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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietl (U.S. 2003/0155795A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dietl discloses an arrangement for moving a cover (2, figs. 8-9 and refer to para 0028) for a vehicle roof (top surface of 9), having:
- a guide rail (5, 37, para 0028 and 0039) which extends in a longitudinal direction (se fig. 2),
- a deployment lever (30) for raising a rear edge of the cover (2, see figs. 8-9: the cover is raised including the rear edge),
- a bearing carriage (3) which is retained in the guide rail (5, 37) so as to be able to be displaced in the longitudinal direction (see figs. 8-9),
- a drive lever (31) which is rotatably coupled at a first end (via 6) to the deployment lever (30) and which has at a second end a guide element (13, 14, and/or 15), wherein the guide element (13, 14, and/or 15) is supported between the bearing carriage (3) and the guide rail (5, 37) in order to transmit a movement of the bearing carriage (3) in the longitudinal direction to the deployment lever (30; see figs. 8-9 and refer to para 0039).
Regarding claim 2, Dietl discloses wherein the guide element (13, 14) has at a first end (top end of 14, see fig. 5) a bearing projection (tip of 14 in engagement with 24) which is arranged in a recess (24) of the bearing carriage (3) and which is supported on a base of the recess (24; see fig. 5 and refer to para 0035).
Regarding claim 3, Dietl discloses wherein the guide element (13, 14) has at a second end (right end of 14) a protruding projection (“protruding/expanding” right end of 14; see fig. 4 showing a better illustration), wherein the second end is opposite the first end in a longitudinal extent of the guide element (see figs. 5-7), and wherein the projection protrudes transversely relative to the longitudinal extent and is supported on the guide rail (see figs. 5-9).
Regarding claim 4, Dietl discloses wherein the guide element (13, 14, and/or 15) has at the second end thereof a stop (as broadly claimed, the “stop” can be interpreted to be the extreme end of 14 where it “stops”) which is supported on a vertical guide path of the guide rail (as shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Dietl discloses wherein the guide element (13, 14, and/or 15) at the second end thereof is in direct contact with the guide rail (5, 35; see figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 7, Dietl discloses wherein the bearing carriage (3) has a connection to a locking element (12; see fig. 8 and refer to para 0030) which in a first state can be displaced in the longitudinal direction relative to a guide rail (see figs. 8-9) and in a second state is locked against a movement in the longitudinal direction relative to the guide rail (when the cover is closed, it is not moving).
Regarding claim 8, Dietl discloses wherein the bearing carriage (3) has a protruding region (23, fig. 7) which laterally supports the guide element (13, 15; see fig. 5-7).
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 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. 2003/0155795A1), in view of Wingen (U.S. 2019/0023110A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dietl teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Dietl is silent to the material of the guide element being a plastics material member which is supported between the bearing carriage and the guide rail.
Wingen teaches that it is generally known to use plastic materials to make components of levers using in vehicle roof covers (refer to para 0011 and 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the guide element of plastics material member supported between the bearing carriage and the guide rail, since it’s known to manufacture vehicle roof cover parts from plastic. Also, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, Dietl discloses a method for installing an arrangement (see fig. 1) for moving a cover (2, figs. 8-9 and refer to para 0028) for a vehicle roof (top surface of 9), comprising:
- providing a guide rail (5, 37, para 0028 and 0039) which extends in a longitudinal direction (se fig. 2),
- providing a bearing carriage (3) which is retained in the guide rail (5, 37; para 0028 and 0039) so as to be able to be displaced in the longitudinal direction (see figs. 5-9),
- providing a deployment lever (31) having a drive lever (30) which is rotatably coupled at a first end (via 6) to the deployment lever (31) and which has at a second end a guide element (13, 14, and/or 15),
- moving the guide element (13, 14, and/or 15) in a vertical direction (from fig. 8 to fig. 9) in the direction of the deployment lever (31; see fig. 9), wherein the vertical direction is orientated transversely relative to the longitudinal direction (see fig. 9)
However, Dietl fails to teach: - redirecting a second end of the guide element and of the guide rail in a transverse direction relative to each other, wherein the second end of the guide element faces away from the bearing carriage, wherein the transverse direction is orientated transversely relative to the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction,
- inserting a first end of the guide element into the bearing carriage, and
- pivoting the second end of the guide element into the guide rail, and thereby
- arranging the guide element between the bearing carriage and the guide rail so that the guide element is supported between the bearing carriage and the guide rail.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knopfle et al. (U.S. 2020/0130484A1), Boots (U.S. 4,601,512), Heidan (U.S. 2018/0326823A1), Schlapp (U.S. 4,802,707), and lux et al. (U.S. 4,679,846).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights