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 without traverse of Group I invention, including claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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 1-7, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huizen et al. (US 2020/0353867).
Regarding claim 1, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses an exterior rear-view mirror assembly for a vehicle, comprising
a mirror base attached to the vehicle (18; see at least paragraphs 0035/0036); and
a mirror head (20) pivotably attached to the mirror base, wherein the mirror head is configured to operate in a plurality of positions with respect to the mirror base (The mirror head 20 is adjustable relative to the base portion 18 (such as at an outer end portion 16 of the base portion 18) via the actuator 22 fixedly attached at a bracket portion 23a (FIGS. 8 and 9) of the mirror assembly; see at least paragraph 0037),
the mirror head comprising a mirror case frame (mirror back plate 124) operably coupled to a glass actuator (122; figure 18) for mounting a mirror glass (mirror reflective element 112) and an upper mirror housing (114a) for securing the mirror case frame and the mirror glass (the mirror assembly 110 includes a mirror reflective element 112 and upper and lower mirror housing or casing 114a, 114b that are adjustable via an actuator 122 relative to a mounting arm or base 118; see at least paragraph 0046),
wherein the upper mirror housing (114a; figure 19) has a first upper mirror housing end and a second upper mirror housing end (on both upper ends of 114),
wherein the mirror case frame (upper and lower portions / left and right portions of mirror back plate 124) has a first mirror case frame end and a second mirror case frame end (figure 20), and
wherein the mirror case fame is secured with the upper mirror housing using a twist-lock mechanism in combination with a fastening mechanism, wherein the second mirror case frame end and the second upper mirror housing end are coupled using the twist-lock mechanism, and the first mirror case frame end and the first upper mirror housing end are coupled using a fastening mechanism, wherein the twist-lock mechanism enables the fastening mechanism.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 2, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses a lower mirror housing (114b) coupled to form an enclosure such that to accommodate the mirror case frame, the glass actuator and the mirror glass (124, 122, and mirror reflective element 112; figures 19-20).
Regarding claim 3, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses a bezel (actuator attachment plate 125; see at least paragraph 0046) secured with the assembly of mirror housings (114a and 114b) wherein the bezel is placed between the glass actuator (122; figure 18) and the mirror glass (mirror reflective element 112).
Regarding claim 4, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the mirror case frame (mirror back plate 124 and 122; figure 18) is operably coupled with the glass actuator to enable movement of the mirror glass.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 5, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the mirror case frame is configured to accommodate at least one actuator for changing the position of the mirror head with respect to the mirror base to one of the plurality of positions the mirror actuator 122 has its body or base 122a (that houses the actuator motors) attached at an actuator attachment plate 125 at the mirror back plate 124, while the actuator adapter plate 122b is attached at the bracket 123; see at least paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 6, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the mirror glass is operably secured with the mirror case frame via the glass actuator such that a pre-configured angle of the mirror glass can be changed with respect to the mirror case frame.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 7, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the second mirror case frame end is configured to accommodate at least one actuator in a direction perpendicular to an axis extending from the first upper mirror housing end to the second upper mirror housing end of the mirror case frame ((upper and lower portions / left and right portions of mirror back plate 124); the mirror actuator 122 has its body or base 122a (that houses the actuator motors) attached at an actuator attachment plate 125 at the mirror back plate 124, while the actuator adapter plate 122b is attached at the bracket 123; see at least paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 13, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the twist-lock mechanism involves twisting the mirror case frame with respect to the upper mirror housing.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 14, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the twist-lock mechanism involves sliding the at least one extended rib of the mirror case frame on a sliding plane of the end-stop wall of the second upper mirror housing such that to restrict a downward movement.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 15, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the restriction of movement of the mirror case frame in the upward direction and in the downward direction is simultaneously achieved by the offset positioning of the at least one end-stop wall and the at least one rib.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 16, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the first mirror case frame end is configured with at least one extended arm (extended portion of 124; figure 20).
Regarding claim 18, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the at least one extended arm is in proximity with the at least one fastening coupler after the twist-lock mechanism is performed between the mirror case frame and the upper mirror housing.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 15, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein the at least one extended arm and the at least one fastening coupler is secured using at least one fastening mechanism including a screwing mechanism, a snap-fit mechanism or using adhesive.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 20, Huizen et al. (figures 1-20) discloses a vehicle comprising the exterior rear-view assembly according to claim 1 (figure 1).
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 8-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huizen et al. (US 2020/0353867) in view of Muto et al. (US 2019/0077317).
Regarding claim 8, Huizen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Huizen et al. is silent regarding wherein the second mirror case frame end of the mirror case frame is configured with a mirror case frame profile, having at least one extended rib and at least one end-stop wall, offset to each other. Muto et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the second mirror case frame end of the mirror case frame (24) is configured with a mirror case frame profile, having at least one extended rib and at least one end-stop wall, offset to each other (flat portion and extended portion of the area where screw 18D is disposed; figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rib as taught by Muto et al. in order to enable relative placement accuracy of a peripheral face at the opening, the retention tube, and the support wall to be improved, and enable placement accuracy of the mirror body with respect to the peripheral face at the opening to be improved.
Regarding claim 9, Muto et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the at least one end-stop wall restricts further movement of the mirror case frame in the upward direction (flat portion and extended portion of the area where screw 18D is disposed; figure 1).
The limitations “wherein the at least one end-stop wall restricts further movement of the mirror case frame in the upward direction” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Muto et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the second upper mirror housing end is configured with an opening towards a bottom end of the upper mirror housing (the surface of body 16 facing 24; The vehicle width direction outside portion of the reinforcement 24 at the pair of assembly plates 24B is fixed to the visor body 16 by fastening a third screw 18C and a fourth screw 18D, each serving as an assembly member; see at least paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 11, Muto et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the opening is configured to match the mirror case frame profile (the opening is where screw 18 is inserted into the body 16; The vehicle width direction outside portion of the reinforcement 24 at the pair of assembly plates 24B is fixed to the visor body 16 by fastening a third screw 18C and a fourth screw 18D, each serving as an assembly member; see at least paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 12, Muto et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the opening is further configured with at least one cut-out, and the opening is configured to allow the mirror case frame to enter, vertically with respect to the length of the upper mirror housing, from the bottom in an upward direction such that at least one rib of the mirror case frame passes through the at least one cut-out of the upper mirror housing (portions of 24 is inserted into the body 16 as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Muto et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the upper mirror housing is configured with at least one fastening coupler (42D and 46).
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