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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the drawings, specification, and claims have overcome each objection and 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 04/03/2026.
Applicant's argument with respect to the prior art rejections has been considered and found partially persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues, and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Applicant argues Craane in view of Inafla does not teach a switching behavior has been considered and found not persuasive. Inalfa recites “contact points…are an interruptible contact, allowing the power the LEDs (to be) interrupted,” wherein the contacts are functioning as a “switch” to provide power to the LEDs. Inalfa expressly discloses contact points that selectively establish and interrupt an electrical connection for supplying power to the LEDs. Therefore, the contact points operate as an electrical switching arrangement wherein an interruptible electrical contact provides a switching operation. This switching behavior would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success as taught by Inalfa (Fig. 3-5). Although Infala discloses an additional embodiment where a battery can be provided to power the LED after the contact points are separated, the switching functionality of the contact points to selectively control when electrical power is delivered to the LEDs from a wired source still occurs. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a skilled person would not be able to combine any of the references to teach the inventions of claim 3 and 13 has been considered and found not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination of Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Craane discloses an open roof structure for a vehicle. Inalfa discloses an open-roof assembly comprising of a roof closing element, light sources coupled to the roof closing element, and contacts that power the light sources. Vig discloses a Hall effect ferromagnetic proximity sensor for detecting the presence of passing of a ferromagnetic article. Accordingly, 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 open roof assembly of Craane by including a light and power switch as taught by Inalfa with a reasonable expectation of success in order operate a light coupled to the moveable roof panel as taught by Inalfa and to substitute contact points of Craane in view of Inalfa with the Hall sensor, magnet, and ferrometal as taught by Vig, with a reasonable expectation of success in order operate a switch because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Modifying Cranne to include the teaching of Inalfa and Vig would have represented a predictable use of known elements according to their known functions. As recognized in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), it is proper to combine known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, even if the references do not expressly teach the combination. The result of combining these known elements would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill because each component performs its well-understood function. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craane et al. (US12,005,765) in view of Inalfa Roof Systems Group BV, (DE202015105634), hereinafter referred to as Inalfa and Vig et al. (US5,781,005).
Claims 1. Craane discloses: An open-roof assembly (open roof assembly comprising of 2a moveable panel and 2b fixed panel of a vehicle roof 1, Fig. 1A) for covering or at least partly uncovering an opening in a vehicle roof (3a first roof opening, Fig. 1A), the open-roof assembly comprising:
a frame member (5 frame, Fig. 1B);
a moveably arranged closure member supported by the frame member (2a moveable panel, Fig. 1A-1B).
Craane does not disclose: a lighting assembly,
wherein the lighting assembly comprises a switch device and a light source, the switch device being configured and arranged to either;
detect presence of a detectable part of the open-roof assembly relative to the switch device without physically contacting the detectable part, when the closure member is in a closed position covering the opening in the vehicle roof, or
detect absence of the detectable part, when the closure member is in a position at least partly uncovering the opening in the vehicle roof, and
wherein the lighting assembly being configured to switch off the light source, when the switch device detects absence of the detectable part.
wherein the switch device comprises a Hall sensor and a magnetic element,
wherein the magnetic element is arranged at a first side of the Hall sensor and wherein the detectable part comprises a ferrometal, and wherein the detectable part is arranged at a second side of the Hall sensor, when the closure member is in the closed position, the second side being opposite of the first side.
Inalfa discloses an open-roof assembly comprising of a roof closing element, light sources coupled to the roof closing element, and contacts that power the light sources.
Inalfa teaches: a lighting assembly (14 light sources comprising of LEDs, Fig. 3-5; [0020]),
wherein the lighting assembly comprises a switch device (15A, 15B contact points, Fig. 3-5; [0020]) and a light source (LED, [0020]) the switch device being configured and arranged to either;
detect presence of a detectable part of the open-roof assembly relative to the switch device without physically contacting the detectable part, when the closure member is in a closed position covering the opening in the vehicle roof, or
detect absence of the detectable part, when the closure member is in a position at least partly uncovering the opening in the vehicle roof (15A and 15B disconnect when 3 plate opens, Fig. 5; [0020]), and
wherein the lighting assembly being configured to switch off the light source, when the switch device detects absence of the detectable part (power disruption implicitly turns off LEDs, [0020]).
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 open roof assembly of Craane by including a light and power switch as taught by Inalfa with a reasonable expectation of success in order operate a light coupled to the moveable roof panel as taught by Inalfa (Fig. 3-5).
Craane in view of Inalfa does not teach: the switch device comprises a Hall sensor and a magnetic element, wherein the magnetic element is arranged at a first side of the Hall sensor and wherein the detectable part comprises a ferrometal, and wherein the detectable part is arranged at a second side of the Hall sensor, the second side being opposite of the first side.
Vig discloses a Hall effect ferromagnetic proximity sensor for detecting the presence of passing of a ferromagnetic article.
Vig teaches: the switch device comprises a Hall sensor (12 Hall sensor, Fig. 19) and a magnetic element (13 magnet structure, Fig. 19),
wherein the magnetic element is arranged at a first side of the Hall sensor (Fig. 19) and wherein the detectable part comprises a ferrometal (11 ferromagnetic target, Fig. 19), and wherein the detectable part is arranged at a second side of the Hall sensor (11 is on the opposite side of 12, Fig. 19), the second side being opposite of the first side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute contact points of Craane in view of Inalfa with the Hall sensor, magnet, and ferrometal as taught by Vig (Fig. 19), with a reasonable expectation of success in order operate a switch because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 11. Craane discloses: A vehicle comprising:
a fixed roof (1 vehicle roof, Fig. 1A) having an opening;
an open-roof assembly for covering or at least partly uncovering an opening in a vehicle roof, the open-roof assembly comprising:
a frame member;
a moveably arranged closure member supported by the frame member.
Craane does not disclose: a lighting assembly,
wherein the lighting assembly comprises a switch device and a light source, the switch device being configured and arranged to either;
detect presence of a detectable part of the open-roof assembly relative to the switch device without physically contacting the detectable part, when the closure member is in a closed position covering the opening in the vehicle roof, or
detect absence of the detectable part, when the closure member is in a position at least partly uncovering the opening in the vehicle roof, and
wherein the lighting assembly being configured to switch off the light source, when the switch device detects absence of the detectable part
wherein the switch device comprises a Hall sensor and a magnetic element,
wherein the magnetic element is arranged at a first side of the Hall sensor and wherein the detectable part comprises a ferrometal, and wherein the detectable part is arranged at a second side of the Hall sensor, when the closure member is in the closed position, the second side being opposite of the first side (see previously rejected claim 1).
Inalfa further teaches: a lighting assembly, wherein the lighting assembly comprises a switch device and a light source the switch device being configured and arranged to either;
detect presence of a detectable part of the open-roof assembly relative to the switch device without physically contacting the detectable part, when the closure member is in a closed position covering the opening in the vehicle roof, or
detect absence of the detectable part, when the closure member is in a position at least partly uncovering the opening in the vehicle roof and wherein the lighting assembly being configured to switch off the light source, when the switch device detects absence of the detectable part (see previously rejected claim 1).
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 open roof assembly of Craane by including a light and power switch as taught by Inalfa with a reasonable expectation of success in order operate a light coupled to the moveable roof panel as taught by Inalfa (Fig. 3-5).
Craane in view of Inalfa does not teach: the switch device comprises a Hall sensor and a magnetic element, wherein the magnetic element is arranged at a first side of the Hall sensor and wherein the detectable part comprises a ferrometal, and wherein the detectable part is arranged at a second side of the Hall sensor, the second side being opposite of the first side.
Vig further teaches: the switch device comprises a Hall sensor and a magnetic element,
wherein the magnetic element is arranged at a first side of the Hall sensor and wherein the detectable part comprises a ferrometal, and wherein the detectable part is arranged at a second side of the Hall sensor, the second side being opposite of the first side (see previously rejected claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute contact points of Craane in view of Inalfa with the Hall sensor, magnet, and ferrometal as taught by Vig (Fig. 19), with a reasonable expectation of success in order operate a switch because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6 and 16. Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig teach: The open-roof assembly according to claim 1 or 11, wherein the lighting assembly comprises a first switch device (Inalfa: 15A contact point, Fig. 3-5) and a second switch device (Inalfa: 15B contact point, Fig. 3-5), the lighting assembly being configured to switch off the light source, when either one of the first and second switch device detects absence of the detectable part.
Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig is silent on a second switch, however, 15A and 15B contact points of Inalfa could function independently, therefore, 15B is interpreted as the second switch.
Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing a second switch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for 15A and 15B to perform as duplicate switches, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 7 and 17. Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig teach: The open-roof assembly according to claim 1 or 11, wherein the switch device is arranged on the frame member (Inalfa: 15B is posited on frame 5, Fig. 3-5), the detectable part being arranged on the closure member (Inalfa: 15A is positioned on 3 closing element, Fig. 3-5).
Claim 8 and 18. Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig teach: The open-roof assembly according to claim 1. Craane in view of Inalfa does not explicitly teach: wherein the switch device is mounted on the closure member (Inalfa: 15A is positioned on 3 closing element, Fig. 3-5), the detectable part being arranged on the frame member (Inalfa: 15B is posited on frame 5, Fig. 3-5).
Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig is silent on which of 15A and 15B contact points is the detectable component or the switch device as either could function as the detectable component or the switch device, therefore, 15A is interpreted as the detectable component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for 15B to the detectable component and 15A to the switch device, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order operate a switch because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9 and 19. Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig teach: The open-roof assembly according to claim 1, wherein the frame member is arranged in a frame plane and the closure member is arranged in the frame plane, when the closure member is in the closed position (Craane: frame and closure member in plane of 1 roof; Fig. 1A; Col. 5, lines 45-49),
wherein the closure member comprises a front end (FE front end, Fig. 1B) and a rear end (RE rear end, Fig. 1B),
wherein the closure member is rotatable at the front end to move the rear end out of the frame plane to a tilted position (FE rotates to orient 2a in a tilted position, Fig. 1A; Col. 5, lines 49-53).
Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig does not teach: the switch device is arranged either on the rear end of the closure member or on an edge section of the frame member adjacent to the rear end of the closure member, when the closure member is in the closed position.
Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig discloses the claimed invention except for the switch positioned on the rear or adjacent to the rear of the closing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the switch device from the front of the closure member to the rear of the closure member, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10 and 20. Craane in view of Inalfa and Vig teaches: The open-roof assembly according to claim 1 or 11, wherein the frame member is arranged in a frame plane and the closure member is arranged in the frame plane, when the closure member is in the closed position (Craane: frame and closure member in plane of 1 roof; Fig. 1A; Col. 5, lines 45-49),
wherein the closure member comprises a front end (Craane: FE front end, Fig. 1B) and a rear end (Craane: RE rear end, Fig. 1B),
wherein the closure member comprises a front end (Craane: FE front end, Fig. 1B) and a rear end (Craane: RE rear end, Fig. 1B),
wherein the closure member is rotatable at the front end to move the rear end out of the frame plane to a tilted position (Craane: FE rotates to orient 2a in a tilted position, Fig. 1A; Col. 5, lines 49-53), and
wherein the switch device is arranged either on a front end of the closure member (Inalfa: switch device positioned at front end of 3 closing element when closed, Fig, 3-5) or on an edge section of the frame member adjacent to the front end of the closure member, when the closure member is in the closed position.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights