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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2024/0343190) in view of Liu (CN 202301148, Examiner has provided a machine translation) in view of Johnson et al. (US 6,298,568).
Regarding claim 1, May discloses a method of testing a seal of a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly, the method comprising:
providing a mounting arm for a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly ([0025] discloses: 160, mounting unit), wherein the mounting arm comprises an attachment end ([0022] discloses: 232, base mount) configured to be mounted at an exterior portion of a vehicle (Figure 3 depicts: 100, mirror assembly mounted on exterior or vehicle alongside 106, door);
providing a mounting element ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin);
mounting the attachment end (232, base mount) of the mounting arm (160, mounting unit) to the mounting element (108, door skin) with sealant ([0030] discloses: 262, sealing member) disposed between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element to establish a test seal at the mounting arm that is viewable through the mounting element ([0030] discloses: 262, sealing member, included in the base mount and can adhere tightly to the door skin);
May fails to discloses a method wherein the mounting element is at least partially transparent and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element; wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element, and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on a threshold interference level of the test seal; and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than the threshold interference level of the test seal. May and Liu are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Liu, in an analogous art, pertinent to the problem of viewing a sealed test area, teaches a method
wherein the mounting element (Examiner notes that the transparent structure of Liu is analogous to the mounting element of May) is at least partially transparent ([0026] teaches: transparent container, with transparent film sealed and fixed to the upper end face of the transparent container)
and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element ([0001] teaches: seal leak detection device; Examiner notes that this is accomplished by viewing the sealed interface during testing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide wherein the mounting element is at least partially transparent and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element. Doing so would allow for direct observation of the test seal area, thereby improving verification of installation methods. May and Johnson are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Johnson, in an analogous art, (Examiner notes that while Johnson is a feeler gauge alignment tool, it describes the design and functionality of a general feeler gauge) teaches
wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim (in at least abstract teaches: feeler gauge) between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element (Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge inserted into an opening or gap that is to be measured; analogous to between the end of the mounting arm and the mounting element), and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on a threshold interference level of the test seal (Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauges with range of possible values for dimensions, and reduce the range of values of the dimension to be within a maximum tolerance; therefore considered a threshold level); and
with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal (Col. 3 lines, 48-57 teach: feeler gauge with predetermined width and depth to measure width of gap), determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than the threshold interference level of the test seal (Col. 3, lines 8-11 teach: prescribed depth and tolerance for the feeler gauge)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Johnson and provide wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element, and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on a threshold interference level of the test seal; and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than the threshold interference level of the test seal. Doing so would allow for the user to measure the interference between the seal and the mounting area is within a predetermined tolerance level, thereby ensuring proper sealing and mechanical fit between the components.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, a method of testing a seal of a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Regarding claim 4, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determination of the gap comprises using a feeler gauge (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 7, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, based on determination of no gap (Johnson: Col. 3, lines 8-11 teach: prescribed depth and tolerance for the feeler gauge) between the attachment end of the arm and the mounting element at the test seal (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge inserted into an opening or gap that is to be measured; analogous to between the end of the mounting arm and the mounting element), determining that the interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is greater than or equal to the threshold interference level of the test seal (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauges with range of possible values for dimensions, and reduce the range of values of the dimension to be within a maximum tolerance; therefore considered a threshold level; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 8, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a shape of the mounting element corresponds to a shape of the exterior portion of the vehicle ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin; Examiner notes that the door skin is considered necessarily is in the shape of the door of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, the modified May discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the exterior portion of the vehicle comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a vehicular door panel of the vehicle and (ii) a vehicular body panel of the vehicle ([0006] discloses: door skin on the vehicle side door).
Regarding claim 10, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the mounting element ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin) comprises a pattern of mounting holes that corresponds to a pattern of mounting holes at the exterior portion of the vehicle ([0023] teaches: fixing hole, formed on the side door; Examiner notes that these holes are consider to be in the door skin as well as the side door for mounting the mirror assembly).
Regarding claim 11, the modified May discloses the method of claim 10, wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises attaching the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element via the one or more mounting holes ([0023] discloses: fixing hole, used to mount the mirror assembly to the side door).
Regarding claim 12, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the test seal ([0005] discloses: the embodiments further improve the seal between the mirror assembly and vehicle) provides the intended seal comprises determining that the test seal (Examiner notes that he test seal is representative of the actual attachment to the vehicle door) is representative of a seal between the mounting arm and the exterior portion of the vehicle when the attachment end is mounted at the exterior portion of the vehicle (Examiner notes that the modified May of claim 1 tests a seal that is intended to be used in the vehicle; therefore consider to be a representative of the seal when attached to a vehicle).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2024/0343190) in view of Liu (CN 202301148) in view of Johnson et al. (US 6,298,568), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bruecklmeier et al. (US 2015/0211958) in view of Schultz et al. (US 2017/032874).
Regarding claim 2, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1.
May fails to disclose a method wherein determining that the test seal provides the intended seal comprises (i) operating an image sensor viewing the test seal through the mounting element to capture image data and (ii) determining, via processing of the captured image data, that the test seal provides the intended seal. May and Bruecklmeier are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Bruecklmeier teaches a method wherein determining that the test seal provides the intended seal comprises
([0024] teaches: seal inspection system) operating an image sensor viewing the test seal to capture image data and
(ii) determining, via processing of the captured image data, that the test seal provides the intended seal ([0030] teaches: one or more cameras used for seal inspection).
Schultz teaches a method wherein the viewing is through the mounting element ([0067] teaches: inspection tools, a boroscope).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Bruecklmeier and provide disclose a method wherein determining that the test seal provides the intended seal comprises (i) operating an image sensor viewing the test seal through the mounting element to capture image data and (ii) determining, via processing of the captured image data, that the test seal provides the intended seal and Schultz to provide a method wherein the viewing is through the mounting element. Doing so would allow for better inspection and verification methods to test the integrity and tolerance of the seal, thereby improving manufacturing and durability of the sealed components.
Regarding claim 3, the modified May discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determination of the gap is based on processing of the captured image data (Bruecklmeier: [0031] teaches: measurement is taken from one or more cameras for tolerance of the of seal for a pass or fail determination; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2024/0343190) in view of Liu (CN 202301148) in view of Johnson et al. (US 6,298,568), as applied to claim 4 and 1 above, in view of Kamman (US 4,270,382).
Regarding claim 5, the modified May discloses the method of claim 4.
May fails to disclose a method wherein the feeler gauge comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a plastic feeler gauge and (ii) a metal feeler gauge. May and Kamman are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Kamman teaches a method wherein the feeler gauge comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a plastic feeler gauge and (ii) a metal feeler gauge (Col. 4, line 11 teaches: plastic feeler gauge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Kamman and provide a method wherein the feeler gauge comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a plastic feeler gauge and (ii) a metal feeler gauge. Doing so would allow for avoidance of scratches or damaging the components while still permitting gap measurement, thereby improving the overall efficiency and manufacturability of the mirror system.
Regarding claim 6, the modified May discloses the method of claim 1.
May fails to disclose a method wherein the shim comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a plastic shim and (ii) a metal shim. May and Kamman are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Kamman teaches a method wherein the shim comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a plastic shim and (ii) a metal shim (Col. 4, line 11 teaches: plastic feeler gauge; considered the shim).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Kamman and provide a method wherein the shim comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a plastic shim and (ii) a metal shim. Doing so would allow for avoidance of scratches or damaging the components while still permitting gap measurement, thereby improving the overall efficiency and manufacturability of the mirror system.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2024/0343190) in view of Liu (CN 202301148) in view of Bruecklmeier et al. (US 2015/0211958) in view of Schultz et al. (US 2017/032874) in view of Johnson et al. (US 6,298,568).
Regarding claim 13, May discloses a method of testing a seal of a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly, the method comprising:
providing a mounting arm for a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly ([0025] discloses: 160, mounting unit), wherein the mounting arm comprises an attachment end configured to be mounted at an exterior portion of a vehicle (Figure 3 depicts: 100, mirror assembly mounted on exterior or vehicle alongside 106, door at the end of the mirror assembly, considered the attachment end);
providing a mounting element ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin);
mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm (160, mounting unit) to the mounting element (108, door skin) with sealant ([0030] discloses: 262, sealing member) disposed between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element to establish a test seal at the mounting arm that is viewable through the mounting element ([0030] discloses: 262, sealing member, included in the base mount and can adhere tightly to the door skin).
May fails to disclose a method wherein the mounting element is at least partially transparent and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element; wherein determining that the test seal provides the intended seal comprises (i) operating an image sensor viewing the test seal through the mounting element to capture image data and (ii) determining, via processing of the captured image data, that the test seal provides the intended seal; with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than a threshold interference level of the test seal; and wherein, based on determination of no gap between the attachment end of the arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that the interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is greater than or equal to the threshold interference level of the test seal. May and Liu are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Liu, in an analogous art, pertinent to the problem of viewing a sealed test area, teaches a method wherein the mounting element (Examiner notes that the transparent structure of Liu is analogous to the mounting element of May) is at least partially transparent ([0026] teaches: transparent container,
with transparent film sealed and fixed to the upper end face of the transparent container) and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element ([0001] teaches: seal leak detection device; Examiner notes that this is accomplished by viewing the sealed interface during testing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide wherein the mounting element is at least partially transparent and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element. Doing so would allow for direct observation of the test seal area, thereby improving verification of installation methods. May and Bruecklmeier are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Bruecklmeier teaches a method wherein determining that the test seal provides the intended seal comprises (i) ([0024] teaches: seal inspection system) operating an image sensor viewing the test seal to capture image data and (ii) determining, via processing of the captured image data, that the test seal provides the intended seal ([0030] teaches: one or more cameras used for seal inspection).
Schultz teaches a method wherein the viewing is through the mounting element ([0067] teaches: inspection tools, a boroscope).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Bruecklmeier and provide disclose a method wherein determining that the test seal provides the intended seal comprises (i) operating an image sensor viewing the test seal through the mounting element to capture image data and (ii) determining, via processing of the captured image data, that the test seal provides the intended seal and Schultz to provide a method wherein the viewing is through the mounting element. Doing so would allow for better inspection and verification methods to test the integrity and tolerance of the seal, thereby improving manufacturing and durability of the sealed components.
Johnson, in an analogous art, (Examiner notes that while Johnson is a feeler gauge alignment tool, it describes the design and functionality of a general feeler gauge) teaches a method
with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal (in at least abstract teaches: feeler gauge; Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge inserted into an opening or gap that is to be measured; analogous to between the end of the mounting arm and the mounting element), determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than a threshold interference level of the test seal (Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauges with range of possible values for dimensions, and reduce the range of values of the dimension to be within a maximum tolerance; therefore considered a threshold level);
and wherein, based on determination of no gap between the attachment end of the arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that the interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is greater than or equal to the threshold interference level of the test seal (Col. 3, lines 8-11 teach: prescribed depth and tolerance for the feeler gauge; Col. 3 lines, 48-57 teach: feeler gauge with predetermined width and depth to measure width of gap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Johnson and provide with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than a threshold interference level of the test seal; and wherein, based on determination of no gap between the attachment end of the arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that the interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is greater than or equal to the threshold interference level of the test seal. Doing so would allow for the user to measure the interference between the seal and the mounting area is within a predetermined tolerance level, thereby ensuring proper sealing and mechanical fit between the components.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, a method of testing a seal of a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Regarding claim 14, the modified May discloses the method of claim 13, wherein determination of the gap and determination of no gap are each based on processing of the captured image data (Bruecklmeier: [0031] teaches: measurement is taken from one or more cameras for tolerance of the of seal for a pass or fail determination; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 15, the modified May discloses the method of claim 13, wherein determination of the gap and determination of no gap each comprises using a feeler gauge (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 16, the modified May discloses the method of claim 13, wherein a shape of the mounting element corresponds to a shape of the exterior portion of the vehicle ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin; Examiner notes that the door skin is considered necessarily is in the shape of the door of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17, the modified May discloses the method of claim 13, wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim (Johnson: Col. 3, lines 8-11 teach: prescribed depth and tolerance for the feeler gauge) between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element, and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on the threshold interference level of the test seal (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauges with range of possible values for dimensions, and reduce the range of values of the dimension to be within a maximum tolerance; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 13, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2024/0343190) in view of Liu (CN 202301148) in view of Johnson et al. (US 6,298,568)
Regarding claim 18, May discloses a method of testing a seal of a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly, the method comprising:
providing a mounting arm for a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly ([0025] discloses: 160, mounting unit), wherein the mounting arm comprises an attachment ([0022] discloses: 232, base mount) end configured to be mounted at an exterior portion of a vehicle (Figure 3 depicts: 100, mirror assembly mounted on exterior or vehicle alongside 106, door);
providing a mounting element ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin), and wherein a shape of the mounting element corresponds to a shape of the exterior portion of the vehicle ([0028] discloses: 108, door skin; Examiner notes that the door skin is considered necessarily is in the shape of the door of the vehicle), and wherein the mounting element comprises a pattern of mounting holes that corresponds to a pattern of mounting holes at the exterior portion of the vehicle ([0023] teaches: fixing hole, formed on the side door; Examiner notes that these holes are consider to be in the door skin as well as the side door for mounting the mirror assembly);
mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element via the one or more mounting holes and with sealant disposed between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element to establish a test seal at the mounting arm that is viewable through the mounting element ([0030] discloses: 262, sealing member, included in the base mount and can adhere tightly to the door skin);
with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element ([0003]-[0005] discloses: problem of gaps in seals, need to improve gaps in seals and embodiments improve the seal between the mirror assembly and vehicle).
May fails to disclose a method wherein the mounting element is at least partially transparent and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element and wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element, and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on a threshold interference level of the test seal; and
with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than the threshold interference level of the test seal. May and Liu are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Liu, in an analogous art, pertinent to the problem of viewing a sealed test area, teaches a method wherein the mounting element (Examiner notes that the transparent structure of Liu is analogous to the mounting element of May) is at least partially transparent ([0026] teaches: transparent container, with transparent film sealed and fixed to the upper end face of the transparent container) and
with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element ([0001] teaches: seal leak detection device; Examiner notes that this is accomplished by viewing the sealed interface during testing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide wherein the mounting element is at least partially transparent and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on a view of the test seal through the mounting element, determining that the test seal provides an intended seal between the mounting arm and the mounting element. Doing so would allow for direct observation of the test seal area, thereby improving verification of installation methods. May and Johnson are related because both disclose installation sealing methods.
Johnson, in an analogous art, (Examiner notes that while Johnson is a feeler gauge alignment tool, it describes the design and functionality of a general feeler gauge) teaches
wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim (in at least abstract teaches: feeler gauge) between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element (Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge inserted into an opening or gap that is to be measured; analogous to between the end of the mounting arm and the mounting element), and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on a threshold interference level of the test seal (Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauges with range of possible values for dimensions, and reduce the range of values of the dimension to be within a maximum tolerance; therefore considered a threshold level); and
with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal (Col. 3 lines, 48-57 teach: feeler gauge with predetermined width and depth to measure width of gap), determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than the threshold interference level of the test seal (Col. 3, lines 8-11 teach: prescribed depth and tolerance for the feeler gauge)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of May to incorporate the teachings of Johnson and provide wherein mounting the attachment end of the mounting arm to the mounting element comprises disposing a shim between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element, and wherein a thickness of the shim is based on a threshold interference level of the test seal; and with the mounting arm mounted to the mounting element, and based on determination of a gap between the attachment end of the mounting arm and the mounting element at the test seal, determining that an interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is less than the threshold interference level of the test seal. Doing so would allow for the user to measure the interference between the seal and the mounting area is within a predetermined tolerance level, thereby ensuring proper sealing and mechanical fit between the components.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, a method of testing a seal of a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Regarding claim 19, the modified May discloses the method of claim 18, wherein determination of the gap comprises using a feeler gauge (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 20, the modified May discloses the method of claim 18, wherein, based on determination of no gap (Johnson: Col. 3, lines 8-11 teach: prescribed depth and tolerance for the feeler gauge) between the attachment end of the arm and the mounting element at the test seal (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauge inserted into an opening or gap that is to be measured; analogous to between the end of the mounting arm and the mounting element), determining that the interference between the mounting arm and the sealant at the test seal is greater than or equal to the threshold interference level of the test seal (Johnson: Col. 1 lines, 9-25 teach: feeler gauges with range of possible values for dimensions, and reduce the range of values of the dimension to be within a maximum tolerance; therefore considered a threshold level; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 21, the modified May discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the exterior portion of the vehicle comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a vehicular door panel of the vehicle and (ii) a vehicular body panel of the vehicle ([0006] discloses: door skin on the vehicle side door).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Brule et al. (US 2004/0135324) and Searcy (US 4,333,240) both disclose relevant sealing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872