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 § 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 12–22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, Claim 12 recites the limitation "the body;" however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is likely that Claim 12 should include, immediately prior to the limitation “the body,” the limitation “a body positioned on the second segment of the support rack,” similar to Claim 1.
Claims 13–22 depend from Claim 12 and inherit the deficiency.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0225292 to Lee in view of CN 212401063 to Mu (translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses (e.g., Fig. 1 and its description, though the whole document appears relevant) a bicycle mirror comprising: a support rack 3 including a first segment (near 31) and a second segment (near 34); the first segment having a connector 31, and the connector having a first receiving edge (e.g., upper edge, near label 32), a second receiving edge (e.g., lower edge, near label 31), and an accommodation groove (hole 32 through which fastener 33 is inserted) communicating with the first receiving edge and the second receiving edge; the second receiving edge having a connection portion 31 formed on the second receiving edge, the accommodation groove having a first fixing orifice defined on the first receiving edge (upper opening of hole 32), the second receiving edge having a second fixing orifice defined on a distal end of the connection portion (lower opening of hole 32, through which fastener 33 is inserted into positioning hole 21); a body 4 positioned on the second segment of the support rack; a C-shaped retainer 2 configured to fit with a gripping element 1, and the C-shaped retainer including an insertion, a locking section with respect to the insertion, and a slit defined between the insertion and the locking section (Figs. 1 and 5); the insertion having a fixing trench configured to engage with the connection portion of the support rack (e.g., Figs. 1 and 5, by means of fastener 33), a passing orifice communicating with the fixing trench and the slit (Figs. 1 and 5), wherein the locking section has a threaded orifice 22 with respect to the passing orifice; and a screwing element 33 screwed with the threaded orifice after being inserted from the first fixing orifice of the support rack via the accommodation groove and the passing orifice of the C-shaped retainer, such that the C-shaped retainer is fitted with the gripping element (Figs. 1 and 5).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the connection portion having multiple locating protrusions formed on a distal end thereof and surrounding the second fixing orifice, and multiple cavities defined around a bottom of the fixing trench and configured to engage with the multiple locating protrusions of the connection portion so that the support rack is limited to engage on the C-shaped retainer.
Mu discloses a bicycle mirror (e.g., Figs. 1–3) and teaches a connecting portion having protrusions (e.g., 14) that mate with corresponding cavities (e.g., 13) in order to facilitate adjustments to the mirror.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Lee such that the connection portion has multiple locating protrusions formed on a distal end thereof and surrounding the second fixing orifice, and multiple cavities defined around a bottom of the fixing trench and configured to engage with the multiple locating protrusions of the connection portion so that the support rack is limited to engage on the C-shaped retainer, as suggested by Mu, in order to facilitate desired adjustments to the mirror.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lee and Mu would have rendered obvious wherein the accommodation groove of the connector is stepped and has a large-diameter portion, a small-diameter portion communicating with the large-diameter portion, a first aperture defined on the large-diameter portion away from the small-diameter portion, and a second aperture defined on the small-diameter portion away from the large-diameter portion; the screwing element is a threaded bolt and includes a head and a threaded shank, wherein the head is engaged in the large-diameter portion, and the threaded shank is screwed with the threaded orifice via the small-diameter portion (e.g., Figs. 1 and 5 of Lee, where the specific dimensions are not explicitly taught, but Fig. 5 appears to illustrate the claimed relative dimension, and further selecting desired dimensions based on design considerations, yielding predictable results, would have been obvious, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lee and Mu would have rendered obvious wherein the C-shaped retainer includes two arcuate clampers, the two arcuate clampers have two rotatable coupling portions rotatably connected, and the two arcuate clampers also have two free edges, wherein one arcuate clamper has the insertion formed on a free edge thereof, and the other arcuate clamper has the other free edge formed on the other free edge thereof (e.g., Figs. 1 and 5 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lee and Mu would have rendered obvious an insulation washer configured to connect on the connection portion of the support rack opposite to the insertion of the C-shaped retainer, such that the multiple locating protrusions of the connection portion are separated from the multiple cavities of the C-shaped retainer, and the support rack is adjustably rotated when the screwing element is not rotated loosely (e.g., Figs. 1 and 5 of Lee; Figs. 1–3 of Mu, where including a common mechanical component, such as an insulation washer, to achieve its known and common function, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5–11 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.
Claims 12–22 are allowed, subject to the §112 rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the combination of all features recited in Claim 5, all taken together in combination and as a whole, including those features of claims from which Claim 5 depends, including “wherein the second segment of the support rack has at least two coupling orifices extending from a forming direction of the support rack, and a respective one coupling orifice has a screwing orifice formed radially and communicated therewith; wherein a fitting sleeve is selectively fitted in one coupling orifice of the support rack, and the fitting sleeve includes a spherical notch formed therein; wherein the body includes a spherical knob configured to fit with the spherical notch of the fitting sleeve; and wherein a locking element configured to be selectively screwed on one of two screwing orifices so as to abut against an outer wall of the fitting sleeve of the one coupling orifice, hence the fitting sleeve is flexibly engaged with the spherical knob.”
CN 223237812 (translation attached with this Office action) illustrates in Figs. 1 and 2 a mirror mount that can translate and be fixed in various locations; however, the reference does not teach two separate and independent coupling orifices, configured to receive a spherical knob, as claimed.
Claim 12 recited features similar to those discussed above with respect to Claim 5, and would be allowable for similar reasons; Claims 6–11 depend from Claim 5; Claims 13–22 depend from Claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 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, Michael 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871