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 § 103
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 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(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss (WIPO Publication WO2016042494) in view of Crimson et al. (hereinafter Crimson, US Publication Number 20160046241).
Regarding claim 1, Voss discloses a vehicle hardtop assembly (Figure 1 element 11), comprising: a top roof panel (Figure 2 element 10); a first side panel configured to attach to the top roof panel via a first set of fasteners (Figure 2 element 12a, Page 3 Paragraphs 9 and 10); and a second side panel configured to attach to the top roof panel via a second set of fasteners (Figure 2 element 12a, Page 3 Paragraphs 9 and 10), a back rear frame configure to attach to the roof top panel as claimed (Figure 2 element 16, Page 3 Paragraphs 9 and 10) including a rear panel and a moveable window (Figure 2 element 16, Page 4 Paragraph 2), wherein the top roof panel is detached from the first side panel by removal or loosening of the first set of fasteners and/or the top roof panel is detached from the second side panel by removal or loosening of the second set of fasteners (Figure 9, Page 2 Paragraph 7), but fails to teach of the window being pivotally connected to the panel. The examiner notes that while Voss does not explicitly disclose removing or loosening the fasteners, on having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if bolts are used to attach panels, then they would be loosened or removed to detach the panels.
However, Crimson discloses a similar hardtop (Figure 7) with a pivotally connected window (Figure 7 element 207, Paragraph 46).
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 hardtop assembly of Voss with the pivoting window of Crimson for the predictable result of allowing full access to the cargo area without unduly limiting the size of the window (Crimson, Paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 3, Voss discloses the above hardtop assembly but is silent to a vertical offset angle of the back rear panel as claimed.
However, Crimson discloses a similar hardtop assembly (Figures 7 and 12) wherein the claimed elements are oriented to form a vertical offset angle (Figure 12 elements 203 and 204).
Regarding claim 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 hardtop assembly of Voss with the panel orientation of Crimson for the predictable result of being able to provide a larger window within the same overall envelope
Regarding claim 4, Voss as modified by Crimson discloses the above hardtop assembly, but fails to teach of the offset angle being in the range of 15°-25°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical offset angle within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of being able to provide a larger window within the same overall envelope.
Regarding claim 5, Voss as modified by Crimson discloses the above hardtop assembly, but fails to teach of the offset angle being 18°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical offset angle be 18°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This would provide for the predictable result of being able to provide a larger window within the same overall envelope.
Regarding claim 6, see the left and right side portions of figure 2 element 16 of Voss.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crimson.
Regarding claim 7, Crimson discloses a vehicle hardtop assembly (Figures 7, 8 and 12), comprising: a top roof panel (Figure 12 element 202); a back rear frame configured to attach to the top roof panel via a first set of fasteners, the back rear frame includes a back rear panel and a rear window pivotally coupled to the back rear panel (Figure 7 elements 207 and 212, Paragraphs 46 and 65); a first side panel configured to attach to the top roof panel via a second set of fasteners (Figure 12 element 203); and a second side panel configured to attach to the top roof panel via a third set of fasteners (Figure 12 element 203), wherein based on an angular orientation of the rear segments of the first and second side panels, the back rear panel is oriented with an offset angle (Figures 12 elements 203 and 204), but is silent as to the value of the offset angle.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical offset angle within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of being able to provide a larger window within the same overall envelope.
Regarding claim 9, Crimson discloses the above hardtop assembly, but fails to teach of the offset angle being 18°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical offset angle be 18°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This would provide for the predictable result of being able to provide a larger window within the same overall envelope.
Regarding claim 10, see figure 12 the left and right hand portions of element 204.
Claim(s) 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crimson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Voss.
Regarding claim 8, Crimson discloses the above hardtop assembly wherein the top panel is detached for the back rear frame by loosening or removing the first set of fasteners (Paragraph 65), but fails to teach of the side panels being similarly detached.
However, Voss discloses a similar hardtop assembly (Figure 1 element 11) where the side panels are detached as claimed (Figure 9, Page 2 Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 8, 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 hardtop assembly of Crimson as modified by Dost with the fasteners of Voss for the predictable result of easing manufacturing and allowing worn connectors to be easily replaced.
Regarding claim 12, See Voss Figure 4, Figure 9 element 28, Page 2 paragraphs 1 and 7 and Page 3 paragraphs 9 and 10 and Crimson Paragraph 16.
Regarding claim 13, See Voss Figure 9 element 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
Claim 11 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments that Voss does not show all of the claimed elements, the examiner notes that the current rejection notes the deficiencies of Voss and has made a combination rejection with Crimson. This rejection is similar to the rejection of claim 2 made in the previous action. The applicant has not argued the combination to Voss and Crimson with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
