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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 April 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “a rooftop assembly according to claim 8”. It is believed that this is a typo, and that claim 8 is intended to be dependent upon claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 1-9 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 regards to claim 1, the water drainage channel and the electric housing are written in the alternative with an “and/or” limitation. However, the electric housing requires “said water drainage channel.” It is unclear how the electric housing could also recite the water drainage channel when written in the alternative, and thus it is unclear what is and isn’t claimed. For the purposes of examination, the “and/or” limitation will be considered an “and” limitation due to the electric housing limitations requiring “said water drainage channel.” Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in Claim 1. While Han (CN 107458397 A) teaches a rooftop crossmember and a lower structural element shaped (3) (Fig. 2) and attached together (as seen in Fig. 4) and form a hollow structure integrating means (7) configured to perform non-mechanical functions (see machine translation, para. [0007]); said means configured to perform non-mechanical functions to comprise:
a water drainage channel (7) (para. [0007])
Han does not teach the water drainage channel being located on a central part of said rooftop crossmember and extending substantially transversally through said rooftop crossmember; and an electric housing within an empty volume located between said upper and said lower structural elements of said rooftop crossmember between said water drainage channel and an extremity of said rooftop crossmember.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water drainage channel of Han to be located on a central part of said rooftop crossmember and extending transversally through said rooftop cross member and also include an electric housing within an empty volume between said water drainage channel and an extremity of said rooftop crossmember as the modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require a complete redesign of the rooftop crossmember of Han. Furthermore, Examiner indicates agreement with the International Search Report in regards to the non-obviousness of claim 1.
Thus, claim 1 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 is still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above in regards to the “and/or” limitation in combination with “said water drainage channel” making the claim unclear as to what is and is not claimed. Claims 2-9 are also non-obvious in view of the prior art of record due to dependence upon claim 1, but are also still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yue (CN 113479222 A) discloses a vehicle body and a railroad car with a water drainage channel, however the drainage channel is not in the center of the rooftop structure, and there are no electrical parts located in hollow sections formed in the structure.
Wang (CN 106515764 A) discloses a roof drain structure and track vehicle with a water drainage channel, however the drainage channel is not in the center of the rooftop structure, and there are no electrical parts located in hollow sections formed in the structure.
Heidan (DE 102014222692 B3) discloses a roof drain structure for a passenger car, with an electrical motor to control the opening/closing of the roof structure. However the electrical motor is not located in a hollow portion of the structure near the drainage channels.
Sharp (US 6662509 B2) discloses a ridge vent for tile roofs.
Munch (FR 2387142 A1) discloses a rail vehicle water drain gutter discharging off the side of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights