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
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 78 ([0049]) and “side 4” ([0042]). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because in FIG.12 it is unclear if reference numerals “74” (both) should be “62” (both) to represent the closeouts. At [0056] of the specification “rectangular shaped closeout 74” is disclosed where previously closeout was “62” and “74” was used to denote a “flange”. The specification should correspond with the drawing figures and corrections/further explanation is requested.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "62" and "74" have both been used to designate closeouts.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "74" was used to denote both a “flange” and “closeout” in the specification.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0042], line 4, “(side 4)” is unclear.
At [0049], lines 4-5, “housing portion 78” is disclosed but not apparent from the drawing figures.
At [0056], line 4, “closeout 74” was previously closeout “62” and “74” was used to denote “flange”.
Throughout the specification (at [0006], [0008], [0029], [0041], [0042], [0045], [0055]) reference is made to ECE (Economic Commission for Europe) regulations and specifically Regulation No 1125. Initially, examiner notes that she is not familiar with the ECE and further can find no support setting forth a “5 degree line” in regulation 1125. Additionally, over time regulations can and do change. In this instance, examiner suggests removing all instances of regulation 1125 and the ECE from the disclosure for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 19 references ECE regulation 1125 which is inappropriate language for the claim set and does not deal with a “5-degree line” as recited. Moreover, these claims are indefinite because it is unclear what applicant is intending to recite with the “5-degree line” or how one would determine infringement. For the purposes of examination on the merits, these claims will be examined as best understood.
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.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centner (8514059) in view of Friedman (6452507).
For claim 20, Centner inherently discloses the recited process of releasably attaching a display system to a front windshield assembly comprises:
bonding (FIG.15) at least two metal or plastic datum retention features (120,120) onto an interior facing glass surface of the front windshield assembly;
releasably attaching the display system (10,100) to the datum retention features,
wherein the display system comprises a rigid bracket (100) comprising flanges (108,108) outwardly extending on each side of a display mounted to the rigid bracket,
each of the flanges comprising a keyhole-shaped opening including an opening portion and a slot opening portion;
wherein the attaching of the display system comprises lockingly engaging the datum retention features at a detent position at a terminal end of the slot opening portion upon engagement with the slot opening portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Centner lacks a molded snap fit feature overlying the opening portion, a feature taught by Friedman as seen in FIG.4 with L-shaped hooks or latches (40).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Centner with a molded snap fit feature as taught by Friedman in order to prevent accidental disengagement of the display system.
Center, as modified, inherently further discloses the steps of releasing the display system comprises upward flexure of the molded snap fit feature and sliding engagement of the rigid bracket away from the terminal end of the slot opening portion to the opening portion,
wherein the rigid bracket can be completely disengaged from the datum retention features.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor et al. (8256821) in view of Centner and Friedman.
For claim 1, Lawlor et al. disclose an automotive vehicle comprising:
a front windshield assembly comprising at least two spaced apart rigid pins (20,20) adhesively (Col 4, lines 6-9) bonded to an interior-facing curved glass surface,
wherein each of the at least spaced apart rigid two pins comprises
a bottom planar surface (not numbered, FIG.4) substantially coplanar with the interior facing glass surface, and
a stem portion (not numbered, FIG.4) extending from the bottom planar surface to a terminal head portion, and
wherein the front windshield assembly further includes a closeout (Col 1, lines 23-28 and Col 1, lines 62-64) injection molded on the interior-facing curved glass surface formed of a compressible thermoplastic elastomer (80,82); and
a display system releasably (Col 2, lines 26-30) attached to the interior facing glass surface comprising a display mounted to a rigid bracket (16).
Lawlor et al. further disclose the desirability of the closeout being compressed upon engagement of the rigid bracket to the at least two spaced apart rigid pins to form a sealed cavity between the mounted display and the interior facing glass surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
598
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lawlor et al. lack the rigid bracket specifically comprising flanges extending outwardly relative to the mounted display on each side thereof as recited.
This feature is taught by the well known prior art as seen with at least Centner (8514059) which includes a bracket (100) having flanges (108,108), each of the flanges (108) comprising a keyhole-shaped opening (FIG.15, not numbered) including an opening portion and a slot opening portion configured for sliding engagement and disengagement of the rigid bracket to the at least two spaced apart rigid pins (120).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the bracket of Lawlor et al. with flanges as taught by the configuration of Centner as an obvious design expedient based on manufacturing specifications, materials, cost, and time.
For claims 5 and 10, Lawlor et al., as modified, lacks the flanges comprise a molded snap fit feature including a flexible portion overlying the opening portion of the keyhole opening, wherein the flexible portion is configured to upwardly flex upon insertion of the terminal head portion of the pin, wherein the rigid bracket can be slidingly engaged with and lockingly engaged at a detent position at a terminal end of the slot opening portion and slidingly disengaged from the at least two pins upon upward flexure of the molded snap fit feature and sliding engagement of the rigid bracket away from the terminal end to the opening portion.
This feature is known from at least Friedman (6452507) as seen in FIG.4 with L-shaped hooks or latches (40).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Lawlor et al., as modified, with a molded snap fit feature as taught by Friedman in order to prevent accidental disengagement of the display system.
For claims 4 and 16, the closeout of Lawlor, as modified, and the rigid bracket have shapes effective to form a sealed cavity to prevent dust, debris and moisture from entering therein upon compressive engagement of the rigid bracket with the closeout.
For claim 6, the display mounted to the rigid bracket comprises a transparent display.
For claim 7, Lawlor et al., as modified, disclose the opening portion and the slot opening portion of the keyhole-shaped opening (from what Centner teaches) have dimensions equal to or slightly larger than dimensions of the terminal head portion and the stem portion, respectively.
For claim 9, the releasable display system further comprises a decorative outer cover (Lawlor et al. at 24) snap fit to the rigid bracket and overlying the rigid bracket in its entirety, the decorative outer cover including an opening (window 37, FIG.4) for viewing the display mounted to the rigid bracket.
For claim 11, the at least two pins function as datums for releasable attachment of the rigid bracket during assembly and for attaching of the closeout onto the interior facing glass surface. With regard to process limitation, it should be noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
For claim 12, as seen with Friedman, the molded snap feature (40) which has been incorporated into Lawlor et al., as modified, comprises a notched end (92)(FIG.7) configured to lockingly engage the terminal head portion (56) at the detent position when the pin is at the terminal end of the slot opening portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
254
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claim 13, the display is raised relative to the flanges (see incorporated Centner where the flanges are positioned at a lowermost location closest to the windshield and spaced from the remainder of the bracket/frame.
For claim 17, the rigid bracket comprises vents and the display is programmed to power on and release heat onto the interior facing glass surface about the display system upon detection of a condensation condition (Col 10, lines 25-36).
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor et al., as modified above, further in view of GB 2170281 and Schuiling et al. (2024/0263975).
For claims 2 and 14, Lawlor et al., as modified, disclose the bracket being formed of a rigid material but is completely silent as to the specific Shore hardness of the material comprising the gaskets and fails to disclose a Shore hardness thereof equal to or less than about 50 with the rigid bracket having a Shore hardness of equal to or greater than about 75.
GB 2170281 (GB 281) (below, left) teaches a gasket (10), typically of neoprene, having Shore hardness of 50 to 90. Schuiling et al. (below, right) teach a device made from plastic having a Shore hardness of 70 or greater ([0004]) and in some examples ([0028]) disclose a plastic material having a Shore hardness between 70 and 75 or between 75 and 80.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the gaskets of Lawlor et al., as modified, from a material with Shore hardness of 50 as taught by GB 281 and to have provided the rigid bracket from a plastic material with Shore hardness of 75 as taught by Schuiling et al. as obvious material expedient to achieve the same predictable results.
PNG
media_image5.png
151
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
308
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Moreover, applicant places no criticality on the claimed resistance.
Additionally, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
For claims 3 and 15, Lawlor et al., as modified, implicitly disclose the closeout compresses at least 25 percent upon the sliding engagement of the rigid bracket as it is apparent the material of Lawlor et al., as modified, with the recite Shore hardness would necessarily exhibit this property.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor et al., as modified above, and further in view of JP 4472272 (JP 272).
For claims 8 and 19, Lawlor et al., as modified, does not consider a 5-degree line when determining placement of the device but JP 272 teaches a display device and anticipates alternative positioning locations. For example, as seen in one embodiment, JP 272 shows the device attached to the windshield (FIG.1(b)) at a high location (above a 5 degree line) but in an alternative embodiment (FIG.2(b)) positions the device below a 5 degree line.
PNG
media_image7.png
166
324
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Lawlor et al., as modified, for use at a lower most windshield location below a 5 degree line as taught by JP 272 in order to allow ease of viewing while driving.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor et al., as modified above, and further in view of Gunes (10232798).
For claim 18, Lawlor et al., as modified, is silent as to the decorative housing overlying the rigid bracket being “snap fit” to the rigid bracket and is removable relative to the rigid bracket, but snap on attachments are known from Gunes where attachment features (56,58,60) cooperate with attachment receiving features (92,94,96) in a “snapfit” coupling.
PNG
media_image8.png
403
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
547
619
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the decorative housing (24) of Lawlor et al., as modified, with a snap/snap on configuration as taught by Gunes as an obvious expedient to maintain the cover in position.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614