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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 2/7/2026. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the quality of the drawings was not adequate to discern any clear structure of the invention. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “the sliding bolt” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, line 4, “the roof” has no antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, “a sliding bolt” appears to be a double recitation of the sliding bolt recited in line 4.
In claim 1, line 8, “the cab” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 11, line 4, “the sliding bolt” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 11, line 4, “the roof” has no antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 11, lines 5-6, “a sliding bolt” appears to be a double recitation of the sliding bolt recited in line 4.
In claim 11, line 8, “the cab” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
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, 3, 4, 10-11, 13, 14, and 20-24 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.
In claims 1 and 11, due to the poor quality of the drawings, it is not clear what constitutes the structure of a "double hinge" or "double hinge attachment."
In claim 3, lines 2-3, "comprising: attached to a roof top accessory" does not grammatically make sense. Perhaps Applicant intended to recite --wherein the device to assist with the storage of roof panels is attached to a roof top accessory?--
In claims 21 and 24, it is not clear which panels Applicant is referring to by using the terms "the panels," "one panel," and "another panel." Previously Applicant has recited "one or more of panels" and "an additional panel."
Prior Art
Due to the problems with the drawings, the specific, disclosed invention could not be determined. Thus, prior art could not accurately be applied to the claims at this time. Once Applicant has submitted appropriate drawings any relevant prior art will then be applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has supplied new drawings; however, these drawings are not adequate. The lines are of such a quality that no clear structure can be determined from the drawings. Additionally, Applicant has not addressed any of the claim objections or 112(b) rejections that further make the claims undecipherable.
It is noted that claim 1 is only directed to a device comprising a double hinge. Language such as “positioned on the top back of a vehicle” or “where the double hinge slides on the sliding bolt” appear to be statements of intended use that do not further limit the structure of the device.
Any further discussion of the prior art, at this point, would be fruitless since the examiner cannot determined what the invention actually is.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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 J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612