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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 1/5/2024 and 2/26/2024 have been considered and are included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “attached to an vehicle interior” should be changed to --attached to a vehicle interior--.
In claim 1, line 8, “communicating an inside” should be changed to --communicating between an inside--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “a roof panel attached to cover a roof opening” in line 2. The phrasing is unclear as to what the roof panel is attached to in the claim.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hishida et al. (JP 2020026206, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Hishida et al. discloses a sunroof apparatus (Fig. 1, device (1)) comprising: a roof panel (12) attached to cover a roof opening (5) provided in a roof (3) of a vehicle (2); a panel body (13) configured to open and close a panel opening provided in the roof panel (Fig. 1 shows (13) in the position over the panel opening (12A) in the roof panel)); and a base panel (housing portion (21), Fig. 1) attached to an vehicle interior side of the panel opening and extending along a periphery of the panel opening (p.3, third paragraph of the machine translation), wherein a groove is formed between the base panel and the panel body, the groove has at least one connection channel (35) communicating an inside and an outside of the base panel, and each connection channel is coupled to a drainage channel (32) provided in a body of the vehicle (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and discloses wherein the groove extends continuously along the base panel, and the at least one connection channel is provided in a portion that becomes a lowest point in the groove extending continuously (Fig. 1, p. 3, 4th-6th paragraphs, p. 5, last paragraph of the machine translation, (35) are provided in the four corners along (21) inclined downward, which as shown in Fig. 1 are the lowest points along the groove).
Regarding claim 3, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and discloses wherein the roof opening has a rectangular shape (Fig. 1), an outer shell of the roof panel has a rectangular shape following the roof opening and includes four corners (Fig.1), when the vehicle is placed on a flat horizontal surface, portions corresponding to the four corners of the roof panel are located lower as compared with a center portion (Figs. 1 and 3), and portions corresponding to two front corners of the four corners are lowest (Figs. 1 and 3), the panel opening has a rectangular shape (Fig. 1), the base panel is a rectangular frame following the panel opening and includes four corner portions (Fig. 1), the groove includes four groove portions respectively corresponding to the four corner portions of the frame (p. 5, last paragraph of the machine translation), the four groove portions include two front corner groove portions and two rear corner groove portions (p. 5, last paragraph of the machine translation, (35) are provided in the four corners along (21) inclined downward, which as shown in Fig. 1 are the lowest points), and the at least one connection channel includes two connection channels that respectively open to the two front corner groove portions (Fig. 6, p. 5, last paragraph of the machine translation,).
Regarding claim 4, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 3, and discloses wherein the at least one connection channel further includes two connection channels that respectively open to the two rear corner groove portions (p. 5, last paragraph of the machine translation, (35) are provided in the four corners along (21) including the two rear corner groove portions).
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.
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida et al. (JP 2020026206, machine translation attached) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2018100041, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a deflector device (25) configured to prevent air vibration caused by wind being drawn into a vehicle interior when the panel opening is opened (p. 3, 4th paragraph of the machine translation), wherein the deflector device is accommodated in the groove in the base panel (Fig. 4).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one connection channel is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device.
Kobayashi, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches at least one connection channel (26) is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device ((13)(16)) (paragraphs [0021]-[0025] of the machine translation teach the drain member supports the deflector device by way of (30)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. with a support for the deflector device from the drain member as taught by Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to, in combination, better support the deflector device and to provide rainwater a passage from the groove.
Regarding claim 7, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a deflector device (25) configured to prevent air vibration caused by wind being drawn into a vehicle interior when the panel opening is opened (p. 3, 4th paragraph of the machine translation), wherein the deflector device is accommodated in the groove in the base panel (Fig. 4).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one connection channel is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device.
Kobayashi, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches at least one connection channel (26) is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device ((13)(16)) (paragraphs [0021]-[0025] of the machine translation teach the drain member supports the deflector device by way of (30)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. with a support for the deflector device from the drain member as taught by Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to, in combination, better support the deflector device and to provide rainwater a passage from the groove.
Regarding claim 8, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 3, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a deflector device (25) configured to prevent air vibration caused by wind being drawn into a vehicle interior when the panel opening is opened (p. 3, 4th paragraph of the machine translation), wherein the deflector device is accommodated in the groove in the base panel (Fig. 4).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one connection channel is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device.
Kobayashi, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches at least one connection channel (26) is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device ((13)(16)) (paragraphs [0021]-[0025] of the machine translation teach the drain member supports the deflector device by way of (30)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. with a support for the deflector device from the drain member as taught by Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to, in combination, better support the deflector device and to provide rainwater a passage from the groove.
Regarding claim 9, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 4, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a deflector device (25) configured to prevent air vibration caused by wind being drawn into a vehicle interior when the panel opening is opened (p. 3, 4th paragraph of the machine translation), wherein the deflector device is accommodated in the groove in the base panel (Fig. 4).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one connection channel is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device.
Kobayashi, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches at least one connection channel (26) is a part of a drain member provided separately from the base panel, and the drain member is attached to the base panel in a state of supporting the deflector device ((13)(16)) (paragraphs [0021]-[0025] of the machine translation teach the drain member supports the deflector device by way of (30)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. with a support for the deflector device from the drain member as taught by Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to, in combination, better support the deflector device and to provide rainwater a passage from the groove.
Claims 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida et al. (JP 2020026206, machine translation attached) in view of Goto (JP 2020075590, machine translation attached) and Niki (JP 2013213367, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 6, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a panel device (15) configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on the panel body (p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation teaches (15) opening and closing); and a shade device configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on a light shielding member provided below the panel body ((p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the mounting configuration wherein the panel device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists, and the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist.
Goto, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches a panel device (7) is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel (3) via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists (Figs. 1-2, via (73), (71))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. to mount the panel device in the configuration as taught by Goto, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the known technique of mounting the panel device to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results for securing the panel device.
Niki, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist (Fig. 1, paragraph [0024] of the machine translation teaches the attachment of the shade device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. modified by Goto to include the details of the mounting configuration of the shade device as taught by Niki, with a reasonable expectation of success, since one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results in an improved system.
Regarding claim 10, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a panel device (15) configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on the panel body (p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation teaches (15) opening and closing); and a shade device configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on a light shielding member provided below the panel body ((p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the mounting configuration wherein the panel device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists, and the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist.
Goto, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches a panel device (7) is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel (3) via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists (Figs. 1-2, via (73), (71))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. to mount the panel device in the configuration as taught by Goto, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the known technique of mounting the panel device to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results for securing the panel device.
Niki, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist (Fig. 1, paragraph [0024] of the machine translation teaches the attachment of the shade device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. modified by Goto to include the details of the mounting configuration of the shade device as taught by Niki, with a reasonable expectation of success, since one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results in an improved system.
Regarding claim 11, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 3, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a panel device (15) configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on the panel body (p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation teaches (15) opening and closing); and a shade device configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on a light shielding member provided below the panel body ((p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the mounting configuration wherein the panel device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists, and the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist.
Goto, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches a panel device (7) is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel (3) via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists (Figs. 1-2, via (73), (71))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. to mount the panel device in the configuration as taught by Goto, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the known technique of mounting the panel device to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results for securing the panel device.
Niki, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist (Fig. 1, paragraph [0024] of the machine translation teaches the attachment of the shade device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. modified by Goto to include the details of the mounting configuration of the shade device as taught by Niki, with a reasonable expectation of success, since one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results in an improved system.
Regarding claim 12, Hishida et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 4, and discloses the apparatus further comprising: a panel device (15) configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on the panel body (p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation teaches (15) opening and closing); and a shade device configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on a light shielding member provided below the panel body ((p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation).
Hishida et al. does not explicitly disclose the mounting configuration wherein the panel device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists, and the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist.
Goto, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches a panel device (7) is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel (3) via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists (Figs. 1-2, via (73), (71))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. to mount the panel device in the configuration as taught by Goto, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the known technique of mounting the panel device to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results for securing the panel device.
Niki, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist (Fig. 1, paragraph [0024] of the machine translation teaches the attachment of the shade device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. modified by Goto to include the details of the mounting configuration of the shade device as taught by Niki, with a reasonable expectation of success, since one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results in an improved system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida et al. (JP 2020026206, machine translation attached) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2018100041, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Goto (JP 2020075590, machine translation attached) and Niki (JP 2013213367, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 13, Hishida et al. as modified by Kobayashi teaches the apparatus of claim 5, and teaches (references to Hishida et al.) the apparatus further comprising: a panel device (15) configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on the panel body (p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation teaches (15) opening and closing); and a shade device configured to perform an opening operation and a closing operation on a light shielding member provided below the panel body ((p. 2, last paragraph of the machine translation).
Hishida et al. as modified by Kobayashi does not explicitly teach the mounting configuration wherein the panel device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists, and the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist.
Goto, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches a panel device (7) is attached to the vehicle interior side of the base panel (3) via a base bracket in a range of the roof panel where the base panel exists (Figs. 1-2, via (73), (71))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. as modified by Kobayashi to mount the panel device in the configuration as taught by Goto, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the known technique of mounting the panel device to the vehicle interior side of the base panel via a base bracket would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results for securing the panel device.
Niki, like Hishida et al., teaches a sunroof apparatus, and further teaches the shade device is attached to the vehicle interior side of the roof panel via a panel bracket in arrange of the roof panel where the base panel does not exist (Fig. 1, paragraph [0024] of the machine translation teaches the attachment of the shade device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hishida et al. modified by Kobayashi and Goto to include the details of the mounting configuration of the shade device as taught by Niki, with a reasonable expectation of success, since one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of Goto would yield predictable results in an improved system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kamioka (US 9987910), Katayama et al. (US 2013/0285418), Kanai et al. (US 8915543), Ono et al. (US 4892351), Marx et al. (US 2010/0320808), and Katayama et al. (US 9718333) teach a sunroof apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate 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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643