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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/882,031 SYSTEM FOR MOVING A DEVICE DISPLAYING CONTENTS OF A ROAD VEHICLE filed on 9/11/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 5/4/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 10,960,828 to Smith et al. and in view of United States Patent No. 11,364,856 to Leimer et al.
With regards to claim 1, the patent to Smith et al. teaches a device having a ball joint (94) having a fixed coupling portion (28) configured to be connected to a headrest (24) inside a passenger compartment of the road vehicle (See Figure 1).
Smith et al. does not teach that the fixing coupling is configured to mount to a dashboard.
Leimer et al. teaches a screen holding device used in a vehicle that is configured to be mounted to a dashboard (See Col. 7, line 55, “dash” is equivalent to “dashboard”) and it would be obvious to mount the screen holder where it is convenient for use in the vehicle.
Smith et al. also teaches a movable coupling portion (100) coupled to the fixed coupling portion (28) in a rotary manner and configured to be connected to a screen (26, also “HMI”) of the content displaying device; the ball joint being configured so as to have a rotation centre coinciding with a centre of gravity of the assembly defined by the screen and by the movable coupling portion. (See Col. 13, lines 16-20, “the swivel ball joint 94 is optimally located relative to the center of gravity (not specifically shown) of the HMI 26 to prevent movement of the HMI 26”) . (noting “centre” and “center” are equivalent terms).
With regards to claim 2, Smith et al. teaches wherein the fixed coupling portion (28) and the movable coupling portion (101) are configured to allow the screen (26) to rotate around a first rotation axis (20) and around a second rotation axis (25), which are transverse to one another and parallel to the screen (26). (See Col. 2, lines 49-53, “the first portion relative to the second portion is approximately 15° to approximately 90° in a rotational direction, and about 15° to about 20° in a vertical direction and in a horizontal direction”.)
With regards to claim 13, Smith et al. teaches wherein the movable coupling portion (100) further comprises a handle (98) configured to allow a driver and/or a passenger of the road vehicle to orient the movable coupling portion relative to the fixed coupling portion.
With regards to claim 14, Smith et al. teaches wherein the rotation centre and the centre of gravity are arranged inside the screen and outside the ball joint. (See Col. 13, lines 16-20)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 are allowed.
With regards to claim 3, the prior art does not teach wherein the fixed coupling portion comprises a first coupling element with a spherical shape and wherein the movable coupling portion comprises a second coupling element with a spherical shape coupled to the first coupling element so as to rotate around the first rotation axis (20) and a third coupling element with a spherical shape coupled to the second coupling element in a rotary manner so as to rotate around the second rotation axis the screen being carried by the third coupling element.
With regards to claim 8, the prior art does not teach wherein the ball joint further comprises elastic pushing means to clamp the fixed coupling portion and the movable coupling portion against one another.
With regards to claim 12, the prior art does not teach wherein the fixed coupling portion is configured to be coupled, in a releasable manner, to a support unit comprising a fixing base mounted on the dashboard of the road vehicle and a tubular shank projecting from the fixing base the fixed coupling portion further comprising a support column configured to be coupled to the tubular shank of the support unit in a releasable manner, in particular by means of a bayonet coupling.
Response to Arguments
With regards to claim 1, the applicant has argued that the limitation of “the ball joint configured so as to have a rotation centre coinciding with the centre of gravity of the assembly defined by the screen and by the movable coupling portion” is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art. (See Remarks, dated 5/4/2026, pages 6 and 7). This argument is not persuasive. The term “coinciding” as defined by the dictionary meaning (dictionary.com) “to occupy the same relative position”. Smith discloses that “the swivel ball joint 94 is optimally located relative to the center of gravity of the HMI 26 to prevent movement of the HMI 26". It is obvious that this optimum location of the ball joint in Smith may be located to coincide with the center of gravity of the screen, in order to prevent the movement of the screen. The center of gravity relating to the dimensions and weight of the materials of the device, which are obvious to change for the specific desired function.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Amy J. Sterling at telephone number 571-272-6823 or to Supervisor Jonathan Liu at 571-272-8227, if the examiner cannot be reached. The fax machine number for the Technology center is 571-273-8300 (formal amendments) or 571-273-6823 (informal communications only). Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Technology Center receptionist at 571-272-3600.
/AMY J. STERLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631 6/5/26
Prosecution Insights