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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriello (U.S. 5,037,051).
Regarding claim 16, Moriello discloses a vehicle mirror assembly (Fig. 1; col 3, lines 31-33), comprising:
a housing (28, Fig. 2; col 4, line 21) defining an opening (opening of 28 accommodating 20, Fig. 2), wherein the housing includes:
an outer surface forming an arced shape (such as an outer surface of a bottom end of 28 forming an arced shape, Fig. 2);
a connector (cylindrical connector between 14 and 28, Fig. 4) operably coupled to the outer surface (outer surface of 28, Fig. 4) and configured to engage a support arm (14, Fig. 4; col 3, line 52); and
a tag hook (10, Figs. 1-2; col 3, line 42-44) integrally formed with the housing (since the tag hook 10 is connected to the housing 28, Fig. 2), wherein the tag hook includes a lower support portion (combination of: vertical portion of 10 contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) extending from the outer surface (combination of: vertical portion of 10 contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23 extending from the outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2) and a retaining portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28, Fig. 2) extending vertically from the support portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 extends vertically from the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) to hold an item (such as an item being supported in portion 23, Fig. 2), wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) has a uniform thickness along the lower support portion and the retaining portion (such as a uniform thickness along the horizontal and vertical portions of 10, Fig. 2); and
a mirror (20, Figs. 1-2; col 3, line 58) disposed within the opening of the housing (mirror 20 disposed within the opening of the housing 28 that accommodates the mirror 20, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Moriello discloses a vehicle mirror assembly with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the retaining portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28, Fig. 2) extends in a single direction (such as a vertical direction, Fig. 2) from the lower support portion (combination of: vertical portion of 10 contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) to form an L-shape (such as the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23 together forming an L-shape, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Moriello discloses a vehicle mirror assembly with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the housing (28, Fig. 4) defines a recessed region at a central location (such as a recessed portion of 28 accommodating cylindrical connector between 14 and 28, Fig. 4), and wherein the connector (cylindrical connector between 14 and 28, Fig. 4) is disposed within the recessed region.
Regarding claim 19, Moriello discloses a vehicle mirror assembly with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 4) is centrally located between the connector and a side end of the housing (since the tag hook 10 is centered horizontally between the cylindrical connector connecting 14 to 28 and the left and right side ends of 28, Fig. 2) and centrally located between an upper surface and a lower surface of the housing (since portions of 44 and 34 at a vertical center of housing 28 are centrally located between an upper and a lower surface of the housing 28, Fig. 4).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriello (U.S. 5,037,051).
Regarding claim 1, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly (Fig. 1; col 3, lines 31-33), comprising:
a support arm (14, Fig. 1; col 3, line 52) configured to engage a vehicle (col 3, lines 51-52); and
a rearview mirror assembly (combination of: 10 and 12, Fig. 1; col 3, lines 50-51) operably coupled to the support arm (14, Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the rearview mirror assembly includes:
a housing (28, Fig. 2; col 4, line 21) having an outer surface configured to be oriented in a vehicle-forward direction (outer surface of 28 facing 10 is configured to be oriented in a vehicle-forward direction, Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the housing defines an opening (opening of 28 accommodating 20, Fig. 2);
a tag hook (10, Figs. 1-2; col 3, line 42-44) coupled to the outer surface of the housing (28, Figs. 1-2), wherein the tag hook includes:
a support portion (combination of: vertical portion of 10 contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) extending from the outer surface (combination of: vertical portion of 10 contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23 extending from the outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2) and having a first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2); and
a retaining portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28, Fig. 2) extending vertically from the support portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 extends vertically from the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) and having a second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2); and
a mirror (20, Figs. 1-2; col 3, line 58) disposed within the opening of the housing (mirror 20 disposed within the opening of the housing 28 that accommodates the mirror 20, Figs. 1-2).
Moriello does not expressly disclose that the second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2) is at least twice the first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2). However, Moriello does disclose that the second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2) is larger than the first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2). Applicant has not disclosed that configuring the second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2) to be at least twice the first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to configure the second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2) to be at least twice the first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) through routine experimentation and optimization. Moriello discloses that the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) has an obvious purpose of accommodating tags that can be placed onto the tag hook and adjusting the second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2) to be at least twice the first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) through routine experimentation and optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the tag hook being able to accommodate tags of larger sizes that are placed onto the tag hook with a reasonable expectation for success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second length (vertical length of the vertical portion of 23, Fig. 2) to be at least twice the first length (such as a length of the horizontal portion of 23, Fig. 2) in order to obtain the benefits of optimizing the tag hook (10, Figs. 1-2) to be able to accommodate tags of larger sizes and prevent them from slipping off since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 2, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the rearview mirror assembly (combination of: 10 and 12, Fig. 1) includes a connector (cylindrical connector between 14 and 28, Fig. 4) operably coupled to the support arm (14, Fig. 4), wherein the connector is centrally located relative to the housing (cylindrical connector between 14 and 28 is centrally located relative to the housing 28, Fig. 4), and wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 4) is disposed on a driver side of the connector (such as hook 26 of tag hook 10 is disposed on a driver side of the cylindrical connector between 14 and 28 as oriented in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the retaining portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28, Fig. 2) extends from a distal end of the support portion (such as an outer end of the horizontal portion of 23 extending away from 28, Fig. 2) and adjacent to the outer surface of the housing to form an L-shape (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and horizontal portion of 23 together form an L-shape that is adjacent to the outer surface of the housing 28, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly with all the limitations above and but does not expressly disclose wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) is integrally formed with the housing (28, Fig. 2) as a single molded component. However, Examiner notes that it has been held that the term "integral" is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening, welding, or otherwise joined together to behave as a single, inseparable unit. In the instant case, Moriello discloses the claimed invention except for the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) is integrally formed with the housing (28, Fig. 2) as a single molded component. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) to be integrally formed with the housing (28, Fig. 2) since it has been held that forming in one
piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349).
Regarding claim 8, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) has a height but does not expressly disclose wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) has a height between 20 mm and 25 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to configure the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) of Moriello to have a height between 20 mm and 25 mm through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the height between 20 mm and 25 mm is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the tag hook by configuring the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) to have a height between 20 mm and 25 mm in order to obtain the benefits of minimizing the overall height and size of the tag hook while maximizing the ease to which a vehicle tag can be placed on the tag hook. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) to have a height between 20 mm and 25 mm with a reasonable expectation for success of being able to easily hang a vehicle tag on the tag hook.
Regarding claim 22, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the retaining portion (vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28, Fig. 2) is spaced from the outer surface by a distance (distance between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the outer surface of 28, Fig. 2), wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) and the outer surface together define a storage space configured to receive an item (such as the storage space between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the vertical portion of 28, Fig. 4).
Moriello does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of a height of the storage space (such as the storage space between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the vertical portion of 28, Fig. 4) to the distance between the retaining portion and the outer surface (distance between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the outer surface of 28, Fig. 2) is at least 3:1. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to configure the ratio of a height of the storage space (such as the storage space between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the vertical portion of 28, Fig. 4) to the distance between the retaining portion and the outer surface (distance between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the outer surface of 28, Fig. 2) to be at least 3:1 through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ratio of at least 3:1 is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical.
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of a height of the storage space (such as the storage space between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the vertical portion of 28, Fig. 4) to the distance between the retaining portion and the outer surface (distance between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the outer surface of 28, Fig. 2) to be at least 3:1 in order to obtain the benefits of optimizing the tag hook to accommodate items. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the ratio of the height of the storage space (such as the storage space between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the vertical portion of 28, Fig. 4) to the distance between the retaining portion and the outer surface (distance between the vertical portion of 23 not contacting 28 and the outer surface of 28, Fig. 2) to be at least 3:1 with a reasonable expectation for success of being able to easily accommodate an item to hang on the tag hook.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriello (U.S. 5,037,051) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chomicki (U.S. 2018/0114473).
Regarding claim 4, Moriello discloses a vehicle rearview mirror assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) extends less than 8 mm from the outer surface of the housing (outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2). However, Chomicki discloses a vehicle tag (110, Fig. 2; page 2, para [0025]) that can be placed on a rearview mirror tag hook (Figs. 1-2; page 3, para [0028]) wherein the vehicle tag has a thickness (200, Fig. 3; page 2, para [0025]) between 1 mm and 5 mm. Furthermore, Moriello discloses that the tag hook (10, Fig. 2) has a hook portion (such as 23, Fig. 2; col 3, line 60) that extends away from an outermost surface of the housing (outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the hook portion (Moriello: such as 23, Fig. 2) of the tag hook (Moriello: 10, Fig. 2) of Moriello to extend less than 8 mm from the outer surface of the housing (Moriello: outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2) in order to obtain the benefits of minimizing the overall size of the vehicle rearview mirror assembly (Moriello: Fig. 1) while providing sufficient space to accommodate a vehicle tag (Chomicki: such as 110, Fig. 2) that is well known in the art as evidenced by Chomicki (Fig. 3; page 2, para [0025]). Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the hook portion (Moriello: such as 23, Fig. 2) of the tag hook (Moriello: 10, Fig. 2) to extend less than 8 mm from the outer surface of the housing (Moriello: outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2) through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the tag hook extending less than 8 mm from the outer surface of the housing is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to optimize the overall size of the vehicle rearview mirror assembly of Moriello by configuring the tag hook (Moriello: 10, Fig. 2) of Moriello to extend less than 8 mm from the outer surface of the housing (Moriello: outer surface of 28 facing 10, Fig. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success to be able to have the tag hook accommodate a well known vehicle tag as evidenced by Chomicki (Fig. 3; page 2, para [0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-14, and 23-24 are allowed.
Claims 21 and 25 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: the prior art as presently searched does not disclose the rearview mirror assembly of claim 9 (having all the combination of features including a housing extending between a first outer end of said rearview mirror assembly and a second outer end of said rearview mirror assembly, the housing having an outer surface that forms a continuous arced shape extending from the first outer end of said rearview mirror assembly to the second outer end of said rearview mirror assembly; a connector coupled to the housing and configured to engage a support arm; and an integral tag hook integrally formed with the housing, the integral tag hook including: a support portion extending from the outer surface of the housing; and a retaining portion extending vertically from the support portion, the retaining portion extending adjacent to the outer surface of the housing, wherein the integral tag hook and the outer surface define a receiving space for hanging items on the integral tag hook; and a mirror disposed within an opening defined by the housing, wherein the integrated tag hook and the mirror are on opposing sides of the housing), does not disclose the vehicle rearview mirror assembly of claim 21 (having all the combination of features including wherein the rearview mirror assembly extends laterally from a central vertical axis in two opposing directions to form a first assembly half and a second assembly half, and wherein the first assembly half and the second assembly half define different outer profiles), and does not disclose the vehicle mirror assembly of claim 25 (having all the combination of features including wherein the connector includes: a base disposed in the recessed region such that an outer surface of the base is flush with the outer surface of the housing; and a projection extending outwardly from the base and away from the outer surface of the housing, wherein the projection is configured to engage the support arm). Claims 11-14 and 23-24 are allowable as being dependent on claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding claims 1 and 16, the newly cited prior art reference of Moriello (U.S. 5,037,051) discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above.
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 PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871