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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 4/21/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. No claims are amended and Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/06/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20130208374 A1, of record in the IDS dated 03/06/2024).
With respect to Claim 1, Sato discloses a mirror device for a head-up display,
comprising:
a mirror (Fig. 1—element 3, mirror plate; [0023]);
comprising an adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) which is arranged on a rear side of the mirror (Fig. 2b— the side of element 3 which makes contact with element 4); and
a carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]) which is connected to the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]),
wherein the carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]) has a front side (Fig. 3— side of element 2 which contacts element 4) which faces the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) and in which openings of air discharge ducts (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) are arranged,
wherein the air discharge ducts (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) are formed in the carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]), with which an interface region (Fig. 2b—region where element 2 makes contact with element 3) between the rear side of the mirror (Fig. 2b— the side of element 3 which makes contact with element 4) and a front side of the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) is fluid- conductively connected to an air discharge duct ([0030]: when the adhesive sheet 4 is attached to the mirror holder 2, air which passes through the first grooves 6A and 6B may be let out from the openings 2a and 2b).
Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive element comprises at least one through hole.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is a need in the art to attach mirrors securely to holders with adhesive without air being trapped in between the mirror, the adhesive, and the holder (2) there are a finite amount of ways to prevent air being trapped between the two surfaces: cutting holes into one of the layers or using multiple different strips of adhesive to allow space for airflow, for example (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose creating holes in the adhesive layer because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
With respect to Claim 2, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein
the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) is a double-sided adhesive tape ([0023]: An adhesive material is applied to both surfaces of the adhesive sheet 4).
With respect to Claim 3, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein at least one air discharge duct (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) is open on the front side of the carrier (Fig. 3— side of element 2 which contacts element 4) over at least 50%, in particular at least 75%, in particular at least 90%, of its length (Fig. 3—elements 6a and 6b run the entire length of element 2 except for a very small portion close to the edge of element 2) ([0008]: air which causes the bonding strength to deteriorate is circulated toward the opening to thereby significantly discharge air to the outside).
With respect to Claim 4, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 3, and further discloses
wherein the at least one air discharge duct (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) is in the form of a channel (Fig. 3—elements 6A and 6B are grooves disposed over the length of the front side of element 2) which is open over its entire length on the front side of the carrier (Fig. 3— side of element 2 which contacts element 4).
With respect to Claim 5, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein at least two air discharge ducts (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) are oriented parallel to one another (Fig. 3—elements 6A and 6B are grooves disposed parallel to each other over the length of the front side of element 2).
With respect to Claim 6, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein at least two air discharge ducts (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) are formed running in the transverse direction (Fig. 3—elements 2A and 2B run left to right on element 2) of the carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]) and at least two air discharge ducts (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) are arranged running in the vertical direction (. 3—elements 6A and 6B) of the carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]).
With respect to Claim 7, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein at least one first air discharge duct (Fig. 3—element 6B, first groove; [0030]) and at least one second air discharge duct (Fig. 3—element 2B, opening; [0030]) cross at a duct intersection and are fluid- conductively coupled ([0030]: air which passes through the first groove 6B may be let out from the opening 2b).
With respect to Claim 8, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 3, and further discloses
wherein the through hole (Fig. 3—elements 2A, and 2B; [0030]) is arranged in the region of the duct intersection ([0030]: air which passes through the first groove 6B may be let out from the opening 2b), and therefore the duct intersection is exposed toward the rear side of the mirror (Fig. 2b— the side of element 3 which makes contact with element 4) ([0034]: air may be circulated toward the openings 2a and 2b to significantly discharge air to the outside).
With respect to Claim 9, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein a plurality of air discharge ducts (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) are arranged in a matrix-like duct arrangement pattern (Fig. 3— holes 2A and 2B are arranged in a grid connected by grooves 6A and 6B).
With respect to Claim 10, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein an outlet (Fig. 4— back of element 2b, opening; [0031]) of an air discharge duct (Fig. 3—6A and 6B; [0030]), said outlet (Fig. 4— back of element 2b, opening; [0031]) being is formed at one end (Figs. 3 and 4— element 2b is arranged near the end of element 6B) of an air discharge duct (Fig. 3—6A and 6B; [0030]), wherein the outlet (Fig. 4— back of element 2b, opening; [0031]) of the air discharge duct (Fig. 3—6A and 6B; [0030]) is formed at an edge (Fig. 3 and [0029]: the ends of elements 6A and 6b are disposed in the edge portion, 2D) of the carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]), and therefore discharged air exits from the carrier (Fig. 3—element 2, mirror holder; [0023]) laterally to the front side of the carrier (Fig. 3— side of element 2 which contacts element 4) ([0034]: air may be circulated toward the openings 2a and 2b to significantly discharge air to the outside).
With respect to Claim 11, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein the surface of the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) amounts to, in particular covers, at least 70%, in particular at least 80%, of the surface of the front side (Fig. 3—element 4, denoted by two-dot chain line, covers all of the surface of element 2 except an edge portion).
With respect to Claim 12, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 11, and further discloses
wherein an edge strip (Fig. 3—element 4, denoted by two-dot chain line, covers all of the surface of element 2 except an edge portion) of the front side of the carrier (Fig. 3— side of element 2 which contacts element 4) is not covered by the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) and, wherein in the edge strip (Fig. 3—element 4, denoted by two-dot chain line, covers all of the surface of element 2 except an edge portion), at least one air discharge duct (Fig. 3—elements 6A, 6B, 2A, and 2B; [0030]) is open on the front side ([0029]: Both ends 6a of each first groove 6 are positioned in the vicinity of the edge portion 2d, and the both ends 6a are opened with the adhesive sheet 4 attached to the mirror holder 2 without being clogged by the adhesive sheet 4 in the vicinity of the edge portion 2d).
With respect to Claim 13, Sato discloses the mirror device as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses
wherein the adhesive element (Fig. 3-- element 4, adhesive sheet; [0023]) comprises in particular with a corner-free contour edge (Fig. 3—element 2b is shaped as a rounded rectangle and therefore does not have any 90 degree corners).
Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive element comprises a plurality of separate through holes.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is a need in the art to attach mirrors securely to holders with adhesive without air being trapped in between the mirror, the adhesive, and the holder (2) there are a finite amount of ways to prevent air being trapped between the two surfaces: cutting holes into one of the layers or using multiple different strips of adhesive to allow space for airflow, for example (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose creating holes in the adhesive layer because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20130208374 A1, of record in the IDS dated 03/06/2024) in view of Sato (US20180292650A1, of record in the IDS dated 03/06/2024, herein after Sato2).
With respect to Claim 14, Sato discloses with a mirror device (Fig. 2—element 1, holder attached mirror; [0021]) as claimed in claim 1 as disclosed by Sato. However, Sato does not disclose a head-up display.
Sato and Sato2 are related as both pertaining to the field of car mounted mirror devices. Sato2 further discloses a head-up display ([0074]: The invention is suitable for a head-up display device to be mounted on a vehicle.) with a mirror device (Fig. 2—element 30, mirror unit, [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the holder of Sato with the head-up display of Sato2 in order to create a device which is capable of displaying a virtual image to a driver of a vehicle (Sato2, [0023]).
With respect to Claim 15, Sato and Sato2 disclose the head-up display as claimed in claim 14. Sato further discloses a motor vehicle ([0020]: the holder is designed for a vehicle). However, Sato does not explicitly disclose a motor vehicle with a head-up display. Sato and Sato2 are related as both pertaining to the field of car mounted mirror devices. Sato2 further discloses a head-up display ([0074]: The invention is suitable for a head-up display device to be mounted on a vehicle.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the holder and vehicle of Sato with the head-up display of Sato2 in order to create a device which is capable of displaying a virtual image to a driver of a vehicle (Sato2, [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 concerning claims 6-10 and 12-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that elements 2a and 2b of Sato are not configured to be discharge ducts and the elements are not arranged running in a horizontal direction. Sato discloses in paragraph [0030] “air which passes through the first grooves 6A and 6B may be let out from the openings 2a and 2b”; therefore, the openings are configured as discharge ducts. Further, elements 2A and 2B are aligned in a horizontal line across the carrier.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that elements 6A or 6B do not cross with elements 2A or 2B. Sato discloses in Fig. 3 that element 6A are in contact with each other. Further, Sato discloses that air that is inside element 6A flows out of element 2A in paragraph [0030].
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that elements 6A and 6b are not formed at the edge of the carrier. Sato discloses in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0029]: the ends of elements 6A and 6b are open and disposed in the vicinity of the edge portion, 2D. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the grooves must be formed in contact with the outer edge of the carrier) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that elements 6A and 6b are not open to the front side of the carrier. Sato discloses in paragraph [0029]: “Both ends 6a of each first groove 6 are positioned in the vicinity of the edge portion 2d , and the both ends 6a are opened with the adhesive sheet 4 attached to the mirror holder 2 without being clogged by the adhesive sheet 4 in the vicinity of the edge portion 2 d (see a two-dot chain line in FIG. 3). As a result, the first groove 6 efficiently serves as the passage through which air escapes when the adhesive sheet 4 is attached to the mirror holder 2 . The air gathering which causes the bonding strength to deteriorate is prevented from being generated.” Therefore, elements 6A and 6B are open to the front side of the carrier as there is a portion of the elements which is not covered up by the adhesive sheet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights