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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As concerns Claim 11, line 2 recites “the connector one of …”. For grammatical correctness, this should be amended to – the connector is one of … --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Bertrand (FR 2,932,725).
As concerns claim 1, Bertrand (FR 2,932,725) discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a roof including a roof opening; and
a cover including a first panel (1, 3 or 4), a second panel (4 or 3) foldable relative to the first panel between an open position (Figure 4B or 4C) and a closed position (Figure 4A), and a connector (front edge of 4 OR 3a), wherein the connector is configured to interface with a first attachment point (9 at rear of roof) to hold the second panel in the open position, and is further configured to interface with a second attachment point (5 or 7 at front of roof) to hold the second panel in the closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
761
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein the first attachment point is adjacent a first end of the roof opening and the second attachment point is adjacent a second end of the roof opening opposite the first end of the roof opening. (Figures 4A-4C)
As concerns claim 3, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein the second attachment point is within an interior of the motor vehicle and the first attachment point is arranged on an exterior of the motor vehicle. (7 is within the vehicle).
As concerns claim 4, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the connector includes a male component of a clasp (the front edges of both panels 3 and 4 are considered male), the first attachment point includes a female component of a clasp, and the second attachment point includes a female component of a clasp (elements 5, 7 and 9 are female as they receive the edge of panels 3 and 4).
As concerns claim 6, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein the cover includes a third panel (3 or 4) arranged between the first and second panels, wherein the third panel is foldable relative to the second panel and the first panel.
As concerns claim 14, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein the first panel is rigidly mounted to the roof. (Figure 1; panels are rigidly mounted via rear roof panel)
As concerns claim 15, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, further comprising a seal (8) extending about a perimeter of the roof opening, and wherein the second panel is in contact with the seal when the second panel is in the closed position.
As concerns claim 16, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein the first panel and the second panel are connected via a hinge assembly (A).
As concerns claim 17, Bertrand discloses a cover for a motor vehicle, comprising:
first panel (1, 3 or 4),
a second panel (4 or 3) foldable relative to the first panel between an open position (Figure 4B or 4C) and a closed position (Figure 4A), and
a connector (front edge of 4 OR 3a), wherein the connector is configured to interface with a first attachment point (9 at rear of roof) to hold the second panel in the open position, and is further configured to interface with a second attachment point (5 or 7 at front of roof) to hold the second panel in the closed position.
As concerns claim 18, Bertrand discloses the cover as recited in claim 17, wherein:
when the connector (front edge of 4 OR 3a) is interfaced with the second attachment point (5 or 7), the first and second panels are arranged in an end-to-end arrangement (When panel 3 is engaged with the 7, panel 4 may be engaged with 9, exhibiting an end-to-end relationship), and when the connector is interfaced with the first attachment point, the first and second panels are stacked (When panel 3 and panel 4 are simultaneously engaged with 9, they are in a stacked relationship).
As concerns claim 20, Bertrand discloses a method, comprising:
manually configuring a cover including first and second panels (at least 3 and 4) arranged relative to a roof opening of a motor vehicle such that a connector (front edge of 4, and front 3a of 3) of the cover interfaces with a first attachment point (7 for panel 3; 6 for panel 4) to hold the second panel in an open position (Figures 4a-4c); and
manually configuring the cover such that the connector interfaces with a second attachment point (7 for panel 3; 6 for panel 4) to hold the second panel in a closed position (Figure 4a).
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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand in view of Bacon (US 2004/0084928).
As concerns claim 5 and 19, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claims 1 and 17, however fails to disclose a strap.
Bacon (US 2004/0084928) teaches a roof panel further comprising a strap (25) configured to apply a force to a panel in order to have a connector engage with an attachment point. (Paragraph [0031])
PNG
media_image2.png
310
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bertrand as taught by Bacon to include a strap for pulling down the cover and closing the opening the roof, for the expected benefit of being able to effectively manipulate the panel, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand in view of Kuhn (DE 19804220)
As concerns claim 11, Bertrand discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 1, however fails to specify wherein there are a plurality of connectors.
Kuhn (DE 19804220) teaches a motor vehicle having a roof made of multiple panels (126) with multiple connectors (141) and a plurality of attachment points (151) for each panel for the purpose of effectively securing the roof panel at multiple points.
PNG
media_image3.png
569
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bertrand as taught by Kuhn to include a plurality of connectors and attachment points for the expected benefit of effectively securing the roof panels to the roof, in order to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 11, wherein:
each of the connectors is configured to interface with a corresponding one of the first attachment points and is further configured to interface with a corresponding one of the second attachment points. (Bertrand illustrates wherein the front edges of both panel 3 and 4, which act as their respective connectors, are received by both a front attachment point and a rear attachment point.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand in view of Kuhn and further in view of Steffens et al (US 2009/0146449).
As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the motor vehicle as recited in claim 12, however fails to specify the use of a plurality of straps.
Steffens (US 2009/0146449) teaches a motor vehicle comprising a cover having multiple panels (21a, 21b, 2c) further comprising a plurality of straps (501, Paragraph [0029] discusses wherein there may be a plurality of latch mechanisms with straps), wherein each of the plurality of straps is configured to interface with a corresponding connector system (500) for the purpose of allowing easy release of the panels from the vehicle.
PNG
media_image4.png
568
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Steffens to include a plurality of straps attached to a corresponding number of connectors to enable effective manipulation of a latch system, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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 7, the prior art of record discloses a motor vehicle as cited in claim 6, however fails to obviate additional panels that are also foldable relative to the first, second and third panels. Such an addition to Bertrand could only occur with improper hindsight.
Neither Bertrand nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “wherein the cover includes a fourth panel arranged between the first and third panels, wherein the fourth panel is foldable relative to the first, second, and third 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