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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings have poor line quality, and thus do not meet the reproducibility standards of 37 CFR 1.84(L). The drawings have grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO filing system. The current drawings are most similar to photographs, which are only permitted if they “are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention” (37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)). In this case, black and white line drawings are the preferred method of illustrating the invention. In numerous figures, the grayscale elements cause confusion, and make it difficult to see the working parts of the invention. This is complicated by the small scale of certain drawings, for example Fig. 8B. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
Views must be “clearly separated from one another” according to 37 CFR 1.84(h). Figs. 7A-7C and 8A-8C are not clearly separated, because numerals from certain views bleed into the vertical space of the adjacent view (see numerals 108 and 142 between Figs. 7B and 7C, for example).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 of the use of the implied phrase “is provided.” 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).
Examiner suggests the following changes:
A modular canopy system
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Modular Canopy Assembly System for Vehicle.”
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “of” in line 2 should be changed to --or--. 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruttangusakul et al. (US 2024/0417004, hereinafter Ruttangusakul).
With regard to claim 1, Ruttankusakul discloses a modular canopy system, comprising:
a roof panel assembly (102);
a rear panel assembly (106); and
two side panel assemblies (104, 108),
wherein:
the two side panel assemblies are configured to be removably secured to a vehicle (see claimp 164 in Fig. 9 which connects the side panel 104 to the vehicle body 202);
the rear panel assembly is configured to be removably secured to the two side panel assemblies (at least by hinges and by strut member 194, see Fig. 19),
the roof panel assembly is configured to be removably secured to the two side panel assemblies and the rear panel assembly, forming a canopy over a portion of the vehicle (compare Figs. 1 and 6).
With regard to claim 11, Ruttangusakul also discloses the vehicle (see 200, Fig. 23).
With regard to claim 12, Ruttangusakul teaches a method for assembling a modular canopy system, comprising:
installing two side panel assemblies (104, 108) along a vehicle (200, Fig. 23);
removably securing a rear panel assembly (106) to the two side panel assemblies (at least by hinges and by strut 194 shown in Fig. 19); and
removably securing a roof panel assembly (102) to the rear panel assembly and the two side panel assemblies, forming a canopy over a portion of the vehicle (Fig. 23).
With regard to claim 13, Ruttangusakul discloses that installing the two side panel assemblies comprises:
aligning each side panel assembly (Fig. 9 shows a side panel in an aligned position), using a bracket (164) and one or more locating pins (i.e. the attachment bolts), with a receiving structure of the vehicle (the flange at the top of bed 202 is the “receiving structure”—note that the claim does not specify what the receiving structure is, or how the pins are actually received within the receiving structure).
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) 2-5 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttangusakul in view of Dexter (US 2020/0055380).
With regard to claims 2 and 17, Ruttangusakul fails to teach a magnetic locking system, wherein the roof panel assembly is configured to be removably secured to the two side panel assemblies and the rear panel assembly via the magnetic locking system.
Dexter teaches a canopy system for a vehicle, in which a roof panel (2) is attached to a side panel using a magnetic locking system (6A, 14).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ruttangusakul to have the magnetic locking system of Dexter, in order to facilitate fast and secure connection between the parts of the roof canopy.
With regard to claims 3 and 18, Ruttangusakul, as modified by Dexter, teaches that the magnetic locking system comprises one or more:
magnetic locating mechanisms (6A of Dexter); and
one or more mounting plates (14 of Dexter).
With regard to claims 4 and 19, Ruttangusakul, as modified by Dexter, teaches that the one or more magnetic locating mechanisms comprise one or more magnets (6A of Dexter).
With regard to claims 5 and 20, Ruttangusakul, as modified by Dexter, teaches that the one or more magnets (6A of Dexter) are attracted to the one or more mounting plates (14 of Dexter).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttangusakul in view of Voss (WO 2016/042494 A1).
With regard to claims 6, 7, and 14, Ruttangusakul fails to teach that the rear panel assembly comprises one or more protruding studs, and holes through which the studs protrude.
Voss teaches a modular canopy for a vehicle, where the panels of the modular canopy have protruding studs (30) on each end, which protrude through holes on the adjacent panel (holes are unlabeled but shown in Fig. 8).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ruttangusakul to have the protruding studs and corresponding holes of Voss, in order to provide “further attachment to an adjacent panel,” thus improving the strength of the assembly.
With regard to claim 10, Ruttangusakul fails to teach that the roof panel assembly comprises one or more guiding pins to aid in positioning the roof panel assembly over the two side panel assemblies and the rear panel assembly.
Voss teaches a modular canopy for a vehicle, where the panels of the modular canopy have protruding studs (30) or guiding pins to aid in positioning the panels (see Fig. 8).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ruttangusakul to have the guiding pins of Voss, in order to provide “further attachment to an adjacent panel,” (Voss, second-to-last paragraph of Page 3) thus improving the strength of the assembly.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttangusakul in view of Voss as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fachinello et al. (US 2023/0406078, hereinafter Fachinello).
With regard to claims 8 and 15, Ruttangusakul in view of Voss fails to teach one or more handles, each handle configured to connect to a stud protruding through the hole, locking the rear panel assembly to the two side panel assemblies.
Facchinello teaches a modular vehicle canopy in which a stud (184) is connected to a handle (186) to connect two panels together.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ruttangusakul in view of Voss by providing the threaded studs of Facchinello and the associated handles, in order to enable stronger tightening and secure assembly of the canopy.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttangusakul in view of Steig (US 11,938,799).
With regard to claims 9 and 16, Ruttangusakul discloses that the roof panel assembly comprises one or more rotating latching handles configured to lock the roof panel assembly to the two side panel assemblies and the rear panel assembly.
Steig teaches a modular vehicle canopy in which panels of the canopy are connected by rotating latching handles (700, Fig. 18) which lock the panels together.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ruttangusakul to have the latching handles of Steig, in order to provide a secure attachment between the panels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of modular canopies similar to those disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
