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
Applicant’s election without traverse of in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant elects Species III corresponding to Figs. 5 and 6. However, claims 12-13 and 16-17 are directed to a non-elected invention, and does not correspond to elected Species III. Independent claim 12 claims a “module viewing surface configured to visualize a blind spot by at least one of generating images of the blind spot on a display or reflecting the blind spot from a reflective surface”, which corresponds to Figures 7a and 7b. In the description of Figs. 7A and 7B, the Specifications describes a module viewing surface configured to visualize a blind spot (paragraph 0035), which corresponds to non-elected Species V. There is no description of a module viewing surface configured to visualize a blind spot corresponding to Species III (Figs. 5A and 5B). Accordingly, claims 12-13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration because the claims are directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baur et al. (US 2009/0096937 A1).
Re claim 1, Baur et al. discloses a device comprising: a mirror housing (15); a mounting member (20) attached to the mirror housing to the vehicle; an optical stack in the mirror housing including a mirror viewing surface (30) and an electro-optic assembly (100), the electro-optic assembly including: a substantially transmissive front substrate (104), the front substrate defining a first surface and a second surface; a rear substrate (110) defining a third surface and a fourth surface; and an electro-optic medium (106) disposed between the front substrate and the rear substrate; a mirror (30) display located in the mirror housing; and a user interface module (590-594) connected to at least one of the mounting member and an exterior of the mounting member.
Re claim 2, Baur et al. disclose the device including a mirror control system located in the mirror housing and the user interface module is configured to be electrically coupled to the mirror control system and transmit a signal to the mirror control system to effectuate at least one of the changing a state of the electro-optic assembly or generating a graphic on the mirror display (paragraphs 0235-0236).
Re claim 3, Baur et al. discloses the device wherein the user interface module is configured to be in communication with a vehicle control system and transmit a signal to the vehicle control system to effectuate at least one of turning on lights in an interior cabin of the vehicle, sending and receiving communications, opening and closing a sunroof, articulating a roller blind of the sunroof, dimming the sunroof, and opening a closing a garage door (paragraph 0319).
Re claim 4, Baur et al. discloses the device wherein the user interface module includes a module viewing surface with a plurality of inputs (paragraph 0319).
Re claim 5, Baur et al. discloses the device wherein the user interface module includes a module display configured to generate a warning (paragraph 0319).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al.
Baur et al. does not disclose the device wherein the generated warning includes at least one of an airbag notification or an interior light status
Baur et al. discloses the device wherein the operator interfaces control the illumination assemblies (paragraph 0319).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the generated warning includes at least one of an airbag notification or an interior light status since an interface for controlling the illumination assemblies is well known in the art to provide an interior light status.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al. in view of Shofield et al. (US 8,170,748 B1).
Re claim 9, Baur et al. does not disclose the device wherein the user interface module extends from a lower surface of the mirror housing.
Shofield et al. discloses the device wherein the user interface module (20) extends from a lower surface of the mirror housing (12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the user interface module extends from a lower surface of the mirror housing since one would be motivated to create a separate space for the user interface.
Re claim 11, Baur et al. as modified by Shofield et al. does not disclose the device wherein the user interface module includes a viewing surface orientated substantially along a first plane and the mirror viewing surface is oriented substantially along a second plane, wherein a line perpendicular to the first plane and a line perpendicular to the second plane intersect at a location of a vehicle occupant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ the device wherein the user interface module includes a viewing surface orientated substantially along a first plane and the mirror viewing surface is oriented substantially along a second plane, wherein a line perpendicular to the first plane and a line perpendicular to the second plane intersect at a location of a vehicle occupant since facing more than one user interfaces in the direction of the user is well known in the art for improved usability.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al. in view of Uken (US 2007/0019426 A1).
Re claim 19, Baur et al. discloses a device comprising: a mirror housing (15); a mirror viewing surface (30) coupled to the mirror housing; a mounting member (20) configured to attach the mirror housing to the vehicle; and a user interface module (591-594) coupled to the mirror housing, the user interface module comprising: a module viewing surface including at least one user input (paragraph 00319). Baur et al. does not disclose the device wherein the at least one user input is configured to be in communication with an external system to the vehicle; and the at least one user input configured to generate a signal to effectuate at least one of controlling a garage door, a components of a smart home, or mobile device mirroring on a display of the module viewing surface.
Uken discloses a device wherein at least one user input (218a) is configured to be in communication with an external system to the vehicle; and the at least one user input configured to generate a signal to effectuate at least one of controlling a garage door, a components of a smart home, or mobile device mirroring on a display of the module viewing surface (paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the at least one user input is configured to be in communication with an external system to the vehicle; and the at least one user input configured to generate a signal to effectuate at least one of controlling a garage door, a components of a smart home, or mobile device mirroring on a display of the module viewing surface since one would be motivated to control a universal garage door opening system (paragraph 0056).
Re claim 20, Baur et al. as modified by Uken et al. does not disclose the device wherein the user interface module includes a viewing surface orientated substantially along a first plane and the mirror viewing surface is oriented substantially along a second plane, wherein a line perpendicular to the first plane and a line perpendicular to the second plane intersect at a location of a vehicle occupant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ the device wherein the user interface module includes a viewing surface orientated substantially along a first plane and the mirror viewing surface is oriented substantially along a second plane, wherein a line perpendicular to the first plane and a line perpendicular to the second plane intersect at a location of a vehicle occupant since facing more than one user interfaces in the direction of the user is well known in the art for improved usability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights