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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding removal of “guide pin” in claim 6, examiner notes that this clarifies the issues, however, based on applicant’s arguments regarding the scope of “hinge sections”, this prevents rejoinder. Applicant now claims the use of a folding joint using three sections that include [intermediate attachment, base, display arm] from claim 1 AND two more sections [first hinge section, second hinge section] of claim 6, which applicant has not disclosed in any embodiment. Therefore, claim 6 and its dependents (claims 8-13) remain withdrawn. Examiner again notes that the removal of the term “hinge sections” in claims 1 AND claim 6 may allow rejoinder.
Regarding drawings: examiner thanks applicant for not claiming features which are absent in the drawings.
Regarding 112b rejections:
Scope of “hinge sections”: Applicant asserts that “sections” are the intermediate attachment, base, and display arm, as well as first hinge section, which is not elected. Therefore, it seems that applicant intends that “hinge section” is just a broad term for any component of the hinge, and that the claimed “intermediate attachment” is one hinge section, the “base” is one hinge section, and the “display arm” is one hinge section. Examiner notes that the base is NOT “configured to rotated relative to the vehicle” and therefore, does NOT qualify as a “hinge section”. Therefore, the scope of “hinge sections” remains indefinite, since applicant cannot accurately describe what constitutes a “hinge section”. Since applicant later claims the specific structures of the claimed “sections” there really is no purpose for this term “hinge sections”.
Applicant claims “one or more hinge sections” when later requiring at least three components. Examiner has rejected the term “one or more”, and suggests that applicant claim “a plurality of hinge sections, the hinge sections comprising”. Further, there is no reason for the term “hinge sections” to be utilized in the claim language. Examiner notes that applicant positively claims the “first end and a second end” in each recitation of the specific section, and does not need to do so generally.
Regarding the “biasing element”, applicant has moved all terms to claim 21, which does not rectify the indefiniteness issues previously discussed, they merely move the indefiniteness to claim 21.
Regarding 102 rejection, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spring biased cam section” of claim 21 is not shown in the elected embodiment, the “clamping bolt” of claim 21 is not shown in the elected embodiment, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Priority
Examiner notes that applicant has elected an embodiment which includes an intermediate attachment. This is not present in applicant’s original German priority document DE102016110748.4 filed in 2016. It is also not present in applicant’s 371 filing 16/307800, filed in 2017. The first time the “intermediate attachment” is disclosed by applicant is 6 December 2018, in parent case 17/012476. Therefore, the priority date of the elected embodiment cannot be before 6 December 2018.
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 1-5, 7, 14, 16, 21 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.
Regarding claim 1:
-applicant argues “intermediate attachment” is a hinge section, “base” is a hinge section” and “rear view display arm” is a hinge section. Therefore, applicant is positively claiming at least three hinge sections. The claiming of “one or more hinge sections” is therefore indefinite, since applicant requires three. Examiner suggests replacing “one or more” with “plurality of”. Examiner also notes that since applicant is positively claiming the “sections”, that the term “sections” are not required for the claim language, since it is a broad term which is then specifically narrowed. Examiner also suggests removal of “hinge sections” entirely, which will not change the scope of the claim language.
-“hinge sections, each of which is configured to rotate relative to the vehicle”. Applicant argues that the base is a hinge section, however, the base does not rotate relative to the vehicle and is not configured to do so. Therefore, the scope of “hinge sections” remains indefinite, since applicant cannot accurately describe what constitutes a “hinge section”. Examiner again suggests removal of the term “hinge sections”.
Claim 7: The “rear view display” is claimed in claim 1 as intended use, therefore, further limiting what the intended use “rear view display” is, in claim 7, does not further limit the folding joint. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to positively claim the rear view display device, which is not the current scope of the claim.
Claim 21:
-applicant seems to use 112f terminology improperly. Applicant claims "biasing element comprising a spring, a coil, a wave spring, or other elastic member" within claim 1. If applicant intends that "biasing element" should be considered under 112f, then further limiting the "biasing element" should happen in a dependent claim. If applicant is intending to further limit "biasing element" in claim 1, then applicant is claiming a broad term AND narrow terms in the same claim, which is indefinite. Further, the scope of "other elastic member" is not defined in the scope of the specification.
-"spring biased cam section or a biased clamping bolt" is not shown in the elected embodiment. The elected embodiment includes spring 902 between parts 1000 and 1002 best shown in figure 20. Part 1000 is disclosed as "first biased frame" and 1002 is disclosed as "second biased frame". Should applicant intend to refer to these parts of the elected embodiment, then applicant should claim the correct terminology for the elected embodiment. Examiner assumes that the spring biased cam section is considered to be equivalent to part 1000 "first biased frame", and that the biased clamping bolt is considered to be equivalent to part 1002 "second biased frame".
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 14, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 2018/0265015 Rohrmuller.
Rohrmuller was published 13 March 2018, prior to applicant’s first support of the “intermediate attachment” on 6 December 2018, and therefore qualifies as prior art under 102a1.
Regarding claim 1, Rohrmuller discloses a “bi directional” (intended function of the structure below) folding joint for attaching a rear view display device to a vehicle (as shown in figure 19), comprising:
one or more hinge sections (applicant claims three specific hinge sections below, therefore, this broad term “hinge sections” does not change the scope of the claim) each of which is configured to rotate relative to the vehicle (applicant argues the base is a “hinge section”, but it is NOT configured to rotate, and therefore, this intended function phrase causes indefiniteness issues with the term “hinge sections”), with each of the one or more hinge sections comprising a first end and a second end (examiner assumes that the below structural parts are equivalent in scope to the “hinge sections”, and therefore, the structure of the broad terms “hinge sections” are more narrowly shown below);
wherein the one or more hinge sections comprise (again, examiner assumes that the parts below are the narrower structural requirements of these sections, and that applicant requires three hinge sections, so “one or more” is inappropriate here):
an intermediate attachment 32, the intermediate attachment comprising a first end and a second end (with pivot points B and C on each end),
a base 36 pivotably coupled to the intermediate attachment 32 at the second end, the pivotable coupling between he base 36 and the intermediate attachment 32 forming a second pivot joint 41 that pivots about a second axis (axis C), a support surface 44 extends from the base 36;
a rear view display arm 34 (applicant includes this term as a name, but does not positively include the rear view display) having a proximal arm end (with pivot point B) and a distal arm end (with camera 26), and pivotably coupled to the intermediate attachment 32 at the first end (at pivot point B), the pivotable coupling between the rear view display arm 34 and the intermediate attachment 32 forming a first pivot joint 39 that pivots about a first axis (pivot point B) to enable the rear view display arm to rotate between a first position at which the distal arm end of the rear view display arm is further from a side of the vehicle (figure 3b, which is identical to applicant’s first position figure 11) and a second position at which the rear view display device faces the vehicle (figure 2b, which is identical to applicant’s second position figure 13), a bracing member 40 extends from the proximal arm end of rear view display arm 34;
wherein a support surface 44 extends from the base 36, wherein a bracing member 40 extends from the proximal arm end of rear view display arm 34, and
wherein the support surface 44 of the base 36 comprises a guide groove 44b configured to rotatably secure a rib on the bracing member at the proximal arm end of the rear view display arm to secure the rearview display arm (capable of engaging part of the intermediate attachment 32 during rotation to any position) when the rear view display arm is in the second position (as shown in figure 2b).
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Rohrmuller discloses the joint of claim 1, wherein the intermediate attachment 32 comprises a first protruding member (two protruding members, pin to form the axes B and C) and a second receiving cavity (cavity receives pin for the axes B and C, as discussed in [0011]);
the rear view display arm 34 is pivotably coupled to the intermediate attachment 32 at the first end to form the first axis (axis B), the rear view display arm comprising a first receiving cavity to receive the first protruding member (hole to receive the pin for the axes); and
the base 36 is pivotably coupled to the intermediate attachment 32 at the second end forming the second axis (axis C), the base comprising a second protruding member (pin to create the axis) that is received by the second receiving cavity (hole receiving the pin).
Regarding claim 3, Rohrmuller discloses the folding joint of claim 2, wherein the second protruding member of the base is pivotably coupled to the second receiving cavity of the intermediate attachment (pivot pins creating axes B and C are pivotable).
Regarding claim 7, Rohrmuller discloses the joint of claim 1, the arm/first hinge section holds a camera module 26.
Regarding claim 14, Rohrmuller discloses the folding joint of claim 2, wherein the arm 34 is pivotably coupled at the first end of the intermediate attachment via a first pin (as discussed in [0011]) to form the first axis (Axis B), and the intermediate attachment is pivotably coupled to the base at the second end of the intermediate attachment via a second pin (as discussed in [0011]) to form the second axis (axis C).
Regarding claim 16, Rohrmuller discloses a vehicle (figure 1b) with two rear view display devices (on each side of the vehicle body, figure 1b).
Regarding claim 21, Rohrmuller discloses the joint of claim 1, further comprising a biasing element 32b comprising a spring, a coil 32b (figure 4) for biasing at least one of the one or more hinge sections in response to rotation of the folding joint (rolling over the cams 40/44) with the biasing element 32b biasing at least one of a spring biased cam section 38 or a biased clamping bolt 42 (detailed in figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights