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 1-6, 10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Deckard et al (US 2021/0114445).
As concerns claim 1, Deckard et al (US 2021/0114445) discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof including a roof opening (20a); and
a panel (262,264, 266, 268, 270) manually configurable between a fully closed position (Figure 6) in which the panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening and a nested position (Paragraph [0053]), wherein the panel includes a foot (upper face at the curve on either side of each panel), and wherein, when the panel is in the nested position, the foot is received in a recess (the bottom portion of each curve on an adjacent panel) of another panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein: the panel is a first panel, the motor vehicle further includes a second panel manually configurable between a fully closed position in which the second panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening and a nested position, and when the second panel is in the nested position, the foot of the second panel is received in a recess of the first panel or a third panel. (All panels may be stacked on each other for nesting, according to Paragraph [0053])
As concerns claim 3, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein the first and second panels are substantially identically sized and shaped. (Figure 6)
As concerns claim 4, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein, when the first panel is in the nested position, the foot of the first panel is received in a recess of the second panel or a third panel. (With all panels nested for compact storage, this configuration is anticipated.)
As concerns claim 5, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 4, wherein the third panel is rigidly mounted to the roof. (All panels appear to be rigidly mounted, when installed; Figure 6.)
As concerns claim 6, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein, when the first panel is in the nested position, the foot of the first panel is received in a recess of the second panel or a recess in a portion of the roof. (When nested, the panels receive the foot of an adjacent panel within the recess of a given panel.)
As concerns claim 10, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein: the foot is a first foot of a plurality of feet (each panel has two curves, one on each side which the concave surface acts as the foot and the convex surface acts as a recess, receiving the foot of an adjacent panel during nesting), when the panel is in the nested position, each of the plurality of feet are received in a corresponding, respective recess of another panel.
As concerns claim 19, Deckard discloses a method, comprising:
manually moving a panel from a fully closed position, in which the panel covers at least a portion of a roof opening of a motor vehicle, to a nested position in which a foot of the panel is received in a recess of another panel. (Figure 6, All panels may be stacked on each other for nesting, according to Paragraph [0053])
As concerns claim 20, Deckard discloses the method as recited in claim 19, wherein the panel is a first panel (at least 262), and further comprising:
manually moving a second panel (at least 264) from a fully closed position, in which the second panel covers at least a portion of the roof opening, to a nested position in which a foot of the second panel is received in a recess of the first panel. (When all panels are removed and nested for storage, they anticipate this claim.)
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckard in view of Bernath (US 12,037,824).
As concerns claim 14, Deckard discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, however fails to specify the use of a lever.
Bernath teaches a roof panel system wherein:
the panel includes at least one lever (122) rotatable between a first position and a second position, when the panel is in the fully closed position and the lever is in the first position, the lever is configured to prevent movement of the panel relative to the roof, and when the panel is in the fully closed position and the lever is in the second position, the lever is configured to not interfere with movement of the panel relative to the roof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Deckard as taught by Bernath to include a lever for the expected benefit of effectively securing and releasing the panels from the roof opening, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckard in view of Hesse et al (US 2005/0218701)
As concerns claim 15, Deckard 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) teaches having a substantially transparent roof panel (Paragraph [0017]) for the purpose of providing more natural light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Deckard as taught by Hess to include transparent panels for the expected benefit of providing more natural light, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 7-9, and 11-13 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 claim 16, the prior art Deckard anticipates roof panels that nest, however fails to specify the particulars about the claimed foot projecting downward from the lower surface and recess adjacent the upper surface and aligned with the foot.
As concerns claim 7, the prior art fails to anticipate a cross-bar received in a recess of an upper-most panel.
As concerns claim 11, Deckard provides only two curvatures which can anticipate two feet, one on either end. Neither Deckard, nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, wherein there are four feet as claimed.
As concerns claim 13, Deckard anticipates two curved surface regions which act as feet, as they nest into adjacent panels during storage. However there is no reason or consideration for incorporating rubber into this portion without improper hindsight.
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