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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 5, line 2, “12” should be “13”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kilim et al. (2021/0178964).
Kilim discloses a vehicle messaging device, comprising: a support base (122, Fig. 1B) configured to be positioned on an exterior surface of a vehicle window; a support pole (126, Fig. 1B) coupled to a first side of the support base and configured to extend outward from the exterior surface of the vehicle window; a message panel (114, Fig. 1B) coupled along the support pole and configured to display a message (160, Fig. 1B) in a message area; and a flexible handle (210, Fig. 2A) coupled to at least a second side of the support base and comprising at least one attachment device (the word “clip-on” – paragraph 0038 – implies flexibility and a friction fit), wherein the flexible handle is configured to travel over a top surface of the vehicle window, and the at least one attachment device is configured to couple to an interior surface of the vehicle window (by friction).
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 5 shows that the vehicle window is closed when the message panel is in use. It is inherently necessary that the window be partially opened when installing the message panel on the window.
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Durkin (2007/0283877).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above, including a light (130, Fig. 2A). However, the light does not appear to be a strobe light. Durkin teaches providing a strobe light on a vehicle-mounted messaging device. See paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light disclosed by Kilim a strobe light, as taught by Durkin, in order to draw attention to the messaging device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Taylor (2007/0193093).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kilim does not disclose a window protection device coupled between the support base and the exterior surface of the window. Taylor teaches providing a window protection device (50, Fig. 3) to protect the window. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device disclosed by Kilim with a window protection device, as taught by Taylor, in order to protect the window.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Eldridge (2016/0369521).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kilim does not disclose an attachment cord coupled to the support base and the support pole, in order to secure the pole to the base. Eldridge discloses an attachment cord (10, Fig. 4) that attaches a support pole (60, Fig. 4) to a support base (50, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support pole disclosed by Kilim with an attachment cord, as taught by Eldridge, in order to make the poll interchangeable with a different pole bearing a different message.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Heath et al. (2016/0063904).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kilim does not disclose that the message panel is removably coupled to the support pole. Heath teaches removably attaching a message panel to a support pole. See paragraph 0049. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to removably attach the message panel disclosed by Kilim to the support pole, as taught by Heath, in order to make the message panels interchangeable.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Fink (2003/0074820).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the message area disclosed by Kilim does not appear to be removable. Fink teaches providing a removable message area on an emergency sign. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the message area disclosed by Kilim removable, as taught by Fink, in order to change the message, if desired.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Rooker (2003/0164436).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the message area disclosed by Kilim does not comprise an erasable surface. Rooker teaches providing an erasable surface for a vehicle-mounted sign. See paragraph 0045. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the message area disclosed by Kilim with an erasable surface, as taught by Rooker, in order to enable changing the message, if desired.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilim et al. (2021/0178964) in view of Tucker (2014/0174334).
Kilim discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the attachment device disclosed by Kilim is a friction fit, not a suction cup. Tucker teaches using a suction cup to attach a messaging device to a vehicle window. See paragraph 0034. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use suction cups to secure the device disclosed by Kilim to the window, as taught by Tucker, in order to more securely attach the device to the window.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631