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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the preamble states “Cover for a vehicle roof […]”. The preamble should read “A cover for a vehicle roof […]” as it is an independent claim. This would improve clarity when a structure is introduced.
Regarding Claims 2-10, the preambles state “Cover according to Claim […]”. The preambles should read “The cover according to Claim […]” as they are dependent claims.
Regarding Claim 11, the preamble states “Method for producing a cover […]”. The preamble should read “A method for producing a cover […]” as it is an independent claim.
Regarding Claims 12-13, the preambles state “Method according to Claim 11 […]”. The preambles should read “The method according to Claim 11 […]” as they are dependent claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schonebeck (US 20060055212 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schonebeck teaches a cover (Fig. 1 element 12) for a vehicle roof, comprising: - a pane (Fig. 2 element 16), - a plastic border (Fig. 2 element 18), which at least partially surrounds the pane (Shown in Fig. 2), - a reinforcing profile (Fig. 2 element 20), which is arranged in the plastic border and which extends in an elongate fashion between a first end and a second end (Shown in Fig. 3), - an end cap (Fig. 3 element 22), which is secured at the first end on the reinforcing profile, wherein the end cap has a supporting wing (Fig. 3 element 24) which projects laterally along a first direction and which has a region of contact with the pane (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the end cap has a main body which projects partially into the reinforcing profile (Fig. 3 shows element 22 protruding into element 20).
Regarding Claim 3, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the end cap has a stop in order to position the reinforcing profile and the end cap relative to one another in a predetermined way (Fig. 3 upper flange of element 24 considered a stop as it is designed to position the stop at a predetermined depth within the reinforcing profile 20).
Regarding Claim 4, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the end cap has a further region of contact with the pane, wherein the region of contact and the further region of contact are arranged spaced apart along the first direction (Fig. 2 shows two regions of contact between element 22 and element 16).
Regarding Claim 6, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses on which the reinforcing profile is designed as a hollow profile (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 6 and further discloses an interior of the hollow profile is free from plastic of the plastic border (Figs 2-3 show the hollow profile of element 20 without material from element 18 within the interior).
Regarding Claim 8, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the reinforcing profile is curved (Curved roof shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a second end cap which is secured at the second end on the reinforcing profile, and is of corresponding design to the first end cap (Fig. 4 shows second end of reinforcement structure 20).
Regarding Claim 10, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the plastic border is of uninterrupted design in the region of the reinforcing profile on a plastic side facing away from the pane (Shown in Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schonebeck (US 20060055212 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Schonebeck teaches a method for producing a cover for a vehicle roof, comprising: - supplying a reinforcing profile (Fig. 2 element 20), - supplying an end cap which has a supporting wing that projects laterally along a first direction (Fig. 3 element 22), - securing the end cap on the reinforcing profile (Shown in Fig. 3), - placing a pane (Fig. 2 element 16) on the end cap, with the result that the pane is in contact with a region of contact of the supporting wing (Shown in Fig. 2), and thereby fixing a position and an alignment of the end cap and of the reinforcing profile relative to the pane, - introducing plastic which surrounds the reinforcing profile and the end cap to secure the reinforcing profile on the pane and to form a plastic border (Fig. 2 element 18).
Regarding Claim 12, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 11 and further discloses inserting a part of the end cap into the reinforcing profile, and thereby - sealing a first end of the reinforcing profile (Shown in Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonebeck (US 20060055212 A1) in view of Kelo et al. (US 20200254858 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schonebeck fails to explicitly teach the end cap has a coupling region on a side facing away from the region of contact, which coupling region is coupled to a mounting plate, wherein the mounting plate is arranged in the plastic border.
However, Kleo teaches the end cap has a coupling region on a side facing away from the region of contact, which coupling region is coupled to a mounting plate, wherein the mounting plate is arranged in the plastic border (Fig. 7 element 41 coupled to end cap 60).
Schonebeck and Kleo are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of panel reinforcement structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the end cap of Schonebeck to have the mounting plate as disclosed by Kleo. Doing so would provide increased strength to the end cap and would better secure the panel to the reinforcement structure.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonebeck (US 20060055212 A1) in view of Kelo et al. (US 20200254858 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Schonebeck teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Schonebeck fails to explicitly teach - supplying a mounting plate, - placing the end cap on the mounting plate before the placement of the pane, and thereby fixing a position and an alignment of the end cap and of the reinforcing profile relative to the mounting plate, - introducing the plastic, with the result that the plastic at least partially encloses the mounting plate.
However, Kleo teaches - supplying a mounting plate, - placing the end cap on the mounting plate before the placement of the pane, and thereby fixing a position and an alignment of the end cap and of the reinforcing profile relative to the mounting plate, - introducing the plastic, with the result that the plastic at least partially encloses the mounting plate (Fig. 7 element 41 coupled to end cap 60).
Schonebeck and Kleo are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of panel reinforcement structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the end cap of Schonebeck to have the mounting plate as disclosed by Kleo. Doing so would provide increased strength to the end cap and would better secure the panel to the reinforcement structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights