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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 first, second, third and fourth end attachment points are vertically spaced-apart from each of the first and second side attachment points 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omoto et al (US 5,169,206) in view of Pfalzgraf (US 2002/0167202).
As concerns claim 1, Omoto et al (US 5,169,206) discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof including a roof opening (2a); and
a panel (3) configurable (via a command mechanism) between a fully closed position in which the panel fully covers the roof opening and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the roof opening is uncovered by the panel, wherein the panel is moveable from the fully closed position to a first open position by movement of the panel in a first direction (as the front of 3 moves backward), and wherein the panel is moveable from the fully closed position to a second open position by movement of the panel in a second direction opposite the first direction (as the rear of 3 moves forward).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Omoto fails to specify, however, wherein the panels are manually configurable.
Pfalzgraf (US 2002/0167202) discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof including a roof opening (Paragraph [0030] “common roof opening”); and
a panels (15 and 21) manually configurable (Paragraph [0014]) between a fully closed position in which the panel fully covers the roof opening and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the roof opening is uncovered by the panel, wherein the panel is moveable from the fully closed position to a first open position by movement of the panel in a first direction, and wherein the panel is moveable from the fully closed position to a second open position by movement of the panel in a second direction opposite the first direction. (At least Figures 1 and 5 illustrate this configuration.)
PNG
media_image2.png
249
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Omoto as taught by Pfalzgraf to include the capability of manually configuring the panel, for the expected benefit of being able to close or open the panels without the use of a motor or need for power, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 2, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
when the panel (Omoto - 3) is in the first open position, a first portion of the roof opening on a side of the panel opposite the first direction is uncovered by the panel, and when the panel is in the second open position, a second portion of the roof opening on a side of the panel opposite the second direction is uncovered by the panel. (Omoto - Figure 1 / Pfalzgraf – Figures 1-6)
As concerns claim 3, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein the panel is configurable such that both the first portion of the roof opening and the second portion of the roof opening are simultaneously uncovered by the panel. (Omoto - Figure 1 / Pfalzgraf – Fgures 5 and 6)
As concerns claim 14, the combination further discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the panel includes a first end, a second end opposite the first end, a first side extending between the first and second ends, and a second side opposite the first side and extending between the first and second ends, the roof opening includes a first end, a second end opposite the first end, a first side extending between the first and second ends, and a second side opposite the first side and extending between the first and second ends, the panel includes a plurality of pins (Omoto - at least 23, see Figures 2a and 2b) projecting from the first side and the second side (Omoto - Figure 1 illustrates such a panel), a first track (Omoto - 5) adjacent the first side of the roof opening receives the pins projecting from the first side of the panel, and a second track (Omoto - 5) adjacent the second side of the roof opening receives the pins projecting from the second side of the panel.
As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
a beam (Pfalzgraf - Figure 12 above 18 and 24) projecting across the roof opening, a first portion of the panel is on a side of the beam opposite the first direction, and a second portion of the panel is on a side of the beam opposite the second direction.
As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 15, wherein the first and second portions of the panel are independently moveable. (Pfalzgraf - Figures 1-3 illustrate such movement)
As concerns claim 18, Omoto discloses a method, comprising:
moving a panel (Omoto - 3) from a fully closed position in which the panel fully covers a roof opening in a roof of a motor vehicle to a first open position by moving the panel in a first direction;
moving the panel from the first open position to the fully closed position; and manually moving the panel from the fully closed position to a second open position by movement of the panel in a second direction opposite the first direction. (According to Omoto, the front and rear section of the panel are independently operable; Column 8, Lines 3-32)
Omoto fails to specify, however, wherein the panels are manually configurable.
Pfalzgraf (US 2002/0167202) discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof including a roof opening (Paragraph [0030] “common roof opening”); and
a panels (15 and 21) manually configurable (Paragraph [0014]) between a fully closed position in which the panel fully covers the roof opening and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the roof opening is uncovered by the panel, wherein the panel is moveable from the fully closed position to a first open position by movement of the panel in a first direction, and wherein the panel is moveable from the fully closed position to a second open position by movement of the panel in a second direction opposite the first direction. (At least Figures 1 and 5 illustrate this configuration.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Omoto as taught by Pfalzgraf to include the capability of manually configuring the panel, for the expected benefit of being able to close or open the panels without the use of a motor or need for power, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 20, the combination discloses the method as recited in claim 18, wherein:
the step of moving the panel to the first open position includes moving a first portion of the panel relative to a beam (Pfalzgraf – Figure 12, shown above 18 and 24) projecting across the roof opening, and the step of moving the panel to the second open position includes moving a second portion of the panel relative to the beam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As concerns claims 4 and 19, the panel is claimed as having at least one clamp, configured to selectively attach and detach the panel to a plurality of attachment points. The prior art found, that allows for the movement and configurability of claim 1 does not also provide clamping mechanisms that cooperate with a plurality of attachment points as further defined in claim 4.
While there are rigid panels that indeed have clamps, such as Bernath (US 12,037,824), and Pizzuti (US 3,993,348), these clamp systems would not have been obvious to provide on the soft panel systems of Omoto and Pfalzgraf because they would cause the systems to stop functioning, by either adding too much weight or pacing mechanical elements on the panels that would interfere with proper fitment in the roof opening.
As concerns claim 17, similarly, in order to perform the movement claimed by depended-upon claim 1, a soft panel is the only type which meets the claimed invention. The addition of a roof rack including cross-bars overlapping the roof opening of a soft roof as found is not found to be practical given previous roof designs. In order to maximize the open space, vehicles were designed to not have roof racks placed over the soft movable panels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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 on (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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights