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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sunroof, vehicle, axial limit structure, and connecting member must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an axial limiting structure capable of limiting an axial movement of the first strut in a direction opposite to an axial assembling direction of the first pivot structure within a predetermined pivot angle range, from claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “A mounting structure for a wind deflector of a sunroof of a vehicle” in Ln. 1-2 of the claim, in which only the “mounting structure” is positively recited. In Ln. 2 and Ln. 3 of the claim, the “wind deflector” and “a frame of the sunroof” are positively recited. The claimed structure is thus unclear and indefinite as to what is actually intended to be claimed as part of the structure. This indefiniteness also applies to the “first strut” and “second strut”, which are components of the “wind deflector”, and “a first pivot structure” which is “disposed at an end of the first strut”. It is also unclear what the scope of the limitation “the first pivot structure is configured to be adapted to be axially assembled to the first support seat along the pivot axis” since it does not positively recite the “first support seat”, which was previously positively recited in the claim. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an axial structure capable of limiting an axial movement” in Ln. 2-3 of the claim. The scope of the claim is indefinite, since it is unclear what “capable of limiting” is intended to include. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 13 uses the phrase “and/or” in a situation where it should not be used. Regarding the “first support seat”, it can be configured as one or the other of “a single-plate structure” or “an injection-molded part”, but cannot be both (as indicated by “and”). Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sunroof according to claim 11" in Ln. 1-2 of the claim. It appears this should be according to claim 14 instead of claim 11. 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 1-5, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN Patent Application 209257852 U).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses
A mounting structure (spoiler arm 21, Fig. 4A) for a wind deflector of a sunroof of a vehicle,
wherein the wind deflector (spoiler device 1, Fig. 1) comprises a first strut and a second strut (spoiler arms 21, Fig. 4A) disposed facing each other (as can be seen in Fig. 1; Paragraph [0043] and [0044] of the PDF Machine Translation provided),
and a frame (as shown in annotated Fig. 4A below) of the sunroof is provided with a first support seat for being pivotally connected to the first strut and a second support seat for being pivotally connected to the second strut (spoiler holding portions 31, Fig. 4A; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4A below),
so that the wind deflector (spoiler device 1, Fig. 1) is pivotable about a pivot axis in an assembled state (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4A below; Paragraph [0044] of the PDF Machine Translation provided),
the mounting structure (spoiler arm 21, Fig. 4A) comprising:
a first pivot structure (pin 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) disposed at an end of the first strut so as to allow the first strut to be pivotally connected to the first support seat (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4A below; Paragraph [0044] of the PDF Machine Translation provided),
wherein the first pivot structure (pins 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) is configured to be adapted to be axially assembled to the first support seat (spoiler holding portions 31, Fig. 4A) along the pivot axis (Paragraph [0044] of the PDF Machine Translation provided).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 4A from Liu
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the mounting structure (spoiler arm 21, Fig. 4A) further comprises:
a second pivot structure (pin 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) disposed at an end of the second strut (spoiler arms 21, Fig. 4A) so as to allow the second strut to be pivotally connected to the second support seat (Paragraph [0044] of the Machine Translation provided),
wherein the second pivot structure (pin 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) is configured in the same way as the first pivot structure (Paragraph [0044] of the Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the first pivot structure (pin 26, Fig. 4A) is configured to be assembled to the first support seat (spoiler holding portion 31, Fig. 4A) in a form-fit manner without causing material deformation of the first support seat and/or the first pivot structure during assembling (Paragraph [0044] of the Machine Translation provided does not disclose material deformation, thus it should be a form-fit).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the first pivot structure (pin 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) comprises a pivot shaft (pin 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) for axial insertion into a pivot hole (hole 36, Fig. 3A) formed in the first support seat (Paragraph [0048] of the Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the pivot shaft (pin 26, Figs. 1 and 4A) extends axially outwards in the assembled state; and/or the pivot hole (hole 36, Fig. 3A) is formed as a through-hole (as can be seen in Figs. 3A and 4A; Paragraphs [0044] and [0048] of the Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A wind deflector (spoiler device 1, Fig. 1) for a sunroof of a vehicle, wherein the wind deflector (spoiler device 1, Fig. 1) comprises the mounting structure according to claim 1 (as applied above in claim 1) and a connecting member (spoiler 2, Fig. 1) connected between the first strut and the second strut (as can be seen in Fig. 1; Paragraph [0043] of the Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A bearing structure (spoiler holding portions 31, Fig. 4A) for pivotably carrying the wind deflector according to claim 11 (as applied above in claim 11),
wherein the bearing structure comprises the first support seat (spoiler holding portions 31, Fig. 4A ) for being pivotally connected to the first strut (spoiler arm 21, Fig. 4A) by the mounting structure (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4A above; Paragraph [0044] of the Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The bearing structure according to claim 12 (as applied above in claim 12),
wherein the first support seat (spoiler holding portion 31, Fig. 4A) is configured as a single-plate structure; and/or the first support seat is configured as an injection-molded part (Paragraph [0047] of the Machine Translation provided discloses that the spoiler holding portion 31 is a tongue-shaped protruding plate formed by press-molding the guide rails, thus it is a single plate structure).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A sunroof (sunroof apparatus, Paragraph [0041] of the Machine Translation provided; as shown fully in Fig. 1 above) for a vehicle,
wherein the sunroof (sunroof apparatus, Paragraph [0041] of the Machine Translation provided; as shown fully in Fig. 1 above) comprises the mounting structure according to claim 1 (as applied above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A vehicle (Paragraph [0040] of the Machine Translation provided discloses that the sunroof device is mounted on a roof of a vehicle; not shown in Figures), wherein the vehicle comprises the sunroof according to claim 11 (as applied above in claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A method for assembling the wind deflector (spoiler device 1, Fig. 1) according to claim 11 (as applied above in claim 11),
the method at least comprising: mounting the first pivot structure (pin 26, Fig. 4A) along the pivot axis to the first support seat (spoiler holding portion 31, Fig. 4A; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4A above; Paragraph [0044] of the Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A sunroof (sunroof apparatus, Paragraph [0041] of the Machine Translation provided; as shown fully in Fig. 1 above) for a vehicle,
wherein the sunroof (sunroof apparatus, Paragraph [0041] of the Machine Translation provided; as shown fully in Fig. 1 above) comprises the wind deflector according to claim 11 (as applied above in claim 11).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A sunroof (sunroof apparatus, Paragraph [0041] of the Machine Translation provided; as shown fully in Fig. 1 above) for a vehicle,
wherein the sunroof (sunroof apparatus, Paragraph [0041] of the Machine Translation provided; as shown fully in Fig. 1 above) comprises the bearing structure according to claim 12 (as applied above in claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 6 and 7 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations of the equivalent structures of the axial limit structure/second arm for limiting axial movement of the first strut and first support seat, respectively. 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 Liu (CN Patent Application 209257852 U), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the first strut, but does not teach the equivalent axial limit structure/second arm structure. These deficiencies in Liu are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 8-10 are dependent on claim 7, and thus also are indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon teach similar wind deflector devices mounted by struts onto a sunroof for a vehicle.
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
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights