DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (DE102013013356A1) and Sandhu et al. (US20140239663)
Regarding claim 13, Werner discloses a vehicle cockpit of modular design for a motor vehicle, comprising: a lower part of an instrument panel (lower part of 1, figs 6-7); an upper part of the instrument panel (upper part of 1, fig 2a-b); a first technology-carrier (longer module 4, fig 2a-b) arranged between the lower part of the instrument panel and the upper part of the instrument panel (figs 2a-b), and is fastenable to a supporting tube (3) (figs 1-7), and the first technology-carrier extends over a distance amounting to between 60 % and 90 % of a width of the vehicle cockpit along the transverse axis of the vehicle (figs 2a, 2b), and the first technology-carrier is interchangeable (abstract, page 2).
Werner is silent regarding the fact that the vehicle cockpit extends along a transverse axis of the vehicle from a left A-pillar as far as to a right A-pillar.
Sandhu teaches that the vehicle cockpit extends along a transverse axis of the vehicle from a left A-pillar (20a) as far as to a right A-pillar (20b) (fig 1, [0042]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner and Sandhu before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Werner to include the fact that the vehicle cockpit extends along a transverse axis of the vehicle from a left A-pillar as far as to a right A-pillar in order to provide structural support to the cockpit.
Regarding claim 18, Werner further discloses that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is configured to accommodate a control element and/or a display element (abstract, page 2, figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 19, Werner further discloses that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is interchangeable jointly with the control element and/or the display element (abstract, page 2, figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 20, Werner further discloses that the lower part of the instrument panel is provided for structurally differing motor vehicles (intended use, figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 21, Werner further discloses that the upper part of the instrument panel is provided for motor vehicles of identical construction (intended use, figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 22, Werner further discloses that at least one cavity configured to stiffen the technology-carrier and/or an air duct is integrated into the technology-carrier (page 3, figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 23, Werner further discloses that at least one air-vent housing is integrated into at least one of the first or second technology-carriers (page 3 discloses a heating and air-conditioning system that includes air vent housing, also see figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 24, Werner further discloses A motor vehicle comprising a vehicle cockpit according to claim 13 (abstract , fig 1-7)
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (DE102013013356A1) and Sandhu et al. (US20140239663) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20160355091)
Regarding claim 14, Werner further teaches that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is interchangeable (shorter 4, fig 2a-b). the combination of Werner and Sandhu is silent regarding a second technology-carrier arranged between the lower part of the instrument panel and the upper part of the instrument panel, below or above the first technology-carrier, wherein the second technology-carrier extends over a distance amounting to between 60 % and 90 % of the width of the vehicle cockpit along the transverse axis of the vehicle.
Lee teaches a second technology-carrier (130) arranged between the lower part of the instrument panel and the upper part of the instrument panel (fig 2), below or above the first technology-carrier (120) (fig 2), wherein the second technology-carrier extends over a distance amounting to between 60 % and 90 % of the width of the vehicle cockpit along the transverse axis of the vehicle (fig 2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner, Lee and Sandhu before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Werner and Sandhu to include the second technology-carrier as taught by Lee in order to display information needed for a vehicle driving without dispersion of a driver's gaze ([0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Werner further discloses that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is fastenable in the vehicle cockpit with a multi-hook quick-acting closure system (page 3 paragraph 3, discloses the use of a clamping device to secure the module to the crossmember).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (DE102013013356A1) and Sandhu et al. (US20140239663) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 20050264040).
Regarding claims 16-17, the combination of Werner and Sandhu is silent regarding the fact that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is formed of a single material.
Bailey teaches that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is formed of a single material ([0012] discloses that the technology-carrier can be entirely made of plastic).
Bailey further teaches that the material is a synthetic material ([0012] discloses the use of a synthetic material).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner, Bailey and Sandhu before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Werner and Sandhu to include the first or second technology-carriers is formed of a single or synthetic material as taugh by Bailey in order to provide high structural integrity ([0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
11/22/2025