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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered. The applicant has amended the independent claim 9. Claims 9-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/23/2025 with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments are directed to the newly amended claim limitations. These new limitations were not in the claim, and were not previously rejected under art. A new ground of rejection has been made and applicant's argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 9, 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (JP-H08216782, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches a rear view mirror arrangement for a vehicle (refer to JP H08216782), comprising: a mirror element (mirror body 22, [abstract] see annotated Fig. 5 below); a housing (housing 21, [abstract]) that accommodates the mirror element (accommodates mirror body 22, Figs. 5,6), wherein the housing has an inner surface (inner surface of 21, see annotated Figs. 5,6), on which at least one fastening extension is formed (fastening with adhesives 30 is formed on inner surface, see annotated Fig. 6, another fastening extension on inner surface for creating a holding groove 26), where the at least one fastening extension (30) comprises a surface that is at least one of dome-shaped, rib-shaped, a sliding platform, or a retainer (Fig. 5 shows retainer 30), and the mirror element is directly connected to the housing at the at least one fastening extension (22 is directly connected to the 21 at the at least one 30, also at 26, see Fig. 6; also 22 is directly connected to 21 at the end holding groove 26), where a rear side of the mirror element that faces the inner surface of the housing, (see Fig. 6), directly connects to the at least one fastening extension (a rear side of 22 that faces the inner surface of the housing 21 directly connects to the at least one 30; also 22 faces inner surface of 21 directly connects to another fastening extension 26, see annotated Fig. 6); and a support element (foam sheet 33, Figs. 5, 6) which is supported on the housing (21) for support of the mirror element at least in some portions (Fig. 5 shows 33 supported on the housing 21 for support of the mirror element 22 at least in some portions, see Fig. 7, element 33), wherein the mirror element is connected to the support element and the support element does not obstruct the direct connection between the rear side of the mirror element and the at least one fastening extension. (Fig. 5 shows 22 is connected to 33, and Fig. 6 shows 33 does not obstruct the direct connection between the rear side of the 22 and the at least one fastening extension 30; i.e. 33 does not obstruct the direct connection between rear side of 22 and 30; see Figs. 6,7 show 33 does not obstruct in the gaps).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the connection between the support element (33) and the rear side of the mirror element (22) is formed over an entire surface area of the rear side at least in some portions (Fig. 5 shows connection between the 33 and the rear side of the 22 is formed over an entire surface area of the rear side at least in some portions).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the support element has at least one recess located in a connecting portion of, in each case, the connection of the rear side of the mirror element to the at least one fastening extension (Figs. 5 and 6 show that the 33 has at least one recess located in a connecting portion of, in each case, the connection of the rear side of 22 to the at least one 30/26).
Regarding claim 14, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the support element (foam body 33) is formed to be non-self-supporting (foam is non-self-supporting, its light weight and bends).
Regarding claim 15, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the support element 33 has a stiffening rib structure (Fig. 8 shows two rib structure in two sides, and any pressure from 22 will increases the rigidity and structural integrity of foam).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), A vehicle comprising at least one rear view mirror arrangement according to claim 9. (PURPOSE: To provide a vehicular room mirror preventing vibration without interposing a rubber cushion, [abstract]).
Regarding claim 18, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the support element is connected in an installed state in a positive locking manner to the housing (Fig7. 5, 6 and 7, support element 33 is in a positive locking manner to the housing 21, Fig. 7 shows it can’t move due to adhesive 30 is filled in the openings 34 when connected).
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.
Claims 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lang et al. (DE 102009047919, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the support element (33) is plate-shaped at least in some portions (Figs. 5 and 6 show 33 is plate-shaped at least in some portions)
Kimura doesn’t explicitly teach support element has an edge portion which projects at least in some portions beyond an edge of the mirror element so that the support element is supported on the inner surface of the housing.
Kimura and Lang are related as rear-view mirror.
Lang teaches support element (carrier plate 8) has an edge portion which projects at least in some portions beyond an edge of the mirror element so that the support element is supported on the inner surface of the housing (Fig. 4 shows carrier plate 8 has an edge portion which projects at least in some portions beyond an edge of the mirror element 10 so that the support element 8 is supported on the inner surface of the housing 4., see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the mirror arrangement of Kimura to include the support element has an edge portion which projects at least in some portions beyond an edge of the mirror element so that the support element is supported on the inner surface of the housing as taught by Lang for the predictable advantage holding the mirror in a secured and stable position as shown in Fig 4 of Lang.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 10 (see above). Lang further teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement, wherein the edge portion of the support element has a conical shape (lower edge portion of the support element 8 has a conical shape to firmly sit in a groove, which is an extension of the housing, for securing the mirror from any movement, See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kimura teaches the rear-view mirror arrangement according to claim 10 (see above). Lang further teaches, wherein an edge region of the mirror element (mirror 10) is not in contact with the housing (housing 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30 pm PST.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights