DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 9-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfleghar (US 0798447 A).
Regarding claim 1, Pfleghar discloses “A canopy assembly (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) for a vehicle, the canopy assembly comprising: a first support (16; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) including a first canopy support portion (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) and a first connection support portion (16; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a second support (17; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) including a second canopy support portion (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) and a second connection support portion (17; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a canopy (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) supported by the first canopy support portion and the second canopy support portion, wherein each of the first canopy support portion and the second canopy support portion is configured to be oriented substantially parallel to a frame of the vehicle (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1), and wherein each of the first connection support portion and the second connection support potion extends downward from the first canopy support portion and the second canopy support portion (16 &17; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1), respectively; and a windshield assembly including: a first track (26; Pfleghar Fig 2) aligned with and coupled to the first canopy support portion; a second track (26; Pfleghar Fig 2 [assumed to be on both sides]) aligned with and coupled to the second canopy support portion; a windshield (1; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a windshield support (2; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the windshield and slidably coupled to the first track and the second track (9 &11; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6); a first link (10; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) pivotably coupled (13; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) to the windshield and the first connection support portion; and a second link (12; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) pivotably coupled to the windshield and the second connection support portion.”
PNG
media_image1.png
812
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1031
1600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 9, Pfleghar discloses “The canopy assembly of claim 1, wherein the windshield assembly includes a handle (3; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the windshield support (2; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6).”
With respect to claim 10, Pfleghar discloses “The canopy assembly of claim 1, wherein the windshield support (2; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) is a first windshield support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to a first end of the windshield, wherein the windshield assembly includes a second windshield support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to an opposing second end of the windshield, wherein the first link (10; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) and the second link (12; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) are pivotably coupled to the second windshield support.”
Regarding claim 11, Pfleghar discloses “The canopy assembly of claim 10, wherein the windshield assembly includes a handle (4; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the second windshield support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6).”
In reference to claim 19, Pfleghar discloses “19. A windshield assembly for a vehicle, the windshield assembly comprising: a first track (26; Pfleghar Fig 2); a second track (26; Pfleghar Fig 2 assumed to be on both sides); a windshield (1; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a windshield support (2; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the windshield and slidably coupled (9 &11; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) to the first track and the second track; a first link (10; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) pivotably coupled to the windshield; and a second link (12; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) pivotably coupled (13; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) to the windshield.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfleghar (US 0798447 A) in view of Mauro (US 8087711 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Pfleghar teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 1 wherein the windshield assembly includes a locking mechanism (6; Pfleghar Fig 2)…, the locking mechanism configured to secure the windshield in at least one of a closed position or an open position (Pfleghar lines 88-94).”
Pfleghar does not teach the locking mechanism as being coupled to the first link.
However, Mauro teaches a locking mechanism (110; Mauro Annotated Fig 1) configured for locking in numerous locations.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the locking mechanism of Mauro with the retractable windshield of Pfleghar with a reasonable expectation of success for a locking mechanism able to be configured in many different locations.
PNG
media_image3.png
736
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, the combination of Pfleghar and Mauro, as applied to claim 2, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 2, wherein: the windshield (1; Pfleghar annotated fig 1) is parallel to f the first connection support (16; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) and the second connection support (17; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) when in the closed position; and the windshield (1; Pfleghar fig 4) is positioned underneath and substantially parallel to the canopy (27; Pfleghar fig 4) when in the open position.”
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Pfleghar and Mauro, as applied to claim 2, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 2, wherein the locking mechanism (6; Pfleghar Fig 2) includes a pin (110; Mauro Annotated Fig 1) that engages with one or more apertures (20; Pfleghar Fig 2) defined by the first connection support portion.”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pfleghar and Mauro, as applied to claim 2, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 4, wherein the locking mechanism (6; Pfleghar Fig 2) includes a knob (Mauro Annotated Fig 1) that, when pulled, causes the pin to disengage from the one or more (20; Pfleghar Fig 2) apertures such that the windshield is movable.”
In reference to claim 6, the combination of Pfleghar and Mauro, as applied to claim 2, teaches “The vehicle of claim 5, wherein the pin (110; Mauro Annotated Fig 1) is spring-biased (Mauro col 2 lines 23-25).”
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Pfleghar and Mauro, as applied to claim 2, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 1, wherein the windshield assembly includes a locking mechanism (6; Pfleghar Fig 2) coupled to the first windshield support (Mauro teaches various locations for locking mechanism), the locking mechanism configured to secure the windshield in at least one position (Pfleghar lines 88-94).”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pfleghar and Mauro, as applied to claim 2, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 7, wherein the locking mechanism (6; Pfleghar Fig 2) includes a pin (110; Mauro Annotated Fig 1) that engages with one or more apertures (20; Pfleghar Fig 2) defined by the first track.”
In reference to claim 20, Pfleghar teaches “A canopy assembly for a vehicle, the canopy assembly comprising: a first canopy support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a second canopy support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a canopy (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1) supported by the first canopy support and the second canopy support; and a windshield assembly including: a first track (26; Pfleghar Fig 2) coupled to the first support; a second track (26; Pfleghar Fig 2 [assumed to be on both sides]) coupled to the second support; a windshield (1; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1); a first windshield support coupled to an upper portion of the windshield (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6), the first windshield support slidably coupled to the first track and the second track (9 &11; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6); a first handle (3; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the first windshield support; a second windshield support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to a lower portion of the windshield; a second handle (4; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the second windshield support; a first link (10; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) pivotably coupled (13; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) to the second windshield support and the first canopy support; a second link (12; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) pivotably coupled to the second windshield support and the second canopy support; and a locking mechanism (6; Pfleghar Fig 2)… with one or more apertures (20; Pfleghar Fig 2) defined by at least one of the first canopy support or the first track, the locking mechanism configured to secure the windshield in at least one of a closed position or an open position (Pfleghar lines 88-94).”
Pfleghar does not teach the locking mechanism to be a pin.
However, Mauro teaches a locking mechanism that is configured as a pin (110; Mauro Annotated Fig 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the locking pin of Mauro with the retractable windshield of Pfleghar with a reasonable expectation for success for a locking mechanism able to be configured in many different locations.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfleghar (US 0798447 A) in view of 이태경 (KR 102327556 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Pfleghar teaches ““The canopy assembly of claim 11, wherein the handle is a first handle (4; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) coupled to the second windshield support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) adjacent to the first link (10; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6), and wherein the windshield assembly includes a… second windshield support (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6) adjacent to the second link (12; Pfleghar Annotated Fig 6).”
Pfleghar does not teach a second handle on the second windshield support.
However, 이태경 teaches a second handle (340; 이태경 Fig 4) adjacent to a first handle on a retractable windshield.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second handle of 이태경 with the retractable windshield of Pfleghar with a reasonable expectation of success for a windshield capable of opening from either side of vehicle or for use of two hands.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfleghar (US 0798447 A) in view of Gaudet et al. (US 9499029 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Pfleghar teaches a retractable windshield (1; Pfleghar fig 4).
Pfleghar does not teach the windshield to be flexible or bendable.
However, Gaudet et al. claim 8 teaches a multi-panel flexible windshield.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have made the retractable windshield of Pfleghar to be flexible as taught in Gaudet et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for windshield panel better suited to withstand any torsional stress from guide pin misalignment.
9. Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfleghar (US 0798447 A) in view of Vanover (US 11472268 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Pfleghar teaches a retractable windshield (1; Pfleghar fig 4).
Pfleghar does not teach the windshield to have multiple panels.
However, Vanover teaches a windshield with a plurality of segments (110, 120 &130; Vanover Fig 7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the retractable windshield of Pfleghar with a plurality of segments as taught by Vanover with a reasonable expectation of success for a windshield better suited to compensate for any guide pin misalignment along the path of travel.
In reference to claim 15, the combination Pfleghar and Vanover, as applied to claim 14, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 14, wherein each segment (110; Vanover Fig 7) is pivotably coupled (140; Vanover Fig 7) to an adjacent segment (130; Vanover Fig 7).”
With respect to claim 16, the combination Pfleghar and Vanover, as applied to claim 14, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 14, wherein the plurality of segments (110, 120 &130; Vanover Fig 7) can be rolled around a storage support (27; Pfleghar Fig 4) coupled to the first canopy support portion and the second canopy support portion (Pfleghar Annotated Fig 1).”
Regarding claim 17, the combination Pfleghar and Vanover, as applied to claim 14, teaches “The canopy assembly of claim 14, wherein at least one segment (120; Vanover Fig 12) of the plurality of segments is stationary.”
In reference to claim 18, Pfleghar teaches a retractable windshield (1; Pfleghar fig 4).
Pfleghar does not teach an extension formed to complement to the vehicle body.
However, Vanover teaches an extension portion shaped to complement a body of the vehicle (120; Vanover Fig 7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the extension portion of Vanover with the retractable windshield of Pfleghar with a reasonable expectation of success for a better sealed windshield configuration, in the closed position.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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 5712705500. 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.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights