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
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 1-4, 8-9, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Brown (US 11,926,204).
As concerns claim 1, Brown (US 11,926,204) discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof including a roof opening; and
a panel (5 or 6) manually configurable between a closed position in which the panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening and an open position, wherein, when moving between the closed and open positions, the panel rotates substantially 180° about an axis adjacent an end of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
553
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the panel is a first panel, the motor vehicle further includes a second panel, and when the first panel is in the open position, the first panel substantially vertically overlaps the second panel. (Figure 3)
As concerns claim 3, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein, when the first panel is in the open position, the first and second panels are removable, as a unit, from the motor vehicle. (Once pane 5/6 is rotated onto larger rear panel 2, the entire roof may be removed, as is commonly found in jeep-type vehicles.)
As concerns claim 4, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein the second panel is not rotatable relative to the first panel. (Figure 3 illustrates wherein rear panel 2 is fixed on the vehicle)
As concerns claim 8, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein:
the first panel (5 / 6 ) includes a bumper (upper front surface of panel is considered a bumper, as it acts as such while folded) on an upper surface thereof, the second panel (2) includes a bumper (20) on an upper surface thereof, wherein, when the first panel is in the open position, the bumpers of the first and second panels are configured to contact one another.
As concerns claim 9, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the panel is configured to rotate about an axis substantially perpendicular to a centerline of the motor vehicle, and the axis is between a first end and a second end of the roof opening. (Brown illustrates such rotation about an axis, Figure 3)
As concerns claim 11, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 9, further comprising a hinge assembly (1) configured to permit the first panel to rotate relative to the second panel about the axis.
As concerns claim 19, Brown discloses a method, comprising:
manually moving a panel (5/6) from a closed position, in which the panel covers at least a portion of a roof opening of a motor vehicle, to an open position by rotating the panel substantially 180° about an axis arranged adjacent an end of the panel.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Rouland (US 5,080,428).
As concerns claim 1, Rouland discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof (Figures 1 and 2) including a roof opening; and
a panel (20) manually configurable between a closed position in which the panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening and an open position, wherein, when moving between the closed and open positions, the panel rotates substantially 180° about an axis adjacent an end of the panel. (Figure 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
281
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the panel (20) is a first panel, the motor vehicle further includes a second panel (22), and when the first panel is in the open position, the first panel substantially vertically overlaps the second panel.
As concerns claim 3, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein, when the first panel (20) is in the open position, the first and second panels are removable, as a unit, from the motor vehicle. (Column 4, Lines 45-58)
As concerns claim 4, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein the second panel is not rotatable relative to the first panel. (At the point at which the first panel has been rotated onto the second panel, no they are not.)
As concerns claim 5, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein:
the second panel is manually configurable between a closed position in which the second panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening and an open position, when moving between the closed and open positions, the second panel rotates substantially 180° about an axis arranged adjacent an end of the second panel proximate the first panel. (Either panel may be folded/rotated first.)
As concerns claim 6, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 5, wherein:
the first panel is moveable between the closed and open positions when the second panel is in the closed position, and the second panel is moveable between the closed and open positions when the first panel is in the closed position. (Figures 1 and 2)
As concerns claim 7, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein the first and second panels are substantially identically sized and shaped. (Figures 1, 2 and 3)
As concerns claim 9, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the panel (20) is configured to rotate about an axis substantially perpendicular to a centerline of the motor vehicle, and the axis is between a first end and a second end of the roof opening. (Figure 2 illustrates such an opening along an axis perpendicular to a centerline drawn through the vehicle from left to right.)
As concerns claim 10, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 9, wherein the axis is substantially halfway between the first end and the second end of the roof opening. (Figure 2)
As concerns claim 11, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 9, further comprising a hinge assembly (32) configured to permit the first panel to rotate relative to the second panel about the axis.
As concerns claim 18, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein the panel includes a handle (overhang portion 30 functions as a handle during folding) adjacent an end thereof configured such that a user may grasp the handle to facilitate movement of the panel between the closed and open positions.
As concerns claim 19, Rouland discloses a method, comprising:
manually moving a panel (20) from a closed position, in which the panel covers at least a portion of a roof opening of a motor vehicle, to an open position by rotating the panel substantially 180° about an axis arranged adjacent an end of the panel. (Figures 1 to 2)
As concerns claim 20, Rouland discloses the method as recited in claim 19, wherein the panel is a first panel (20), and further comprising:
manually moving a second panel (22) from a closed position, in which the second panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening, to an open position, wherein, when moving between the closed and open positions, the second panel rotates substantially 180° about an axis arranged adjacent an end of the second panel proximate the first panel. (Either panel can be rotated onto the other panel in preparation for removal and storage of the roof)
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Bernath (US 12,037,824).
As concerns claim 13, Brown discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, however fails to specify a lever.
Bernath (US 12,037,824) however teaches a panel for a motor vehicle, wherein a panel includes at least one rotatable lever (122) for the purpose of securing or opening said panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Brown as taught by Bernath to include the lever or similar actuator for the expected benefit of being able to effectively secure and release the roof panel, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 13, wherein:
the roof opening includes a first end and a second end, and when the panel is in the open position, the lever is configured to interface with an attachment point adjacent the second end of the roof opening. (Bernath – Figure 2b illustrates several attachment points as claimed.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouland in view of Berry et al (US 2011/0283478).
As concerns claim 12, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 11, however ails to specify wherein the hinge assembly is a soft-close hinge assembly.
Berry et al (US 2011/0283478) teaches a soft close hinge intended for use on vehicles, for the purpose of dampening door and panel movement forces. (Paragraph [0010])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rouland as taught by Berry to include soft close hinges for the expected benefit of dampening panel movement forces, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouland in view of Bernath (US 12,037,824).
As concerns claim 13, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, however ails to specify a lever.
Bernath (US 12,037,824) however teaches a panel for a motor vehicle, wherein a panel includes at least one rotatable lever (122) for the purpose of securing or opening said panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rouland as taught by Bernath to include the lever or similar actuator for the expected benefit of being able to effectively secure and release the roof panel, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 13, wherein:
the roof opening includes a first end and a second end, and when the panel is in the open position, the lever is configured to interface with an attachment point adjacent the second end of the roof opening. (Bernath – Figure 2b illustrates several attachment points as claimed.)
As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 14, wherein:
the panel (Rouland – 20 / Bernath – at least 106a) is a first panel and the motor vehicle further comprises a second panel (Rouland – 22 / Bernath – 106b or 106c), the second panel is manually configurable between a closed position in which the second panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening and an open position, when moving between the closed and open positions, the second panel rotates substantially 180° about an axis arranged adjacent an end of the second panel proximate the first panel, the attachment point (Bernath – 102 opposite all latches 118) is a first attachment point and the motor vehicle further comprises a second attachment point adjacent the first end of the roof opening, the lever is a first lever, the second panel includes a second lever, and when the second panel is in the open position, the second lever is configured to interface with the second attachment point. (Bernath illustrates wherein separate panels have respective levers 122)
As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 15, wherein:
the first attachment point establishes at least part of a closed loop projecting upward from a location adjacent the second end of the roof opening, and the second attachment point establishes at least part of a closed loop projecting upward from a location adjacent the first end of the roof opening. (Figure 3 of Bernath illustrates wherein the area of 102 that receives 118 is rounded in the vertical direction)
PNG
media_image3.png
608
844
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouland in view of Hesse et al (US 2005/0218701)
As concerns claim 17, Rouland discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, however fails to specify wherein a majority of the panel by surface area is transparent.
Hesse et al (US 2005/0218701) however teaches a vehicle panel wherein a majority of the panel by surface area is transparent for the purpose of providing natural light through the roof while closed. (At least Paragraph [0007] and [0017])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rouland as taught by Hesse to include the use of a transparent panel for the expected benefit of gaining more natural light within the vehicle, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
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