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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species A (figure 5A; claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “species A and B are sufficiently related that search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because claims 3 and 4 are directed to multiple species. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
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.
Claim Interpretations
In claim 5, the limitation “wherein the mirror head has a lower extension, and wherein a part of the movable part is placed behind the lower extension, when the assembly is operatively attached to a vehicle, and from the point of view of a driver while driving the vehicle” appear to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the limitation is no longer valid if the assembly is not operatively attached to a vehicle”.
In claim 15, the limitation “wherein the first surface is the surface closer to the driver when the assembly is operatively attached to the vehicle, and wherein the perimetric edge of the mirror pane is overlapped totally or partially by the mirror housing, or alternatively it is not overlapped by the mirror housing” appear to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the assembly is not operatively attached to a vehicle”.
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 1, 3-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Wind et al. (US 2018/0257571).
Regarding claim 1, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses an exterior rearview mirror assembly (10) for vehicles, the assembly (1) comprising:
a fixed part (24) configured to be attached to an exterior part of a vehicle (The outer cover 24 is disposed at or attached to or mounted at the side portion of the vehicle (and pivotally or rotatably mounted thereat, such as via the actuator 22, which has its inner end attached at a structure that is fixed relative to the vehicle) when the exterior mirror assembly is normally mounted at the side of the vehicle; see at least paragraph 0047),
a movable part (20) mounted at the fixed part (24), and rotatable relative to the fixed part (22) about a first axis (rotational driving of second actuator 22 imparts a rotation of bracket 20 and first actuator 18 and bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a second pivot axis 22a relative to the base of the mirror assembly and/or the side of the vehicle at which the mirror assembly is mounted; see at least paragraph 0047),
a mirror head (12, 14) comprising a mirror housing (14) and a mirror pane (12), wherein the mirror head (12, 14) is mounted at the movable part (20), such that the mirror head (12, 14) and the movable part (20) are jointly rotatable about the first axis (mirror head housing 14 is attached at an inner bracket or mounting element 16 that is attached at a first actuator 18, whereby rotational driving of the first actuator 18 imparts a rotation of bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a first pivot axis 18a relative to an outer bracket or connector or mounting arm or intermediate arm 20; see at least paragraph 0047), and
wherein the mirror head (12, 14) can tilt or rotate relative to the movable part about a tilting point or second axis (First actuator 18 is attached to or mounted at the outer bracket 20, which is mounted to or attached to a second actuator 22, which is attached at or disposed at or in an outer cover 24. Thus, rotational driving of second actuator 22 imparts a rotation of bracket 20 and first actuator 18 and bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a second pivot axis 22a relative to the base of the mirror assembly and/or the side of the vehicle at which the mirror assembly is mounted; see at least paragraph 0047).
The limitation, “wherein the mirror head can tilt or rotate relative to the movable part about a tilting point or second axis” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses exterior rearview mirror assembly according to claim 1, configured such that a gap (7) is formed in between the movable part (20) and the mirror head (12, 14) to allow the tilting or rotation movement of the mirror head, and wherein preferably the gap (between 20 and 12, 14) is formed between a curved surface (the curved surface as shown in figure 1A) of the movable part (20) and a curved surface (the curved surface as shown in figure 1A) of the mirror housing (12, 14; when the second actuator 22 is selectively operated to rotate or pivot outer bracket 20 relative to the side of the vehicle, the mirror head housing 14 is pivoted about the second pivot axis 22a to vertically adjust the rearward field of view for the driver of the vehicle; see at least paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 4, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein the mirror housing (14) and the mirror pane (12) are jointly movable (figures 2-3).
The limitation, “wherein the mirror housing and the mirror pane are jointly movable” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 5, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein the mirror head (12, 14) has a lower extension (18a), and wherein a part of the movable part (20) is placed behind the lower extension (18a), when the assembly (10) is operatively attached to a vehicle, and from the point of view of a driver while driving the vehicle (figures 19, 21).
The limitation, “wherein a part of the movable part is placed behind the lower extension, when the assembly is operatively attached to a vehicle, and from the point of view of a driver while driving the vehicle” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 6, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses a first actuator (22) encased at least partially inside the movable part (20; figure 1B) and adapted to impart a rotation movement to the movable part (rotational driving of second actuator 22 imparts a rotation of bracket 20 and first actuator 18 and bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a second pivot axis 22a relative to the base of the mirror assembly and/or the side of the vehicle at which the mirror assembly is mounted; see at least paragraph 0047), and a second actuator (18) enclosed within the mirror head (12, 14) and adapted to impart a titling movement about a tilting point to the mirror head (12, 14), or a rotational movement to the mirror head about at least the second axis (reflective element 12 (such as a generally planar or bent reflective element and such as an electrochromic reflective element or a flat glass or curved glass reflective element, such as a flat or curved reflective element having a single flat or planar or curved or convex curved glass substrate or having two flat or curved substrates or the like) that is attached at a rear attaching portion 14a of a mirror head housing 14; see at least paragraph 0046).
The limitation, “adapted to impart a rotation movement to the movable part, adapted to impart a titling movement about a tilting point to the mirror head, or a rotational movement to the mirror head about at least the second axis” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 7, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein the first and second actuators (12,13) are independently operable (rotational driving of second actuator 22 imparts a rotation of bracket 20 and first actuator 18 and bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a second pivot axis 22a relative to the base of the mirror assembly and/or the side of the vehicle at which the mirror assembly is mounted; see at least paragraph 0047).
The limitation, “independently operable” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 8, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses a bracket (16) having a first part enclosed inside the movable part (20) and coupled or integrally formed with a movable component of the first actuator (18; figure 1), and a second part enclosed inside the mirror head (12, 14) and coupled or integrally formed with a fixed component (part of 22) of the second actuator (22), such that the mirror head (12, 14) is mounted at the movable part (3) by means of the bracket (mirror head housing 14 is attached at an inner bracket or mounting element 16 that is attached at a first actuator 18, whereby rotational driving of the first actuator 18 imparts a rotation of bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a first pivot axis 18a relative to an outer bracket or connector or mounting arm or intermediate arm 20; see at least paragraph 0047)
Regarding claim 10, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein a part of the bracket (16) runs, preferably transversally, across the gap (between 20 and 12, 14; mirror head housing 14 is attached at an inner bracket or mounting element 16 that is attached at a first actuator 18, whereby rotational driving of the first actuator 18 imparts a rotation of bracket 16 and mirror head housing 14 about a first pivot axis 18a relative to an outer bracket or connector or mounting arm or intermediate arm 20; see at least paragraphs 0047).
The limitation, “wherein a part of the bracket runs, preferably transversally, across the gap” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 10, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein at least one electric and/electronic component is housed in the movable part or inside the mirror head, wherein the electric and/electronic component is preferably one of the following list: a camera, a lighting device, an antenna, a wireless communication system (the exterior rearview mirror may include various electronic accessories therein or thereat, and may include the likes of bus connectors, such as an Ethernet terminal or the like. Optionally, for example, and such as shown in FIG. 17D, a camera or camera module 246 (such as a rearward facing camera and/or a downward facing camera and/or a sideward facing camera and/or a forward facing camera) may be installed or included in or at the exterior rearview mirror assembly, such as at or in the mirror casing or shell 244″; see at least paragraph 0087).Regarding claim 12, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses the exterior rearview mirror assembly according to claim 1, configured such that when the assembly (10) is operatively attached to a vehicle, the movable part (20) can rotate about the first axis between an extended position in which the mirror head (12, 14) can be positioned to provide a rear field of view for a driver while driving a vehicle, and a parking position in which the mirror head (12, 14) is folded towards the vehicle ( the mirror assembly and/or control circuitry may operate the actuator or actuators at 12 volts or the like during normal operation, and may include a booster circuit that is operable to operate the actuator at a higher power or voltage (such as at 24 Volts or the like) for increased speed during a powerfold operation (where the mirror head is pivoted about both axes to fold or move so as to be generally along the side of the vehicle); see at least paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 11, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein at least one electric and/electronic component is attached to the bracket (11), wherein the electric and/electronic component is preferably one of the following list: a camera, a lighting device, an antenna, a wireless communication system (the exterior rearview mirror may include various electronic accessories therein or thereat, and may include the likes of bus connectors, such as an Ethernet terminal or the like. Optionally, for example, and such as shown in FIG. 17D, a camera or camera module 246 (such as a rearward facing camera and/or a downward facing camera and/or a sideward facing camera and/or a forward facing camera) may be installed or included in or at the exterior rearview mirror assembly, such as at or in the mirror casing or shell 244″; see at least paragraph 0087).Regarding claim 12, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses the exterior rearview mirror assembly according to claim 1, configured such that when the assembly (10) is operatively attached to a vehicle, the movable part (20) can rotate about the first axis between an extended position in which the mirror head (12, 14) can be positioned to provide a rear field of view for a driver while driving a vehicle, and a parking position in which the mirror head (12, 14) is folded towards the vehicle ( the mirror assembly and/or control circuitry may operate the actuator or actuators at 12 volts or the like during normal operation, and may include a booster circuit that is operable to operate the actuator at a higher power or voltage (such as at 24 Volts or the like) for increased speed during a powerfold operation (where the mirror head is pivoted about both axes to fold or move so as to be generally along the side of the vehicle); see at least paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 15, De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) discloses wherein the mirror pane (10) has: a first surface, a second surface and a perimetric edge, wherein the first surface is the surface closer to the driver when the assembly is operatively attached to the vehicle, and wherein the perimetric edge of the mirror pane is overlapped totally or partially by the mirror housing, or alternatively it is not overlapped by the mirror housing (an exterior rearview mirror reflective element assembly 360 may include one or more indicators 362 disposed at a perimeter region of the mirror reflective element 360, such as for providing a blind spot indicator or lane change warning or the like to the driver of the vehicle equipped with the mirror assembly and/or for providing a turn signal indicator for drivers of other vehicles to the side and/or rear of the equipped vehicle; see at least paragraph 0093).
The limitation, “wherein the first surface is the surface closer to the driver when the assembly is operatively attached to the vehicle, and wherein the perimetric edge of the mirror pane is overlapped totally or partially by the mirror housing, or alternatively it is not overlapped by the mirror housing. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
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.
Claims 2, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wind et al. (US 2018/0257571) in view of Lim (CN 113631424).
Regarding claim 2, De Wind et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, De Wind et al. is silent regarding wherein the mirror head (4) is further adapted to tilt or rotate relative to the movable part about a third axis. Lim (figures 1-13) teaches wherein the mirror head (30) is further adapted to tilt or rotate relative to the movable part about a third axis (axis R, T, S; the actuator 70 can be mounted in the direction of the mirror 40, as shown in FIGS. 12 and 13. In this alternative, the support member 61 of the support frame 60 includes a mounting cavity for mounting the actuator 70. In this alternative, the third rotation axis T rotates relative to the first rotation axis R, specifically as shown in FIG. 12.; see at least page 4, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror head as taught by Lim in order to achieve a rear-view mirror not easy to be damaged, which allows the driver of the motor vehicle to see a complete view, which allows the motor vehicle to have better aerodynamic characteristics.
The limitation, “wherein the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other, or they are arranged relative to each other to define an angle within the range 70° to 110°” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lim discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 13, Lim (figures 1-13) teaches wherein the first and third axis (X1,X3) are parallel to each other, or they are arranged relative to each other to define an angle within the range 340° to 20° (the third geometric axis (T) is parallel to the first geometric axis (R); see at least claim 9).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wind et al. (US 2018/0257571).
Regarding claim 14, De Wind et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, De Wind et al. is silent regarding the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other, or they are arranged relative to each other to define an angle within the range 70° to 110°. De Wind et al. (figure 1A-1B) teaches wherein the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other, or they are arranged relative to each other to define an angle within the range 70° to 110° (The first and second pivot axes may be angled relative to one another at an angle of between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees; see at least paragraph 0090).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The limitation, “wherein the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other, or they are arranged relative to each other to define an angle within the range 70° to 110°” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, De Wind et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/Lauren Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights