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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tether (claim 15, line 2), sensor (claim 22, line 2), and vehicle (claim 23, line 1) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Further, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “18.1” has been used to designate what appears to be two different parts in the Drawing; In Fig. 1, it looks to be pointing to a fixing element (designated 18.3 in the specification), while in Fig. 4 and 5, it looks to be pointing to a prefixing rib (designated 18.2 in the specification). The Examiner suspects that 18.1 is intendent to indicate the space between the fixing elements, meaning that element 18.1 is mislabeled (should be element 18.3) in Fig. 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure is included below:
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract as written is too long (>160 words; see above guidelines for proper length).
The terminology used in the abstract should match the terminology used in the rest of the disclosure. Thus, the following words should be changed throughout the abstract:
“baseplate” should be changed to “base plate”
“windscreen” should be changed to “windshield”
“inner mirror” should be changed to “interior mirror”
“Acute intersecting angles α” should have parentheses around the α.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0004]: “five fitting approaches” should be changed to “five fitting surfaces” (Examiner believes “approaches” to be a translation error)
Paragraph [0004]: the number “20” should be deleted from “five 20 projections”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 21: although it is obvious to which each term is referring, “the three straight lines” (claim 12, line 10; claim 21, line 12), “the associated resistance surfaces” (claim 12, lines 12-13; claim 21, line 15), “the intersecting straight lines” (claim 12, line 13; claim 20, lines 15 and 28 and “the acute angles (α)” (claim 12, line 13; claim 21, line 15) technically lack antecedent basis, and should be changed to “the at least three straight lines”, “the resistance surfaces”, “the at least three straight lines”, and ”the acute angles of intersection (α)” respectively.
Claims 20 and 21: although it is obvious to which each term is referring, “the associated fixing surfaces” (claim 20, lines 12-13; claim 21, line 15) and “the intersecting straight lines” (claim 20, line 13; claim 21, line 28) technically lack antecedent basis, and should be changed to “the fixing surfaces” and “the three straight lines” respectively.
Claim 22: “a mounting arrangement” should be changed to “the mounting arrangement”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "from a collision in the X-direction of the vehicle" in lines 4-5. However, the specification does not disclose, and the drawings do not show which direction is intended to be “the X-direction of the vehicle”. Thus, the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, rendering claim 14 indefinite.
Claim 14 is rendered further indefinite as it is not clear what is meant by “the two resistance surfaces are configured to absorb an impact force” (lines 3-4). Whenever an object is hit with an impact force, some amount of energy is absorbed, and, while the specification discloses that the two resistance surfaces can absorb impact force “particularly well” (paragraph [0039], the specification and drawings do not describe the structural details of the resistance surfaces that causes this to be true. Thus, it is unclear what metes and bounds are intended to be imposed with this limitation, rendering claim 14 indefinite.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (US 11,731,559 B2) in view of Hoogenboom et al. (US 2021/0237650 A1). For clarity, bold text indicates claim language.
[Claim 12] Sugimura teaches: A base plate (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 12) for arrangement on a windshield (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 11) of a vehicle and for accommodating a mirror base (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 14) for an interior mirror (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 16), comprising:
a base plate plane (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 12a) of the base plate Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 12);
wherein resistance surfaces (Sugimura, Fig. 11A and 11B, element 23a) are arranged on the base plate plane (Sugimura, Fig. 11B, the resistance surfaces 23a are angled so that they intersect the base plate plane 12a);
wherein two of the resistance surfaces (Sugimura, Fig. 11A and 11B, element 23a) in each case are arranged at least in part on a common resistance plane (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A below), as a result of which resistance planes are formed (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A below);
wherein each of the resistance planes (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A below) is aligned with respect to the base plate plane (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 12a) so as to intersect the base plate plane in a straight line (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A below), forming straight lines on the base plate plane (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A below),
wherein the straight lines have one point of intersection (Sugimura, corresponding to element 19 in annotated Fig. 1 below) with one another at an acute angle of intersection (α; Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A below), as a result of which acute angles of intersection (α) are formed, the point of intersection is arranged between the associated resistance surfaces of the intersecting straight lines (Sugimura, the point where the two dashed lines cross
PNG
media_image1.png
856
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in annotated Fig. 11A below).
However, Sugimura does not teach that there are at least six resistance surfaces, nor correspondently three resistance planes, three straight lines, or three acute angles of intersection. Hoogenboom et al. teaches a mounting and adjusting instrument for a side mirror of a vehicle (Hoogenboom et al., Abstract) that includes a base plate (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A and 1B, element 6a) for accommodating a mirror base (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A and 1B, element 6b). This base plate includes twelve notches or teeth (Hoogenboom et al., unlabeled in Fig. 1A and 1B), on which resistance surfaces can be defined. Since only oblique views of the base plate are disclosed in Hoogenboom et al., Fig. A shows a top-down view of a schematic of the base plate 6a from Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A. The base plate plane (corresponding to the “flat” area of element 13 in Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A) is represented by the thick solid lines, while the dotted and dashed lines indicate the relative crests and troughs of the notches (Hoogenboom et al., unlabeled in Fig. 1A) around the circumference of the base
PNG
media_image2.png
766
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
plate (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A, element 6a).
Thus, as shown in Fig. A above, the base plate of Hoogenboom et al. includes:
at least six resistance surfaces (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A and 1B, angled surfaces between the crests of the notches on element 6a and the corresponding troughs, including element 13);
wherein two of the at least six resistance surfaces (Fig. A above, shaded regions between the dotted line and thick solid line) in each case are arranged at least in part on a common resistance plane (annotated in Fig. A above), as a result of which three resistance planes (annotated in Fig. A above) are formed;
wherein each of the three resistance planes is aligned with respect to the base plate plane so as to intersect the base plate plane in a straight line (annotated in Fig. A above), forming at least three straight lines (annotated in Fig. A above) on the base plate plane (plane defined by the “flat” area of element 13 in Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A);
wherein the three straight lines (annotated in Fig. A above) have one point of intersection (Fig. A, central point where three straight lines intersect) with one another at least in pairs at an acute angle of intersection (α; annotated in Fig. A above), as a result of which three acute angles of intersection (α; annotated in Fig. A above) are formed, the point of intersection (Fig. A, central point where three straight lines intersect) is arranged between the associated resistance surfaces of the intersecting straight lines (annotated in Fig. A above), and the acute angles (α) are equal (Fig. A, each acute angle α spans three crests and two troughs, meaning that the angles are identical).
Sugimura and Hoogenboom et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of mounts for mirrors for use in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate of Sugimura so that it had at least six resistance surfaces which created at least three resistance planes, straight lines, and acute angles of intersection, as taught by Hoogenboom et al. This modification would be advantageous as it would provide more points of contact between the base plate and mirror base, increasing stability and decreasing the effect of vibration on the attached mirror.
[Claim 13] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: The base plate according to claim 12. Hoogenboom et al. teaches that six resistance surfaces are arranged on the base plate plane (annotated in Fig. A above). Further, as established in the claim 12 rejection above, acute angles of intersection α are equal; since the other three angles are vertical angles to the three acute angles of intersection, they are also equal. Thus, all six acute angles of intersection are equal and cover the entirety of the base plate, requiring that the acute angles of intersection (α) are each 60°.
[Claim 14] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: The base plate according to claim 12, wherein two resistance surfaces are arranged at least in part in a common resistance plane (annotated in Fig. 11A above) such that, when the base plate is in an installed state in the vehicle, the two resistance surfaces are configured to absorb an impact force (Sugimura, col. 2, line 62 – col. 3, line 2) resulting from a collision in the X-direction of the vehicle (Sugimura, col. 21, lines 5-27).
[Claim 18] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: The base plate according to claim 12, wherein an angle (β) between the base plate plane (Sugimura, Fig. 11A, element 12a) and a respective resistance plane (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 11A above) is less than 90° (Sugimura, Fig. 12E-12H, element 23a has an angled surface, meaning that the angle between the resistance plane of the surface and base plate plane is < 90°).
[Claim 19] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: The base plate according to claim 18. Further the angle (β) is directly related to the amount of friction between the resistance surface and the fitting surface. Sugimura’s base plate and mirror base are intended “lock” into place (have sufficient friction between them) so that in the presence of small forces, the two pieces cannot detach, but in the presence of large forces, the two pieces will decouple (Sugimura, col. 21, lines 5-27). In order to accomplish this, the angle (β) must not be too steep or too shallow.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention set angle (β) to be in the range of 25° to 45°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (e.g. Sugimura’s disclosure of the outcomes of the connection between the resistance surface of the base plate and fixing surface of the mirror base under small and large forces), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
[Claim 20] A mirror base (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 14) for connecting to a base plate (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 12) and for arranging an interior mirror (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 16) on a windshield (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 11) of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a mirror base plane (Sugimura, Fig. 4, the plane defined by the top of each element 21) of the mirror base (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 14),
wherein fixing surfaces (Sugimura, Fig. 4, the angled sides of the top of each element 21) are arranged on the mirror base plane (Sugimura, Fig. 4, the plane defined by the top of each element 21),
wherein two of the fixing surfaces (Sugimura, Fig. 4, the angled sides of the top of each element 21) in each case are arranged at least in part on a common fixing plane (Sugimura, annotated Fig. 4 below), as a result of which fixing planes (Sugimura, annotated Fig. 4 below) are formed,
wherein each of the fixing planes (Sugimura, annotated Fig. 4 below) is aligned with respect to the mirror base plane (Sugimura, Fig. 4, the plane defined by the top of each element 21) so as to intersect the mirror base plane in a straight line (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 4 below), forming straight lines (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 4 below) on the mirror base plane (Sugimura, Fig. 4, the plane defined by the top of each element 21),
PNG
media_image3.png
706
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the straight lines have one point of intersection (Sugimura, where the two straight lines cross in annotated Fig. 4 above) with one another at least in pairs at an acute angle of intersection (α; Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 4 above), as a result of which acute angles of intersection (α; Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 4 above) are formed, the point of intersection is arranged between the associated fixing surfaces of the intersecting straight lines (Sugimura, annotated in Fig. 4 above).
However, Sugimura does not teach that there are at least six fixing surfaces, nor correspondently three fixing planes, three straight lines, or three acute angles of intersection. Hoogenboom et al. teaches a mounting and adjusting instrument for a side mirror of a vehicle (Hoogenboom et al., Abstract) that includes a mirror base (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A and 1B, element 6b) for connecting to a base plate (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A and 1B, element 6a). This mirror base includes twelve notches or teeth (Hoogenboom et al., unlabeled in Fig. 1A and 1B), on which fixing surfaces can be defined. Since only oblique views of the mirror base are disclosed in Hoogenboom et al., Fig. B shows a top-down view of a schematic of the mirror base 6b from Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A. The mirror base plane (corresponding to the “flat” area defined by the top of the protruding notches in Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A, element 6b) is represented by the thick solid lines, while the dotted and dashed lines indicate the relative crests and troughs of the notches (Hoogenboom et al., unlabeled in Fig. 1A) around the circumference of the mirror base (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A, element 6b).
Thus, as shown in Fig. B below, the mirror base of Hoogenboom et al. includes:
at least six fixing surfaces (Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A and 1B, angled surfaces between the troughs of the notches on element 6b and the corresponding crests);
wherein two of the at least six fixing surfaces (Fig. B below, shaded regions between the dashed line and thick solid line) in each case are arranged at least in part on a common fixing plane (annotated in Fig. B below), as a
PNG
media_image4.png
776
730
media_image4.png
Greyscale
result of which three fixing planes (annotated in Fig. B below) are formed;
wherein each of the three fixing planes is aligned with respect to the mirror base plane so as to intersect the mirror base plane in a straight line (annotated in Fig. B above), forming three straight lines (annotated in Fig. B above) on the mirror base plane (plane defined by the “flat” area of the protruding notches in Hoogenboom et al., Fig. 1A, element 6b);
wherein the three straight lines (annotated in Fig. B above) have one point of intersection (Fig. B, central point where three straight lines intersect) with one another at least in pairs at an acute angle of intersection (α; annotated in Fig. B above), as a result of which three acute angles of intersection (α; annotated in Fig. B above) are formed, the point of intersection (Fig. B, central point where three straight lines intersect) is arranged between the associated resistance surfaces of the intersecting straight lines (annotated in Fig. B above), and the acute angles (α) are equal (Fig. B, each acute angle α spans three troughs and two crests, meaning that the angles are identical).
Sugimura and Hoogenboom et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of mounts for mirrors for use in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror base of Sugimura so that it had at least six fixing surfaces which created at least three fixing planes, straight lines, and acute angles of intersection, as taught by Hoogenboom et al. This modification would be advantageous as it would provide more points of contact between the base plate and mirror base, increasing stability and decreasing the effect of vibration on the attached mirror.
[Claim 21] Claim 21 is predominantly a combination of previous claims, including the base plate of claim 12 and the mirror base of claim 20 with identical wording. For brevity, the prior art references for these elements can be found in the claims 12 and 20 103 rejections above. New elements and limitations are addressed below.
Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: A mounting arrangement (Sugimura, Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, and 18) for attaching an interior mirror (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 16) to a vehicle, comprising:
a base plate (see prior art references for the specific elements and limitations of the base plate in the claim 12 103 rejection above);
a mirror base (see prior art references for the specific elements and limitations of the mirror base in the claim 20 103 rejection above);
wherein, in a final mounted state, the base plate (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 12) and the mirror base (Sugimura, Fig. 1, element 14) are connected to one another (Sugimura, col. 8, lines 21-22) such that a resistance surface (Sugimura, Fig. 11A, element 32a) and a fixing surface (Sugimura, Fig. 4, element 21) lie adjacent to one another (Sugimura, Fig. 12E-12H, elements 23a and 21a).
Sugimura and Hoogenboom et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of mounts for mirrors for use in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate and mirror base of Sugimura so that they had at least six resistance and fixing surfaces which created at least three resistance and fixing planes, straight lines, and acute angles of intersection, as taught by Hoogenboom et al. These modifications would be advantageous as they would provide more points of contact between the base plate and mirror base, increasing stability and decreasing the effect of vibration on the attached mirror.
[Claim 23] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: A vehicle (Sugimura, col. 5, lines 52-58) comprising a mounting arrangement according to claim 22.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (US 11,731,559 B2) in view of Hoogenboom et al. (US 2021/0237650 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Maxwell (US 2018/0345865 A1). For clarity, bold text indicates claim language.
[Claim 15] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: The base plate according to claim 12, wherein the base plate has a side wall (Sugimura, Fig. 3, unlabeled raised circumference of element 12), wherein a through-hole (Sugimura, Fig. 3, element 26b) is arranged in the side wall (Sugimura, Fig. 3, element 26b goes through the side wall, connecting the interior of element 12 with the area around element 12).
Neither Sugimura nor Hoogenboom et al. teaches that the through-hole is for receiving a clip for a tether. Maxwell teaches a base housing and mount for a rearview mirror base (Maxwell, Abstract). On the side of the base housing, there is a through-hole in which a clip (Maxwell, Fig. 7, element 44) attaches to a cable (Maxwell, Fig. 7, element 46). The cable serves as a tether, preventing the rearview mirror base from falling if it is disconnected from the base housing (Maxwell, paragraph [0032]).
Maxwell is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of invention of a mounting base for a rearview mirror. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repurpose the through-hole in the base plate of Sugimura so that it receives a clip for a tether, as taught by Maxwell (the original purpose of the through-hole of Sugimura being unnecessary, as the claimed invention does not include a sensor within the base plate). This modification would be advantageous as it would allow a more robust connection between the base plate and mirror base, preventing the mirror base from becoming a projectile in the event of a collision.
[Claim 16] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. and Maxwell further teaches: The base plate according to claim 15, wherein an engagement region (Sugimura, Fig. 2, elements 28, 30, and 32) for engagement of a torsion spring of planar design (Sugimura, Fig. 2, element 18) is formed on the side wall (Sugimura, Fig. 12A shows the circumference of the base plate 12 protruding from the back of the base plate 12b).
[Claim 17] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. and Maxwell further teaches: The base plate according to claim 16, wherein the engagement region (Sugimura, Fig. 2, elements 28, 30, and 32) comprises fixing elements (Sugimura, Fig. 12A, circumferential outside edges of element 22) projecting from the side wall (Sugimura, Fig. 12A, the portion of element 22 extends outwardly over groove 30) for the engagement of the torsion spring (Sugimura, col. 10, lines 32-34) and at least two recesses (Sugimura, Fig. 12A, breaks in surface 22 surrounding elements 28), wherein each of the at least two recesses has a pre-fixing rib (Sugimura, Fig. 12A, element 28) on the side wall for engaging with the torsion spring (Sugimura, col. 10, lines 14-19).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (US 11,731,559 B2) in view of Hoogenboom et al. (US 2021/0237650 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of O’Farrell et al. (US 4,871,917). For clarity, bold text indicates claim language.
[Claim 22] Sugimura in view of Hoogenboom et al. teaches: The mounting arrangement according to claim 21, further comprising: a sensor (Sugimura, Fig. 2, element 34). However, neither Sugimura nor Hoogenboom et al. teaches that the sensor is for positioning on a windshield for a vehicle or that it is arranged at different locations on the windshield as the baseplate.
O’Farrell et al. teaches “a moisture sensing assembly for controlling vehicle accessories” (O’Farrell et al., Abstract) that includes a sensor (O’Farrell et al., Fig. 18, element 50) for positioning on a windshield for a vehicle (O’Farrell et al., Abstract; Fig. 18, element 12)
wherein, in the final mounted state, the sensor (O’Farrell et al., Fig. 4, element 50) and a base plate (O’Farrell et al., Fig. 1, element 18) are arranged at different locations on the windshield (O’Farrell et al., col. 5, lines 9-10).
O’Farrell et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of sensors mounted on a windshield. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the sensor of Sugimura so that it is positioned on a windshield outside of and separate from the base plate connected to the mirror base of the interior mirror, as taught by O’Farrell et al. This modification would be advantageous as it would allow the interior mirror to be compatible with many different sensors and windshield configurations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Böhm (DE 102006021249 B3) teaches a drive for a retracting side mirror with a base plate with six angled indentations
Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0129853 A1) teaches a mirror assembly with holes in the base plate for threading a cable through.
Busscher et al. (US 10,434,946 B2) teaches a rotating spring clip for mounting a rearview mirror.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Culley whose telephone number is 571-270-0560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/EMC/Examiner,
Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights