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
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1 recites "wherein the display brackets:". It appears as though the word "include" was mistakenly left out.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 1, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottmann et al (US 2024/0042853) in view of Raines et al (US 10,76,958) and further in view of Faraj et al (US 11,054,685).
As concerns claim 1, Rottman (US 2024/0042853) discloses a vehicle comprising:
a crossbeam (Rottmann - 2) extending along a width of the vehicle;
support brackets (Rottmann - 3) connected to the crossbeam (Rottmann - 2);
a display module (Rottmann - 1) including display brackets (Rottmann - 4, 5) connected to the support brackets (Rottmann - 3) such that the display module (Rottmann - 1) is supported by the crossbeam (Rottmann - 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rottsmann fails to specify any particulars about the instrument panel, or a duct assembly or related vent.
Raines et al (US10,76,958) teaches a vehicle comprising:
an instrument panel (Raines – Figure 1) including an opening (Raines – 24);
a display module (Raines - 30) positioned within the opening in the instrument panel;
a duct assembly (Raines - 10) supported by the instrument panel such that the duct assembly (Raines - 10) is spaced axially (Raines – Figure 3) from an inner surface of the instrument panel along a length of the vehicle so as to define an access channel facilitating access to the display module (Raines - 30); and
a vent (Raines - 14) extending into the duct assembly (Raines - 10) such that the vent (Raines - 14) is positioned vertically above the display module (Raines - 30).
PNG
media_image2.png
733
1286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rottmann as taught by Raines to include access via a space provided by the duct system, to access a display module, for the expected benefit of being able to replace and/or repair the display module, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Faraj et al (US 11,054,685) further teaches a vehicle comprising:
a crossbeam (Faraj - 112) extending along a width of the vehicle;
an instrument panel (Faraj - 100) supported by the crossbeam (Faraj - 112) and including an opening (Faraj - Figure 2, wherein display 106 is placed);
support brackets (Faraj - 120) connected to the crossbeam (Faraj - 112);
a display module (Faraj - 106) positioned within the opening (Faraj - Figure 2, wherein display 106 is placed) in the instrument panel (Faraj - 100) and including display brackets (Faraj - 140) connected to the support brackets (Faraj - 120) such that the display module (Faraj - 106) is supported by the crossbeam (Faraj - 112).
PNG
media_image3.png
463
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rottmann as further taught by Faraj to provide particulars about the instrument panel being supported by a cross beam for the expected benefit of using known instrument panel support configurations commonly found in the art, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 4, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the duct assembly (Raines - 10) includes:
a pair of side ducts; and
a center duct connected to the pair of side ducts. (Raines – Figure 1 illustrates the claimed pair of ducts and a central duct)
PNG
media_image4.png
430
421
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 5, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the pair of side ducts (Raines – Figure 1 and 3) and the center duct are integrally formed. (The ducts form an integral system.)
As concerns claim 6, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the pair of side ducts and the center duct are formed as discrete components of the duct assembly (Raines – duct system 10, shown in Figure 3 also illustrates wherein each component is discrete).
As concerns claim 7, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the pair of side ducts and the center duct are connected via mechanical fasteners. (Raines – Figure 3 illustrates wherein the various duct portions are connected via fasteners, at least 102, 100, 74, 76, and various mounting holes features along the ductwork)
As concerns claim 9, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the display brackets (Rottmann - 4, 5) include:
first flanges (Rottmann – 25, 26, 27) extending in generally parallel relation to the length of the vehicle; and
second flanges (Rottmann – 23, 24) extending in generally orthogonal relation to the first flanges along a height of the vehicle.
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the display brackets (Rottmann - 4, 5) include:
first flanges (Rottmann – 25, 26, 27) extending in generally parallel relation to the length of the vehicle; and
second flanges (Rottmann – 23, 24) extending in generally orthogonal relation to the first flanges along the width of the vehicle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottmann, Raines and Fajar in view of Patel (US 4,784,285).
As concerns claim 2, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the duct assembly (Raines - 10) is configured such that the access channel defines a length extending in generally parallel relation to the length of the vehicle. (Raines – Figure 3 illustrates wherein nested elements may be remove, providing said access channel via aperture 24 – see Figure 1.)
The combination fails to specify wherein said length lies substantially within a range of approximately 80mm to approximately 120mm.
Patel (US 4,784,285) teaches wherein an access point may be sized and dimensioned for facilitating access via a tool. (Column 1, Lines 11-28 – “openings, or holes, of various shapes and sizes to provide for tool access through the hole to enable assembly of the panel to its supports or the attachment of other components”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an opening sized between the dimensions of 80mm and 120mm would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Patel to include openings in the range of 80mm to 120mm for the expected benefit of providing appropriate access for a given tool required for assembling/disassembling, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottmann, Raines and Fajar in view of Zimkiewicz et al (US 11,414,024).
As concerns claim 3, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 1, however fails to specify further comprising:
a cover plate removably connected to the instrument panel such that the cover plate conceals the access channel.
Zimkiewicz et al (US 11,414,024) however teaches the use of a cover plate (not shown) removably connected to an instrument panel (102) for concealing an access channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Zimkiewicz to include a cover panel, for the expected benefit of concealing the internal access points of the panel both from view, from dust and debris, and creating a more streamlined view of the instrument panel, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2018/0251012).
As concerns claim 8, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 4, however fails to specify wherein the center duct is asymmetrically configured about a centerline thereof extending in generally parallel relation to the length of the vehicle.
Sano (US 2018/0251012) teaches wherein the center duct may be asymmetrically configured about a centerline thereof. (Sano – Paragraph [0032])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Sano to include asymmetric central ducts, for the expected benefit of effectively providing defroster functionality to a windshield, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottmann in view of Raines and Zimkiewicz.
As concerns claim 11, Rottmann discloses a vehicle comprising:
a crossbeam (Rottmann - 2) extending along a width of the vehicle;
support brackets (Rottmann - 3) connected to the crossbeam (Rottmann - 2);
a display module (Rottmann - 1) including display brackets (Rottmann - 4, 5) directly connected to the support brackets (Rottmann - 3) by mechanical fasteners (Rottmann – ‘fasteners’ not shown) extending in generally orthogonal relation to the insertion axis; and
Rottmann fails to specify any particulars about the instrument panel.
Raines teaches an instrument panel (Raines – Figure 1) including an opening (Raines – 24) defining an insertion axis; and
a display module (Raines - 30) positioned within the opening (Raines – 24) in the instrument panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rottmann as taught by Raines to include access via a space provided by the duct system, to access a display module, for the expected benefit of being able to replace and/or repair the display module, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Zimkiewicz et al (US 11,414,024) further teaches the use of a cover plate (not shown) removably connected to an instrument panel (102) for concealing an access channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Rottmann as taught by Zimkiewicz to include a cover panel, for the expected benefit of concealing the internal access points of the panel both from view, from dust and debris, and creating a more streamlined view of the instrument panel, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 11, further comprising:
a duct assembly (Raines - 10) supported by the instrument panel and including:
a pair of side ducts; and
a center duct connected to the pair of side ducts. (Raines – Figure 1 illustrates the duct configuration)
As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the center duct (Raines – Figure 3) is spaced axially from an inner surface of the instrument panel along a length of the vehicle so as to define an access channel configured to receive the installation tool and facilitate access to the display brackets. (Raines – Figures 3-5 illustrate and step 406 discusses such access.)
As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 12, further comprising:
a vent (Raines - 14) extending into the center duct such that the vent (Raines - 14) is positioned vertically above the display module (Raines - 30). (Raines – as the vent must be removed to access the module below the claimed configuration is understood to be anticipated by Raines.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottmann, Raines and Zimkiewicz further in view of Patel (US 4,784,285).
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the duct assembly (Raines - 10) is configured such that the access channel defines a length extending in generally parallel relation to the length of the vehicle. (Raines – Figure 3 illustrates wherein nested elements may be remove, providing said access channel via aperture 24 – see Figure 1.)
The combination fails to specify wherein said length lies substantially within a range of approximately 80mm to approximately 120mm.
Patel (US 4,784,285) teaches wherein an access point may be sized and dimensioned for facilitating access via a tool. (Column 1, Lines 11-28 – “openings, or holes, of various shapes and sizes to provide for tool access through the hole to enable assembly of the panel to its supports or the attachment of other components”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an opening sized between the dimensions of 80mm and 120mm would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Patel to include openings in the range of 80mm to 120mm for the expected benefit of providing appropriate access for a given tool required for assembling/disassembling, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines in view of Rottmann and Zimkiewicz.
As concerns claim 16, Raines discloses a method of assembling a vehicle, the method comprising:
installing a duct assembly (Raines - 10) in an instrument panel (Raines – Figure 1) of the vehicle;
inserting a display module (Raines - 30) into the instrument panel along an insertion axis extending in generally parallel relation to a length of the vehicle (in Raines’ case, the vertical direction constitutes a length of the vehicle); and
using an access channel (Raines – Figures 4-5) defined between the duct assembly (Raines - 10) and the instrument panel (Raines – Figure 8).
Raines fails to specify, however, particulars of how the display module is mounted.
Rottmann et al (US 2024/0042853) teaches wherein a display module (Rottmann – 1) is positioned using first brackets (Rottmann – 4, 5) on the display module (Rottmann - 1) adjacent to second brackets (Rottmann – 3) connected to a crossbeam (Rottmann - 2) extending along a width of the vehicle; and
connecting the first brackets and the second brackets via mechanical fasteners (Rottmann – ‘fasteners’ not shown) such that the mechanical fasteners extend in generally orthogonal relation to the insertion axis.
Zimkiewicz et al (US 11,414,024) further teaches the insertion of an installation tool (186) into an access channel and using the tool to manipulate fasteners. (Zimkiewicz - Figure 9)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Raines as further taught by Zimkiewicz to include the insertion of an installation tool for the expected benefit of providing further ability to remove and repair or replace the display module elements of Raines, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 17, the combination discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising:
removably installing a cover plate (Zimkiewicz- not shown) in the instrument panel such that the cover plate conceals the access channel.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines, Rottmann and Zimkiewicz further in view of Patel (US 4,784,285).
As concerns claim 18, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 13, wherein installing the duct assembly (Raines - 10) includes installing a pair of side ducts and a center duct connected to the pair of side ducts (Raines – Figures 1 and 3), wherein the center duct is configured such that the access channel defines a length extending in generally parallel relation to the length of the vehicle. (Raines – Figure 3 illustrates wherein nested elements may be remove, providing said access channel via aperture 24 – see Figure 1.)
The combination fails to specify wherein said length lies substantially within a range of approximately 80mm to approximately 120mm.
Patel (US 4,784,285) teaches wherein an access point may be sized and dimensioned for facilitating access via a tool. (Column 1, Lines 11-28 – “openings, or holes, of various shapes and sizes to provide for tool access through the hole to enable assembly of the panel to its supports or the attachment of other components”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an opening sized between the dimensions of 80mm and 120mm would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Patel to include openings in the range of 80mm to 120mm for the expected benefit of providing appropriate access for a given tool required for assembling/disassembling, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 19, the combination discloses the method of claim 18, wherein installing the duct assembly includes positioning the center duct such that the center duct is spaced axially from an inner surface of the instrument panel along the length of the vehicle to thereby define the access channel. (Figure 3 of Raines illustrates wherein the duct is spaced backward away from the front of the instrument panel, and upon removal of parts as shown in Figures 4 and 5 constitutes the access channel).
As concerns claim 20, the combination discloses the vehicle of claim 18, further comprising:
Inserting a vent (Raines - 14) into the center duct such that the vent (Raines - 14) is positioned vertically above the display module (Raines - 30). (Raines – as the vent must be removed to access the module below the claimed configuration is understood to be anticipated by Raines.)
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 AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679