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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification provides for the roof top assembly to have insulation, but implies that this a material that is part of the panel. However, the claims appear to suggest the fir between the vehicle and the panel is what insulates the assembly. This is not in the specification as filed. It is unclear how the “snug” fit of the panel provides insulation to the panel.
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 1-20 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.
The term “snugly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snugly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “snugly” renders the phrase “fits … with the vehicle” indefinite because it is not possible to determine what can be considered a “snug fit” or how much clearance is allowed before the fit is no longer “snug”. Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1 and therefore containing the same defect.
The term “snugly” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snugly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “snugly” renders the phrase “fits … with the vehicle” indefinite because it is not possible to determine what can be considered a “snug fit” or how much clearance is allowed before the fit is no longer “snug”. Claims 11-15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10 and therefore containing the same defect.
The term “snugly” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snugly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “snugly” renders the phrase “fits … with the vehicle” indefinite because it is not possible to determine what can be considered a “snug fit” or how much clearance is allowed before the fit is no longer “snug”. Claims 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 16 and therefore containing the same defect.
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) 1, 6, 8, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpicelli (US Publication Number 20180222299) in view of Janssen (US Publication Number 20170225550).
Regarding claim 1, Volpicelli discloses a roof top assembly for use with a vehicle (Figure 2 element 200) comprising: a translucent panel having a generally flat middle portion (Figure 3 elements 204 and 206, paragraph 29) and a plurality of curved outer portions (Figure 3 element 218 and 220); and a plurality of attachment mechanisms located at or near a bottom of the panel configured to attach the panel to the vehicle (Figure 6a-b element 214); wherein the panel is configured to fit snugly with the vehicle such that the assembly is weather-resistant and/or insulated (Figure 2, Paragraph 31); wherein the assembly is configured to provide for a visible light transmission of less than 100% (Figure 2 element 200), but fails to teach of the panel being made of polycarbonate or protecting form UVA and UVB light. The examiner notes that there is no perfectly transparent solid material and as such any solid material will transmit less that 100% of incident visible light.
However, Janssen discloses a similar roof top assembly (Figure 2) that has a polycarbonate panel (Paragraph 35) that is configured to provide ultra-violet (UV) protection from UVA and UVB (Paragraph 35). The examiner notes that polycarbonate provides broad spectrum UV protection as a material property and as noted by the applicant in Paragraphs 232 and 233 of the specification as filed.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli with the polycarbonate material of Janssen for the predictable result of providing a roof assembly that that has translucency as well as rigidity and weather durability (Janssen, Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 6, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the panel have the claimed properties (Janssen, Paragraph 35). The examiner notes that these are material properties of polycarbonate and are disclosed as such by the applicant in Table 1 of specification as filed.
Regarding claim 8, see Volpicelli figure 3 elements 210a and 210b.
Regarding claim 10, Volpicelli discloses a roof top assembly for use with a vehicle (Figure 2 element 200) comprising: a translucent panel having a generally flat middle portion (Figure 3 elements 204 and 206, paragraph 29) and a plurality of curved outer portions (Figure 3 element 218 and 220); and a plurality of attachment mechanisms located at or near a bottom of the panel configured to attach the panel to the vehicle (Figure 6a-b element 214); wherein the panel is configured to fit snugly with the vehicle such that the assembly is weather-resistant and/or insulated (Figure 2, Paragraph 31) but fails to teach of the panel being made of polycarbonate or protecting form UVA and UVB light.
However, Janssen discloses a similar roof top assembly (Figure 2) that has a polycarbonate panel (Paragraph 35) that is configured to provide 100% ultra-violet (UV) protection from UVA and UVB (Paragraph 35). The examiner notes that polycarbonate provides broad spectrum UV protection as a material property and as noted by the applicant in Paragraphs 232 and 233 of the specification as filed polycarbonate provides 100% UVA and UVB protection as a material property.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli with the polycarbonate material of Janssen for the predictable result of providing a roof assembly that has translucency as well as rigidity and weather durability (Janssen, Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 15, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the panel have the claimed properties (Janssen, Paragraph 35). The examiner notes that these are material properties of polycarbonate and are disclosed as such by the applicant in Table 1 of specification as filed.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpicelli as modified by Janssen as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bojanowski et al. (hereinafter Bojanowski , US Publication Number 20230131621).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly comprising one or more connection strips (Figure 5a element 222), but fail to teach the weather seals as claimed.
However, Bojanowski discloses a similar assembly (Figure 2) comprising weather seals with a curved portion (Figure 4 elements 34 and 36).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli as modified by Janssen with the weather seals of Bojanowski for the predictable result of preventing water migration from the roof top assembly to the vehicle (Bojanowski, Paragraph 22).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly, but fail to teach of the drain plugs as claimed.
However, Bojanowski discloses a similar assembly (Figure 2) comprising drain plugs with cavity and canal portions (Figure 4 element 38).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli as modified by Janssen with the drain plugs of Bojanowski for the predictable result of directing moisture to a designated leak path (Bojanowski, Paragraph 22).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly comprising one or more connection strips (Figure 5a element 222), but fail to teach the weather seals as claimed.
However, Bojanowski discloses a similar assembly (Figure 2) comprising weather seals with a curved portion (Figure 4 elements 34 and 36).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli as modified by Janssen with the weather seals of Bojanowski for the predictable result of preventing water migration from the roof top assembly to the vehicle (Bojanowski, Paragraph 22).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly, but fail to teach of the drain plugs as claimed.
However, Bojanowski discloses a similar assembly (Figure 2) comprising drain plugs with cavity and canal portions (Figure 4 element 38).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli as modified by Janssen with the drain plugs of Bojanowski for the predictable result of directing moisture to a designated leak path (Bojanowski, Paragraph 22).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpicelli as modified by Janssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prather (US Publication Number 20220371415).
Regarding claim 7, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly, but fail to teach of the specific claimed attachment mechanisms.
However, Prather discloses a similar roof top assembly (Figure 1 element 1500) that includes a plurality of folding clamps (Figure 15 elements 1514 and 1516) and turn latches (Figure 15 elements 1506, 1508, 1510 and 1512).
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli as modified by Janssen with the attachment mechanisms of Prather for the predictable result of providing an attachment mechanism the provides a positive attachment that can be visually verified from inside the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Volpicelli as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly, but fail to teach of a rear panel as claimed.
However, Prather discloses a similar roof top assembly (Figure 1 element 1500) that includes a rear panel (Figures 4 and 8 element 400) with a rear roof brace (Figure 8 element 800).
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the roof top assembly of Volpicelli as modified by Janssen with the rear panel of Prather for the predictable result of providing cover for the rear seat occupants.
Claim(s) 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunchock (US Patent Number 4330150) in view of Janssen.
Regarding claim 16, Dunchock discloses a method of attaching a roof top assembly comprising: attaching one or more connection strips to the vehicle (Figure 1 element 84); fitting one or more weather-proof seals on each of the one or more connection strips (Figures 1 and 7 element 82) ; snugly fitting a panel onto the vehicle such that it is in contact, or nearly in contact, with the one or more weather-proof seals, wherein the panel comprises one or more attachment mechanisms and is configured to insulate, and manipulating each of the one or more attachment mechanisms to secure the panel to the vehicle (Column 5 lines 11-23), but fails to teach of the panel being translucent or made of polycarbonate.
However, Janssen discloses a similar roof top assembly (Figure 2) that has a translucent polycarbonate panel (Paragraph 35) that is configured to provide ultra-violet (UV) protection from UVA and UVB (Paragraph 35). The examiner notes that polycarbonate provides broad spectrum UV protection as a material property and as noted by the applicant in Paragraphs 232 and 233 of the specification as filed.
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Dunchock with the translucent polycarbonate material of Janssen for the predictable result of providing a panel with translucency as well as rigidity and weather durability (Janssen, Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 19, Dunchock as modified by Janssen disclose the panel have the claimed properties (Janssen, Paragraph 35). The examiner notes that these are material properties of polycarbonate and are disclosed as such by the applicant in Table 1 of specification as filed.
Regarding claim 20, see Dunchock Figures 6 and 7 element 82.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunchock as modified by Janssen as applied to claim 16above, and further in view of Bojanowski.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Dunchock as modified by Janssen disclose the above roof top assembly, but fail to teach of mounting drain plugs as claimed.
However, Bojanowski discloses a similar method (Figure 2) comprising mounting drain plugs with cavity and canal portions (Figure 4 element 38).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dunchock as modified by Janssen with the mounting drain plugs step of Bojanowski for the predictable result of directing moisture to a designated leak path (Bojanowski, Paragraph 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Technical Data Sheet for Polycarbonate from Laminated Plastics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights