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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/6/2025.
Examiner notes that claim 6, and its dependents 8-13, require the inclusion of a “guide pin” 7, which is only disclosed in figure 1. Figure 1 includes “hinge section 2 can be adapted to hold a rear view display device” [0070] and “hinge section 3 which can be adapted to attach to the vehicle”. Figure 1 does NOT include the use of a “intermediate attachment”, which is required in elected claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 and its dependents are referring to a different embodiment incompatible with claim 1, and are also, not elected. Claims 6, 8-13, are considered withdrawn.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
-“hinge sections” are not shown in drawings that include “intermediate attachment 504” as required in the elected claim 1. Please see 112b rejection regarding the scope of “sections” below.
-“spring biased cam section” is not shown in the elected embodiment.
-“clamping bolt”, disclosed as parts 9 and 190, are not shown in the drawings that include “intermediate attachment 504” as required in elected claim 1. Please see 112b rejection regarding scope of “spring biased cam section or biased clamping bolt” below.
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.
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 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:
-The record is not clear if “hinge sections” is a 112f term or a broad term. If applicant intends that “hinge sections” should be considered under 112f, then further limiting the “hinge sections” should happen in a dependent claim (as applicant does in claims 10 and 12). If applicant is intending to further limit “hinge sections” in claim 1, then applicant is claiming a broad term AND narrow terms in the same claim, which is indefinite.
-scope of “hinge section” is not definite. The specification indicates hinge sections 120 and 130, neither of which are used with the “intermediate attachment” part 504, in any drawing. Based on the claim language, each section is “configured to rotate relative to the vehicle” as claimed in line 2, which means that the hinge section cannot be the base, as suggested in line 11. For this reason, applicant’s statement “one or more hinge sections comprise… an intermediate attachment…a base…a rear view display arm…” is incorrect. It is not clear if applicant intends that each hinge section is defined by the three parts (intermediate attachment, base, arm) OR if one section is one of those parts (intermediate attachment, base, arm, meaning that applicant claims three hinge sections). If the first, there is no embodiment that discloses this. If the second, there is no reason for each part to have multiple names (base and first section, arm and second section, intermediate attachment and third section?). Examiner again notes that the base cannot be a “hinge section” since it is not “configured to rotate relative to the vehicle”. Examiner notes that the “sections” could be the intermediate attachment 504 and the arm 200. Examiner suggests applicant remove the term “section” from all claims, and use terms for the structures applicant intends to claim, which are defined, disclosed in the specification, and shown clearly in the drawings. FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION: claim 1 includes the intermediate attachment 504 and the arm 200, which meet the requirements for “hinge sections” in line 2, and therefore, the inclusion of “hinge section” language does not further limit the structure or scope of claim 1, and is considered superfluous. Applicant claims the same scope with or without the term “sections”, and therefore, examiner suggests removal of this term.
-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”.
-The record is not clear if “bracing member” is intended to be a 112f term, or a broad term. Examiner notes that the term “bracing member” is further limited in [0038] and [0039] to be “a rib”, which is the only option for the term “bracing member”, if that is intended to be a 112f term. Examiner notes that applicant later claims in claim 1 that “configured to rotatably secure a rib on the bracing member”. Examiner notes that “bracing member” and “rib” are considered to be synonymous.
-“cooperate to assist in a transfer of forces from the arm to the base”. Examiner notes that this term is used verbatim twice in the specification, however, this term “assist in a transfer of forces” is not clearly defined in the specification. The record is not clear what “forces” are referred to, or how cooperation “assists in a transfer” of these forces, or what “cooperation” means in this instance. Examiner assumes that this merely means the bracing member/rib 800 is abutting the support surface 802, best shown in figures 12 and 15, and that this attachment performs the function claimed by applicant. Examiner suggests removing references to “forces”.
-“a rib” is not clear if it is considered the same as the “bracing member” or not.
Claim 7: the display arm is adapted to hold a reflective element. Therefore, the first hinge section is considered the arm. Further, the “rear view display” is claimed in claim 1 as intended use, as well as intended use in claim 7. Therefore, further limiting what the intended use “rear view display” is, in claim 7, does not further limit the folding joint.
Claim 15: applicant claims “second hinge section is adapted to attach to the vehicle”, which examiner assumes refers to the base. However, claim 1 requires that the “sections” are both “configured to rotate relative to the vehicle”, and the base of the elected embodiment having the intermediate arm, does not do so. Examiner reminds applicant that “sections” is not further limiting, and only causes indefiniteness issues. Examiner again suggests removal of the term “sections” from all claims.
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, 7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 2018/0265015 Rohrmuller.
Examiner notes that all claims are rejected “as best understood” according to the 112b rejections above. Further, 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 folding joint for attaching a rear view display device to a vehicle (as shown in figure 19), comprising:
one or more hinge sections each of which is configured to rotate relative to the vehicle, 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);
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);
wherein the one or more hinge sections comprise (again, examiner assumes that the parts below are the narrower structural requirements of these sections):
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 and forming a second axis (axis C), a support surface extends from the base;
a rear view display arm 34 having a proximal arm end (with pivot point B) and a distal arm end (with camera 26), and pivotably coupled to the base 36 and the intermediate attachment 32 at the first end (at pivot point B) to form a first axis (pivot point B), 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, a bracing member 40 extends from the proximal arm end of rear view display arm 34, and the support surface and the bracing member cooperate to assist in a transfer of forces from the arm to the base when the arm is rotated about the first axis from a first position to a second position (as shown in figures 3b, 5b, 6b); 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).
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 7, Rohrmuller discloses the joint of claim 1, the arm/first hinge section holds a camera module 26.
Regarding claim 15, Rohrmuller discloses the joint of claim 1, using of a camera 26 on the arm/first hinge section, and the base is adapted to attach to the vehicle (as shown in figure 2b).
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 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 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).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
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