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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the prohibited term “discloses” and additionally is over the 150 word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiramatsu (US 9,248,728).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiramatsu discloses a deflector device 12 for a sunroof device on a vehicle roof, comprised of an upper body 24, wherein the upper body extends in a vehicle width direction (Fig. 3); a pair of deflector arms 26, wherein the pair of deflector arms respectively extend from two ends of the upper body in the vehicle width direction toward the rear of the vehicle (Fig. 3), and the upper body moves up and down as the pair of deflector arms rotate around rear end portions of the pair of deflector arms; a lower body 20, wherein the lower body is mounted on a front housing of the sunroof device (Fig. 4) and extends in the vehicle width direction; and a mesh component 29, where the mesh component is integrally formed with the upper body, the mesh component is separately formed from the lower body, and a lower side edge of the mesh component is connected to the lower body by sewing or welding (mesh component is heat welded – molded to the lower; column 3, line 32-40).
Regarding Claim 2, a plurality of protrusions are provided on the front housing (see annotated Fig. 4 below), a plurality of holes are provided on the lower body, and the lower body is fixed to the front housing by respectively inserting the plurality of protrusions into the plurality of holes.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, the lower body 20 is integral (single combined piece).
Regarding Claim 7, Hiramatsu includes a pair of guide rails 14, wherein the pair of guide rails extend in a front-rear direction of the vehicle, and are arranged on both side edges of a roof opening (Fig. 2) in the vehicle width direction, and the rear end portions of the pair of deflector arms are respectively pivotally supported on the pair of guide rails.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Oirschot (US 2021/0078392).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiramatsu discloses that the upper body and mesh are formed of a resin, but does not specifically disclose the type of resin used for the lower body. Van Oirschot discloses a deflector device for a sunroof of a vehicle (Fig. 1) wherein the plastic/resin components of the device are formed from a PET material (paragraph 0010 and Claim 5). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the PET material, as taught by Van Oirschot, for the resin of Hiramatsu to have a cost effective, well-known and well-used material as the base resin for the device.
Regarding Claim 4, it unclear if Hiramatsu or Van Oirschot disclose separate members. One having ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that using separate member for the lower portion of Hiramatsu in between the openings (holes) would make an easier part to form as the secondary operation of forming holes would be avoided.
Regarding Claim 6, Hiramatsu discloses push type fitting between the lower and the housing, and Van Oirschot discloses many different types of connections (Figs. 4-7B). The use of a snap fitting between the lower and the housing is merely an obvious matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art. Use of multiple style connecting between parts is taught between the refences, and a snap style fitting is but one of many known and used connections in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to wind deflector devices for sunroof openings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 571-270-5500. 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights