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 Applicant's Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 03/09/2026 with respect to amended claims are fully considered but are not persuasive. Explanations of how each and every claimed limitation is being met or rendered obvious are provided below.
Applicant argues Touhey does not teach “a body having a rear surface configured for engagement to a windshield of a vehicle” because Touhey uses a retainer bracket attached to the windshield. However, the claim does not require direct contact between the rear surface of the body and the windshield, nor does the claim exclude intervening mounting structure. The claim merely requires that the rear surface be configured for engagement to the windshield. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this encompasses a rear-side arrangement of the display/body adapted to mount to or interface with the windshield, including through rear mounting structure. Touhey teaches a display assembly mounted at the windshield by a rear retainer structure and therefore teaches the claimed engagement.
Applicant also argues Touhey does not teach a flexible body. The rejection does not rely on Touhey alone for this feature. Mairs expressly teaches a flexible display/body mounted to a windshield. It would have been obvious to apply Mairs’ flexible display construction to Touhey’s windshield-mounted display because doing so would predictably allow improved conformity to curved windshield surfaces, lower-profile packaging, and secure installation while preserving Touhey’s intended display function.
Applicant’s contention that the combination would change Touhey’s principle of operation is unpersuasive. Touhey’s principle of operation is to provide a display mounted at the windshield for viewing in a vehicle. Substituting the known flexible display construction of Mairs merely changes the form factor of the display body and does not alter that basic operation.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touhey et al (US 6927682) in view of Mairs (US 2019/0096965).
Per claim 1, Touhey teaches an electronic vehicle servicing record apparatus for positioning upon a windshield of a vehicle (Fig. 2, digital service indicator 10), comprising: a body, said body being planar (Fig. 5 and 6 teaches a planar body) and [flexible]; said body having a rear surface, said rear surface configured for engagement to a windshield of a vehicle to an as-used position thereon; said body having a front surface opposite said rear surface (Fig. 5 and 6 teaches body having front and rear surface, the rear surface configured for engagement to a windshield of a vehicle); a first electronic display; a computer processor engaged with said body, said computer processor in communication with electronic memory running service calculating software operating to the tasks of receiving input data and thereafter generating alphanumeric characters upon said first electronic display (Fig. 7 and col. 12, lines 5-60); an electric current storage component communicating electric current to said computer processor and said first electronic display (col. 13, lines 30-34 teaches solar cell used to provide power to the display components); a data input component for communicating said input data to said electronic memory (col. 5, lines 45-51 and Fig. 15); and said display configured to display, in alphanumeric digits, information about one or a combination of future servicing requirements for said vehicle from a group including a type of service requirement, a service date, or a mileage threshold for future vehicle servicing (Fig. 5, 17-20).
Although in Fig. 6 and 9, Touhey teaches the housing/body being detachable and can adhere to retainer/window, Touhey does not explicitly teach the body being “flexible”. However, it’s well-known in in the art that portable digital displays being flexible is obvious and not a novel feature.
In an analogous art, Mairs teaches a portable electronic display device having a flexible body (0010). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Touhey to use a flexible body for its display device. The rationale would be so it can adhere to any surface.
Per claim 2, Touhey teaches wherein said data input component is at least one input area which generates said input data upon contact of said input area with a finger of a user (col. 5, lines 5-12 teaches touch for input).
Per claim 3, Touhey teaches wherein said data input component is a transceiver for wirelessly communicating said input data to said electronic memory (Fig. 15 teaches a receiver 68 that is connected to the input unit and can receive input data and transmit it to microprocessor 70. Although, Touhey doesn’t explicitly teaches the term “transceiver”, but in Fig. 15 teaches that component 68 performs as a transceiver. Therefore, examiner will take Official Notice that before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious for Touhey to use a transceiver for data input since it already uses a transceiver in the invention. The rationale would be to bidirectionally communicate where needed.
Per claim 4-6, Touhey teaches wherein said electronic electric current storage component is one of a battery or a slow discharge capacitor (Col. 12, lines 61 – col. 13, line 15, teaches solar and battery for power source).
Per claim 7-9, Touhey teaches a solar panel connected to said electronic storage component, said solar panel communicating a recharging of said electric current stored in said electronic storage component (Fig. 8-9, Col. 12, lines 61 – col. 13, line 15 and col. 13, lines 30-34 teaches solar cell used to provide power to the display components, processor and memory).
Per claim 10-12, Touhey teaches said service calculating software operating to the additional task of activating an alarm component; said alarm component being one or a combination thereof from a group of alarm components including an LED and an audible alarm; and said alarm components generating a visual and/or audible alarm when activated by said service calculating software (col. 5, lines 33-45 teaches audible and visual alarm including LED to alert the user).
Per claim 13-15, Touhey in fig. 6 teaches the display device can be adhesively affixed to the windshield. But, Touhey does not explicitly teach transparent adhesive positioned upon said rear surface of said body.
However, Mairs teaches transparent adhesive positioned upon said rear surface of said body (paragraph 0010 teaches a flexible display device having solar cell bonded by a transparent adhesive layer). Therefore, before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Touhey to use Mairs transparent adhesive layer. The rationale for the transparent layer would be to allow more light/sun for the solar cell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foltz (US 2014/0250745) Fig. 2 and 7 teaches an electronic display unit for vehicle servicing record.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686