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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because the upper figure figs. 13 -15B appear to be a photograph. The Examiner is requiring a black and white line drawing instead of the photograph due to its current lack of reproducibility.
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 and 6 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claims 1 and 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the switch housing and mounting panel is sized..”, and the claim also recites “a switch housing and mounting panel measuring at least 160 mm x 100 mm;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because they depend on claim 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randolph E. Kowalski (Kowalski) US 5104071.
As per claims 1 and 3 Kowalski, disclose;
A supplemental or replacement electrical switch console (item 12 with switches and controls) comprising:
a switch housing (item 28) and
the switch housing (item 28) and mounting panel comprising a front platform (item 30) with a perimeter profile edge (of item 30) that enables attachment of a cosmetic bezel (item 22);
wherein the switch housing (item 12) and mounting panel (30) is sized to be mounted through an existing dash (item 16) opening (item 20).
Kowalski disclose mounting panel (item 30) but do not teach specific details of mounting panel dimensions measuring at least 160 mm x 100 mm;
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size mounting panel dimensions measuring at least 160 mm x 100 mm;, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of-a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In instant case it would have been obvious to choose size of the switch housing as required by the dimension of the existing dash opening.
As per claim 2 Kowalski, disclose;
further comprising a bracket assembly (Fig. 1 54, 56, 34 and 32) attachable to the switch housing (item 28) and mounting panel to secure the console (14) within the existing dash opening (20).
Motivation to combine remains same as claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Thomas Robillard (Robillard) US 2018/0013871 A1.
Regarding claim 4 Kowalski do not teach,
Well-known in the art a power distribution block and associated wiring to provide +12 VDC to one or more electrical switches positioned within the console.
However in analogues art Robillard disclose, well-known in the art to provide +12 VDC to one or more electrical switches positioned within the console. (Fig. 6 shows power distribution to different devices and para 0015)
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Robillard to the device of Kowalski would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows for supplying power from 12 VDC as required;
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Andreas PATZELT (PATZELT) US 2020/0183871 A1.
Regarding claim 5 Kowalski,
Do not disclose, well-known in the art, wherein the electrical switch console operates as supplemental control switches connected inline or in parallel with existing electrical control circuits in the watercraft.
However in analogues art PATZELT disclose well-known in the art, method to wherein the electrical switch console (Fig. 3 item 12) operates as supplemental control switches (item 14 S1, S2, S3 and S4) connected inline or in parallel (in parallel) with existing electrical control circuits (Fig. 3) in the watercraft.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Robillard to the device of Kowalski would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows for operating controls from two devices;
Claim(s) 6 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence E. Tannas JR (Tannas JR) US 2007/0267554 A1 in view of Yukisuki Ozak (Ozak) US 2010/0134326 A1.
As per claim 1 Tannas JR disclose;
A supplemental or replacement (replacing items from fig. 1) digital electronic switch console comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4 item 50) and mounting panel (item 16), the housing (item 50) and mounting panel (item 16) comprising a front platform (front part of item 14 and para 0022) with a perimeter profile edge that enables attachment of a touchscreen tablet computer (para 0022);
a circuit board panel (item 52) positioned within the housing (50) and mounting panel (16),
wherein the housing and mounting panel is sized to be mounted through an existing dash opening (item 92).
Tannas JR disclose mounting panel for the display but specifically do not teach, size of the mounting panel measuring at least 160 mm x 100 mm,
However Tannas JR disclose in paragraph 0038 “The display 12 may have a rectangular, square, or other size and/or shape,”
Therefor It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size mounting panel measuring at least 160 mm x 100 mm, as per size of the display, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Tannas JR disclose the circuit board panel (item 52) and an output wiring harness (item 54 and para 0019) but do not teach well-known in the art required components to operate display panel e.g. the circuit board panel comprising: a microprocessor circuit; a voltage regulator circuit; a wireless digital communication circuit;
However in analogues art Ozak, disclose, the circuit board panel comprising: a microprocessor circuit (Fig. 5 item 20 and 140); a voltage regulator circuit (Part of power supply see para 0039 “the power is supplied to the in-vehicle apparatus 100”); a wireless digital communication circuit (item 17);
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Ozak to the device of Tannas JR would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows for using displays with remote operating circuits away from the display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art FR 2697382 A3 disclose in fig, 1 (box 19 and bracket 5 for mounting front panel 1)
Prior art US 11353924 B1 Fig. 7 and 8 disclose peripheral edge 705 to mount bezel (706, 806 see Col. 6 lines 38-41) in dashboard
US 20220097618 A1 Rhyne disclose (bezel 102 and frame 104) for mounting display in dashboard (Fig. 1-6)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUKUNDBHAI G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1364. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7Am-6pm Fri 7-12 pm (Flex).
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, Jayprakash P Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/MUKUNDBHAI G PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835