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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glickman et al. (US 2020/0139894 A1).
Re claim 1: Glickman et al. teaches a grille apparatus for an electric vehicle (figures 1 and 5 along with paragraph [0003]) comprising:
a mounting housing ((28) used in forming trunk (22)) positioned on an outer surface of the electric vehicle;
a display panel (54) mounted in an open area (area including that portion of trunk housing the display when grille cover (20) is closed) positioned in the mounting housing, and configured to display an image;
a withdrawal guide member (hinge 26 or as seen in figure 6 can include two members 50) comprising a plurality of arms, the withdrawal guide member being connected to the display panel and configured to guide the display panel to be withdrawn from the open area (figure 5) according to a set mode to adjust a moving distance of the display panel along a front-rear direction, and adjust an arrangement of the display panel (note when the vehicle is in “Park”, paragraph [0022-0023] and when being opened into a position as depicted in figure 5 provides a movement of the display panel to a lifted position; this movement occurs along a front-rear direction as broadly as set forth and also allows for adjusted arrangement from of the display panel between a closed position and an open position); and a grille cover (20) configured to shield the mounting housing (when in a closed position, figure 1) and configured to expose the image displayed on the display panel to the outer surface of the electric vehicle (when in the open position, figure 5).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glickman et al. in view of Rogel et al. (US 2025/0346298 A1).
Re claims 2-3: The teaching of Glickman et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Additionally, Glickman et al. teaches the use of an upper cover, hood (18) that shields the open area as set forth. Glickman et al. however does not teach the use of a hinge to couple the hood (claim 2) or a knob for latching the upper cover (claim 3). Rogel et al. teaches in a similar environment to include a hinge that connects to hinge reinforcement(s) (46) and a knob, latch assembly (50), see figure 1 to provide means to allow the hood to be positioned between an open position and a closed latched position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate these features taught by Rogel et al. into the hood arrangement of Glickman et al. to predictably provide a means to allow the hood to be positioned between an open position and a closed latched position. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glickman et al. (US 2020/0139894 A1) in view of Harmon et al. (US2023/0391267 A1 and Watkins (US2001/0227106 A1)
Re claim 10: The teaching of Glickman et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Glickman et al. does not teach that the housing that the display is used includes LEDs and speakers. Harmon et al. teaches in a similar environment that a housing can include speakers, paragraph [0061] allowing audio to be reproduced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such speakers as taught in Harmon et al. into the arrangement of Glickman et al. to predictably allow for audio reproduction. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Additionally, the use of LEDs for a display is taught by Watkins (paragraph [0002] thereby providing a source of bright light for a display. Since the display used in Glickman et al. is for outdoor use displays that easily viewed in such light conditions would be desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such a LED arrangement for the display in Glickman et al. to predictably provide a bright display that would be easily seen. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the foiling of the invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glickman et al. in view of Kyeong et al. (KR 20230077201).
Re claim 11: the teaching of Glickman et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Glickman et al. does not teach a grill cover made of transparent material. Kyeong et al. teaches in a similar environment of electric vehicles to provide a grill cover (30), figure 3 made of translucent/transparent material in order to see protect and also see the lighted elements behind. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a transparent cover into the arrangement of Glickman et aal. to predictably protect and also see the lighted elements behind. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The grille apparatus that includes in combination those features of claim 1 wherein the withdrawal guide member comprises: a first arm member rotatably connected to a coupling member protruding from the open area; a second arm member rotatably connected to the first arm member; and a third arm member rotatably connected to the second arm member and including a connecting member for being connected to the display panel as set forth in claim 4 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 5-9 depend upon those features of claim 4/1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in the claimed arrangement the arms may be “individually unfolded”. It is noted that the claimed arrangement does not set forth such a feature. Also, applicant argues that Glikman et al. teaches an arm arrangement that pivots the display and not an arm arrangement that provides an angle adjustment of the display in a vertical and a horizontal direction. It is noted that the specifics of the arm arrangement is not set forth in claim 1 and that the broadly worded language as set forth is satisfied by the teaching in Glikman et al. Clearly, when the display is being pivoted in Glikman et al. there is an adjustment the takes place due to a pivoting movement. This adjustment is an angle adjustment that allows for the display to be raised and lowered in a vertical direction as well as allowing the display to be moved in and out with respect to the vehicle, i.e. a horizontal direction or as set forth front-rear direction.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 7/8/26
Prosecution Insights