned in between.
Duenzinger teaches a seal positioned in between (Duenzinger, fourth paragraph on page 3 of machine translation NPL, seal between rail 23 and frame 17).
Duenzinger is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle roof with a rail as Hiramatsu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Duenzinger with a reasonable expectation of success and use a seal. Doing so provides further ensures the two parts are secured together, increases structural integrity, prevents unintentional separation, and prevents other elements from ingress.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hiramatsu in view of Duenzinger teaches the vehicle roof as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide rail has a guide rail base (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c) with an opening (Hiramatsu, 416 in Fig. 9c) arranged therein, and in that on the frame part a frame part region (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c, frame part region can be the frame aperture 552, which contains the reference point for aligning the guide rail with the frame part to ensure they are at installation distance) arranged under the opening in the guide rail base defines or contains the reference point.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hiramatsu in view of Duenzinger teaches the vehicle roof as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame part has a bottom opening (Hiramatsu, 552 in Fig. 9c), in that the reference point is assigned to the bottom opening (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c, reference point on the frame part opening aligns the guide rail with respect to the frame part, therefore ensures installation distance, also allows the fastener to join the two parts together in a predefined manner to ensure installation distance) in the frame part, and in that the guide rail has a guide rail base (Hiramatsu, see annotated Fig. 9c) via which it is arranged at a defined installation distance (Hiramatsu, Fig. 9c, relative distance between the guide rail and the frame part; they are not in contact with each other) from the frame part.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9-10 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to in that on the frame part is arranged a spacer which protrudes from the frame part into the opening in the guide rail base and without contact with the guide rail base, and in that the spacer contains the reference point as claimed in claim 2; a guide rail base on which a projection or a spacer is arranged or formed, which protrudes downward against or into the bottom opening in the frame part, without contact with the frame part, and in that the reference point is assigned to the bottom opening in the frame part as claimed in claim 5; by a projection or tool spacer that engages in the opening or passes through the opening, has reached a defined position relative to the reference point on the frame part or in contact with the reference point, in which the guide rail has taken up its intended installation position as claimed in claim 9; when the mounting tool as shifted the guide rail, by its projection passing through the bottom opening; into a defined position relative to the reference point, in which the guide rail has taken up its intended installation position as claimed in claim 10; and lies against a mounting support part containing the reference point, which supports the frame part on the underside and passes through the bottom opening in the frame part as claimed in claim 11. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Hiramatsu teaches a fastener F3 in Fig. 9c that goes into the guide rail base opening 416, but the fastener F3 is not a spacer as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Hiramatsu teaches frame part bottom opening 552 but not the projection or spacer as claimed. The fastener F3 of Hiramatsu does not protrude downward, and is in contact with the frame part, which are against the requirement of the claim. Nagashima teaches a projection (screw in Fig. 3), but it is in contact with the frame part as opposed to without contact as required by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle roof with guide rail and frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612