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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect element number labeling. On Pg. 15, Ln. 3, the specification says the "guide protrusion 117", which is not the same associated element number 119 for the guide protrusion everywhere else in the disclosure.
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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the guide protrusion" in line 3 of the claim. The claim is dependent on claim 1, but the “guide protrusion” is taught in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rolwes discloses
an assembly (arrangement 200, Fig. 2) for moving a cover (lid 103, Fig. 1) for a vehicle roof (vehicle roof 101, Fig. 1), having:
- a deployment element (display element 113, Fig. 12) which has a twistable spring steel element (cable 117, Fig. 12) that extends in an elongate manner along a longitudinal axis (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 12 below; Paragraph [0031]), wherein
- the spring steel element (cable 117, Fig. 12) is coupleable, at a first end (first ending 114, Fig. 12) of the spring steel element (cable 117, Fig. 12), to a mechanical component (mechanical component 110, Fig. 2), wherein the mechanical component is coupleable to the cover (Paragraph [0033]),
- a radially protruding locking protrusion (locking pin 116, Fig. 12) is arranged at a second end (second end 115, Fig. 12) of the spring steel element (as shown in annotated Fig. 12 below; Paragraph [0035]),
- the locking protrusion (locking pin 116, Fig. 12) is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the spring steel element (cable 117, Fig. 12), by the spring steel element being twisted (Paragraph [0085]),
in order to be moved between a first state and a second state, wherein the spring steel element (cable 117, Fig. 12) is displaceable in the longitudinal direction relative to a guide rail (guide rail 107, Fig. 1) of the assembly in the first state and is locked so as to be unable to move in the longitudinal direction relative to the guide rail in the second state (Paragraph [0084]).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 from Rolwes
Regarding claim 11, Rolwes teaches all the limitations of the claim and further discloses wherein
the locking protrusion (locking pin 116, Fig. 12) is made from a plastic (Paragraph [0035]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rolwes teaches all the limitations of the claim, except for the guide protrusion being made from a plastic. The examiner takes Official Notice that plastic is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made such a protrusion out of plastic, like the locking protrusion disclosed in claim 11 of the instant application, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1) in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 5920159 A), henceforth Miller.
Regarding claim 7, Rolwes teaches all the limitations of the claim, except for
wherein the deployment element is locally deformed in the region of the locking protrusion in order to avoid rotation between the locking protrusion and the deployment element.
Rolwes specifically does not disclose the local deformation, but that is an obvious element of crimping something to a cable, such as taught by Miller.
Miller teaches crimping bead-like members onto a cable (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below; Col. 5, Ln. 66-Col. 6, Ln. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Miller
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cable of Rolwes to have a local deformation for the locking pin to be crimped onto for securing reasons, such as Miller teaches about crimping to a cable, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to attach the locking protrusion to the cable in a known and reliable manner.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1) in view of Schumacher (DE Patent Application 102011013035 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rolwes teaches all the limitations of the claim, except for
a plurality of sliding bodies which are arranged on the deployment element between the first end and the second end.
PNG
media_image3.png
218
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Schumacher
Schumacher discloses a similar deployment element for a roof cover with
a plurality of sliding bodies (support elements 9, Fig. 2) which are arranged on the deployment element (drive cable 3, Fig. 2) between the first end and the second end (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above; Paragraph [0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the deployment element of Rolwes to have support elements as taught by Schumacher with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to allow for sliding between the drive cable and the guide sleeve with only the support elements in contact with the guide sleeve (Schumacher; Paragraph [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9 allowed.
The primary reason for allowable subject matter in claims 2 and 3 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitation of the radially protruding guide protrusion arranged on the spring steel element/deployment element. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim except for the guide protrusion on the spring steel element. These deficiencies in Rolwes are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 4 and 6 are allowable since they depend on claim 2.
The primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 8 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the locking protrusion is rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the bar element. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1) and Färber (WO 2017202607 A1). Rolwes teaches all the limitations of the claim, except that the deployment element has a steel spring element, not a bar element, where the locking protrusion is able to rotate relative to the bar element. Färber teaches a bar element that meets many of the limitations of the claim, but does not have a locking protrusion that is capable of rotating relative to the bar element. These deficiencies in Rolwes and Färber are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claim 9 is allowable since it depends on claim 8.
Claim 12 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 lack of antecedent basis rejection would be overcome if the claim is instead dependent on claim 2.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 12 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation involving the guide protrusion. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Rolwes (DE Patent Application 102019113142 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the new element of the helical locking slotted guide, except for the guide protrusion on the spring steel element, as was indicated above for claim 2. These deficiencies in Rolwes are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not relied upon all teach a manner of an assembly for moving a cover for a vehicle roof, with similar spring steel elements or bar elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights