DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on February 12, 2025.
Status of claims: claims 1-10 are cancelled; claims 11-22 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 12, 2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Number 1 in Figure 1 is not identified in the specification. Correct the figures or amend the specification is suggested.
“Shading ad/or visibility protection element” recited in at least claim 11 isn’t identified in the figures
“Drive” recited in claim 13 isn’t illustrated in the figures.
“Body pillar trim” recited in claim 17 isn’t illustrated in the figures.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19 and 20 – shouldn’t “bow” be replaced with something along the lines of rod since applicant’s element 91 appears more like a rod, than a bow and bow is not defined in applicant’s specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202014103873U1.
DE 202014103873U1 discloses a motor vehicle, comprising:
a shading and/or visibility protection device for a rear window and a rear flap containing the rear window, the rear flap being pivotably secured to a body of the motor vehicle,
(see the last sentence of the paragraph below from the machine translation of DE 202014103873U1; see also the definition of tailgate below)
wherein the shading and/or visibility protection device comprises a shading and/or visibility protection element 106 which is displaceably arranged on the rear flap with respect to the rear window, and a lateral guide 116,118,152,110 provided for the shading and/or visibility protection element, the lateral guide being arranged on the body (see paragraph below as well as FIGS. 1 and 2). (claim 11)
PNG
media_image1.png
196
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
TAILGATE definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
DE 202014103873U1 further discloses wherein the shading and/or visibility protection element for the rear window is a rollable web (see FIG. 2), a foldable web, a large number of shutter slats, or a displaceable plate element. (claim 12)
DE 202014103873U1 further discloses wherein the lateral guide comprises a drive for displacing the shading and/or visibility protection element, wherein the drive is an electric drive 110. (see FIG. 1) (claim 13)
DE 202014103873U1 further discloses wherein the shading and/or visibility protection element is displacable from below or from above relative to the rear window, and is secured at that location to the rear flap. (see FIG. 2; note the coil 112 positioned below the window and paragraph from the machine translation of DE 202014103873U1 above) (claim 14)
DE 202014103873U1 further discloses wherein the lateral guide is formed at both a left side and a right side of the body. (see FIG. 1 and paragraph from the machine translation of DE 202014103873U1 above) (claim 16)
DE 202014103873U1 further discloses wherein the lateral guide is arranged on a rearmost body pillar (“C-pillar” – see paragraph from the machine translation of DE 202014103873U1 above and FIGS. 1, 2 and 4) and is integrated in a body pillar trim. (claim 17)
DE 202014103873U1 further discloses wherein the lateral guide has a carrier 118 which, when the rear flap is closed, is configured for engagement with the shading and/or visibility protection element. (claim 18)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014103873U1, as applied to claim 11 above, in view of JP 2004314870.
DE 202014103873U1 fails to disclose wherein the shading and/or visibility protection element is integrated in a rear flap trim.
JP 2004314870 teaches of a shading and/or visibility protection element 1 integrated in a flap trim. (see Fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DE 202014103873U1 rear flap trim such that the shading and/or visibility protection element is integrated therewith, as taught by JP 2004314870 with a reasonable expectation of success for aesthetic reasons and to protect the shading and/or visibility protection element from dirt, debris, and water. (claim 15)
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014103873U1, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of US 8397788 to Weinbrenner et al. (hereinafter “Weinbrenner”)
DE 202014103873U1 fails to disclose wherein the engagement is with a transverse bow on the shading and/or visibility protection element.
Weinbrenner teaches of a transverse bow 22-24 on a shading and/or visibility protection element 15. (see col. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE 202014103873U1 with a transverse bow, as taught by Weinbrenner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for any curvature and non-constant spacing between the lateral guides. (claim 19)
DE 202014103873U1, as applied above, further discloses wherein the transverse bow has a variable length in order to compensate for a non-constant spacing between the shading and/or visibility protection element and the lateral guide in a guiding direction. (see col. 3 of Weinbrenner, note that elements 23,24 telescope within element 22; see FIG. 2) (claim 20)
DE 202014103873U1, as applied above, further discloses wherein the engagement is carried out when the rear flap is being closed, or the engagement is carried out by a drive of the carrier only when the rear flap is closed. (Note, in this case, engagement is carried out when the rear flap is being closed.) (claim 21)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014103873U1, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of US 5172745 to Wang.
DE 202014103873U1 discloses wherein, before the rear flap is opened, the shading and/or visibility protection element is displacable into a position of non-use
DE 202014103873U1 fails to disclose the displacement is automatic and the shading and/or visibility protection element is movable out of engagement with the lateral guide.
Wang teaches of automatic displacement of a shading and/or visibility protection element 31 and that the protection element is movable out of engagement with a lateral guide 2. (see col. 2 of Wang and FIG. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DE 202014103873U1 shading and/or visibility protection element with automatic displacement, as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with rewinding of the shading and/or visibility protection element before opening of the rear flap; thus preventing damage to the shade and/or visibility protection device during opening of the rear flap. (claim 22)
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 MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights