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 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues that,
“Claim 1 now recites "the flexible mechanical power transmitter comprises a flexible shaft, a belt, or a chain."
Bai fails to disclose any of the three types of power transmitter required by claim 1. Since similar types of power transmitters are addressed in dependent claim rejections, these new limitations of claim 1 are discussed below with respect to those rejections.
The rejection of claim 2 asserts Bai discloses a flex shaft. However, while Bai discloses input and output shafts (see Bai, ¶¶ 0106, 0134), Bai does not teach or suggest that either shaft is a flexible shaft. Rather, the cited paragraphs merely describe shafts used within Bai's drive mechanism. Accordingly, Bai does not disclose the recited "flexible shaft."”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, at least in [0037] and [0100], Bai teaches a shaft comprising elastic member that can be elastically pressed. That is sufficient to interpret the shaft as a flexible shaft.
On page 7, Applicant argues that,
“The rejection of claim 4 asserts Bai discloses a chain. However, the cited paragraph 0060 does not disclose a chain transmitting power between a motor and a display. Nor does Bai disclose such a chain elsewhere. Accordingly, Bai does not disclose the recited "chain."”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, a “chain” is interpreted as a structure comprising at least two items linked together. As such, Bai teaches, at least in [0100]-[0102], a shaft comprising a plurality of components linked together. Thus, Bai disclose the shaft comprises at least a chain.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that,
“The rejection of claim 6 takes Official Notice that belts and pulleys are well known in the art and asserts that belts and pulleys would have been advantageous because they provide flexibility and reduced noise. The rejection, therefore, relies on an obviousness rationale to supply a belt-based power transmission arrangement that is not disclosed by Bai.
However, the rejection's rationale for substituting a belt into Bai is inconsistent with Bai's own teachings. Bai explains that "the axial length of the entire mechanism can be shortened, and space is saved, so that the entire mechanism is more applicable. In addition, from a point of view of structural mechanics, rigidity of the system is also enhanced, strengthening bending and torsion resistance of the system" (see ¶ 0145). Bai further explains that its transmission arrangement provides advantages including that "[t]he system has a compact structure, a small size, and a light weight" and that "[t]he system has stable transmission, low noise, a high transmission ratio, and an obvious deceleration effect" (see ¶ 0153).
Thus, Bai identifies rigidity, compact packaging, and stable transmission as advantages of its disclosed actuator arrangement. The rejection proposes replacing Bai's disclosed arrangement with a belt because belts provide flexibility and reduced noise.
However, Bai already identifies low noise as an advantage of its disclosed system and expressly emphasizes rigidity rather than flexibility. Therefore, Bai provides no reason to modify its disclosed transmission architecture with a belt, and its teachings weigh against doing SO.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that although Bai’s system already provides low noise, using belt and pulleys were known to minimizing mechanical noise (see Fujita US 2017/0130688 A1 – hereinafter Fujita, paragraph [0062]), thus further reducing the mechanical noise. Further, there is no evidence of using belt and pulleys making the system less compact, less stable, or less rigid.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 4-5, 9-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (US 2021/0016720 A1 – hereinafter Bai).
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses an apparatus for a motorized rotation of a display in a vehicle (Fig. 3; Fig. 16; [0060]; [0100]; [0156] – a motorized rotation of a display in a vehicle by a drive unit 30), the apparatus comprising: a display system including a display screen on a front side of the display system and a mounting interface on a rear side of the display system (Figs. 1-3; [0042]-[0047] – a display system including a display screen 200 on a front side and a mounting interface, i.e. a corresponding interface structure on the back of the screen and attached to a mounting bracket 11 as described at least in [0046]); a bracket to which the mounting interface attaches ([0046] – mounting bracket 11); a flexible mechanical power transmitter connecting a power output of a motor to a power input at the mounting interface, wherein the flexible mechanical power transmitter rotates the display system around a screen-rotation axis (Fig. 3; Fig. 16; [0060]; [0100]; [0106]; [0156] – a flexible mechanical power transmitter connecting a power output of drive unit 30 to a power input at the mounting interface, i.e. via the turntable 13), wherein the flexible mechanical power transmitter comprises a flexible shaft, a belt, or a chain ([0037]; [0106]; [0100]-[0102] – at least a flexible shaft or a chain – also see “Response to Arguments” above); and the motor including the power output, wherein the power output rotates around a motor-rotation axis different from the screen-rotation axis (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0127]; [0134] – the power output rotates around a motor-rotation axis, i.e. axis of the output shaft 31a of the power source 31 different from and spaced apart the screen-rotation axis, i.e. the axis of the second-stage driven spur gear 35).
Regarding claim 4, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power output comprises an output gear and the power input comprises an input gear, and wherein the chain engaging the output gear and the input gear (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the output gear rotates around the motor-rotation axis substantially parallel to the screen-rotation axis (Fig. 3; Fig. 6 – the motor-rotation axis is parallel to but offset from the screen-rotation axis by a distance).
Regarding claim 9, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bracket is configured to buckle when the display system is impacted from the front side while still providing clearance between the display system and the motor ([0046]; [0051]; [0100] - the mounting bracket 11 is connected to the rotating turntable 13 using buckle and elastic member 40, i.e. a spring, while still providing clearance between the display system and the motor as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the flexible mechanical power transmitter deforms from an operating position when the display system is impacted from the front side (Fig. 3; [0046]; [0100]).
Regarding claim 11, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motorized rotation is limited to rotating the display between a portrait orientation and a landscape orientation ([0060]; [0168]; [0172]).
Regarding claim 12, Bai discloses a method for rotating a display system in a vehicle, the method comprising: transmitting, from a vehicle compute unit, a rotation signal directing a motor to rotate the display system ([0163]-[0164] – transmitting from a vehicle compute unit in a circuit board to signal directing a drive unit to rotate the display system); and at the motor, in response to the rotation signal, activating the motor connected to a flexible mechanical power transmitter to rotate the display system around a screen-rotation axis ([0060]; [0156] – the drive unit in response to the signal, activating the motor connect to a flexible mechanical power transmitter as further shown in Figs. 3 and 16 to rotate the screen), wherein the flexible mechanical power transmitter comprises a flexible shaft, a belt, or a chain ([0037]; [0106]; [0100]-[0102] – at least a flexible shaft or a chain – also see “Response to Arguments” above), and wherein power output of the motor rotates around a motor-rotation axis different from the screen-rotation axis (Fig. 3; Fig. 6 – the power output rotates around a motor-rotation axis, i.e. axis of drive unit 30 different from the screen-rotation axis, i.e. the axis of mounting shaft 15).
Regarding claim 14, Bai also disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the rotation signal comprises electrical power to power the motor ([0060]; [0156] – in automatic mode, the rotation signal comprises an electrical power to power the motor).
Regarding claim 15, Bai also discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the rotation signal comprises an instruction to power the motor ([0060]; [0156] – in automatic mode, the rotation signal comprises an instruction to power the motor to start the rotation).
Regarding claim 16, Bai also discloses the method of claim 12, wherein activating the motor rotates the display system between a portrait orientation and a landscape orientation ([0060]; [0168]; [0172]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, and 14-16 above.
Regarding claim 6, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power output comprises an output gear and the power input comprises an input gear, and wherein the flexible mechanical power transmitter comprises a gear engaging the output gear and the input gear (Fig. 16; Fig. 19; [0036]; [0060]).
However, Bai does not disclose the power output comprises an output pulley and the power input comprises an input pully, and wherein the flexible mechanical power transmitter comprises a belt engaging the output pulley and the input pulley.
Official Notice is taken that power output and power input comprising belts and pulleys are well known in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the power output and input comprising gears in Bai with power output and input comprising pulleys and a belt engaging the output pulley and the input pulley because using belts and pulleys would have been advantageous in flexibility and producing less noise.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Lefeber et al. (US 2021/0122040 A1 – hereinafter Lefeber).
Regarding claim 2, see the teachings of Bai as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Bai does not disclose the motor-rotation axis is not parallel to the screen rotation axis.
Lefeber discloses a motor-rotation axis is not parallel to a device rotation axis (Fig. 5C; Fig. 12B).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lefeber into the display system in the apparatus taught by Bai to further increase flexibility of the apparatus, by allowing the display screen to have various orientations including those not parallel to the rotation axis.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of White (US 2007/0161427 A1 – hereinafter White).
Regarding claim 3, see the teachings of Bai as discussed in claim 2 above. However, Bai does not disclose the flexible shaft comprises braided wire.
White discloses a flex shaft comprises braided wire (Fig. 2; [0005]; [0042]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of White into the apparatus taught by Bai because a flex shaft comprising braided wire would have been advantageous in flexibility thus less subject to damages due to vibrations.
Claims 7-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Herrera Mezgravis et al. (US 2025/0153653 A1 – hereinafter Herrera Mezgravis).
Regarding claim 7, Bai also discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motor is mounted within a dash of the vehicle ([0171]).
However, Bai does not disclose the motor is mounted to a cross-vehicle beam.
Herrera Mezgravis discloses mounting within a dash of the vehicle via mounting to a cross-vehicle beam (Figs. 1-2; [0025]-[0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Herrera Mezgravis into the apparatus taught by Bai to attach the motor and the display system to the dash of the vehicle in a secured manner.
Regarding claim 8, see the teachings of Bai and Herrera Mezgravis as discussed in claim 7 above. Herrera Mezgravis also discloses a bracket is mounted to the cross-vehicle beam (Figs. 3-4).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Herrera Mezgravis into the apparatus has been discussed in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, Bai discloses an apparatus for a motorized rotation of a display in a vehicle (Fig. 3; Fig. 16; [0060]; [0100]; [0156] – an apparatus comprising a motor, i.e. a drive unit 30, for automatic rotation of a display in a vehicle), the apparatus comprising: a display mounted to a bracket (Figs. 1-3; [0042]-[0047] – a display system including a display screen 200 mounted to a mounting bracket 11 as described at least in [0046]); the bracket attached to a dash of the vehicle ([0171]); and an interface between the bracket and the display, wherein the interface allows the display to rotate when connected to a flexible mechanical power transmitter connecting a power output of a motor to the display (Fig. 3; Fig. 16; [0060]; [0100]; [0156] – an interface on the back of the display thus between the mounting bracket and the display as further shown in Fig. 1 and described at least in [0046], when connected to a flexible mechanical power transmitter connecting a power output of drive unit 30 to a power input at the mounting interface, i.e. via the turntable 13).
Bai does not disclose a cross-vehicle beam; the bracket attached to the cross-vehicle beam.
Herrera Mezgravis discloses a cross-vehicle beam and a bracket attached to the cross-vehicle beam. (Figs. 1-2; [0025]-[0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Herrera Mezgravis into the apparatus taught by Bai to attach the motor and the display system to the dash of the vehicle in a secured manner.
Regarding claim 18, Bai in view of Herrera Mezgravis also discloses the motor attached to the cross-vehicle beam (Bai: [0171]; Mezgravis: Figs. 1-2; [0025]-[0028]); and the flexible mechanical power transmitter (Fig. 3; Fig. 16; [0060]; [0100]; [0156] – a flexible mechanical power transmitter connecting a power output of drive unit 30 to a power input at the mounting interface, i.e. via the turntable 13).
Regarding claim 19, Bai in view of Herrera Mezgravis also discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the interface prevents the display from rotating when not connected to a flexible mechanical power transmitter ([0053]-[0055] – changing the engaging positions of the first engaging portion of the interface to move the first engaging portion of the interface away from the second engaging portion, thus preventing the display from rotating when not connected to a flexible mechanical power transmitter).
Regarding claim 20, Bai in view of Herrera Mezgravis also discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the bracket is designed to collapse upon receiving a specified impact force ([0153] – thanks to a spring).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Fisker et al. (US 2022/0348079 A1 – hereinafter Fisker).
Regarding claim 13, see the teachings of Bai as discussed in claim 12 above. However, Bai does not explicitly disclose receiving, in the vehicle compute unit, user input requesting the display system be rotated, wherein the rotation signal is transmitted in response to the user input.
Fisker discloses receiving, in a vehicle compute unit, user input requesting a display system be rotated, wherein a rotation signal is transmitted in response to the user input ([0029]; [0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Fisker into the method taught by Bai to allow the user to initiate the automatic mode to switch the orientation of the display system, thus enhancing the user interface of the display system.
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights