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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Barros US 2011/0001428 in view of Bravo Corbacho US 2023/0339398.
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez Barros teaches a lower unit of a vehicle side mirror, the lower unit applicable to first and second side mirrors, the lower unit comprising: a common lower cover (fig. 22-25 complementary cover Cc), , and at least one common electrical component (blinker D1) fixed to the common lower cover; wherein the first side mirror includes: a first body (glass holding plate assembly PG) that holds a first mirror (G1 main glass), and a first upper cover (casing cover C) that covers an upper side of the first body from a front side of a first vehicle (see fig. 24); and wherein the common lower cover covers a lower side of the first body from the front side of the first vehicle (see fig. 24),
Rodriguez Barros does not teach wherein the second side mirror includes: a second body that holds a second mirror having a different size from the first mirror, and a second upper cover that covers an upper side of the second body from a front side of a second vehicle; and wherein the common lower cover covers a lower side of the second body from the front side of the second vehicle.
Bravo Corbacho teaches a second mirror assembly with a symmetrical configuration to maximize aerodynamics and visual appearance ([0026]-[0030] and abstract). This would teach a second mirror and a second upper cover that covers an upper side of the second body from a front side of a second vehicle; and wherein the common lower cover covers a lower side of the second body from the front side of the second vehicle as it would largely identical to the first mirror assembly. Bravo Corbacho also teaches the second mirror pane with different size ([008] [0040]-[0042]) to compensate for o compensate for asymmetric driver distance to each mirror [0005]. This then teach a second body that holds a second mirror having a different size from the first mirror. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez Barros in view of Bravo Corbacho to maintain aerodynamics and appearance while compensating for asymmetric views for each mirror.
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez Barros in view of Bravo Corbacho teach the lower unit of a vehicle side mirror according to claim 1. Bravo Corbacho teaches the second mirror being larger [0008]. While there is not an exact teaching of wherein the first mirror and the second mirror have the same width, and the first mirror has a smaller height than the second mirror.
MPEP 2144.04 states:
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The dynamics of viewing angle and field of view and adjusting for a distance are all known to one of ordinary skill in the art so absent an unexpected result adjusting the mirrors such that he first mirror and the second mirror have the same width, and the first mirror has a smaller height than the second mirror would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compensate for asymmetric driver view of each mirror.
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez Barros in view of Bravo Corbacho teach the lower unit of a vehicle side mirror according to claim 1, Rodriguez Barros further teaches wherein the at least one common electrical component includes at least one of a side turn signal lamp (D1 is a blinker), a camera, an infrared floodlight, and a foot lighting device.
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez Barros further teaches a vehicle side mirror which includes the lower unit according to claim 1 (see fig. 22-26).
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez Barrors further teaches a vehicle side mirror which includes the lower unit according to claim 2 (see fig. 22-26).
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez Barros teaches a vehicle side mirror which includes the lower unit according to claim 4 (see fig. 22-26).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Barros US 2011/0001428 in view of Bravo Corbacho US 2023/0339398 and further in view of Song KR 20130012801.
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez Barros in view of Bravo Corbacho teaches the lower unit of a vehicle side mirror according to claim 2, but does not wherein the first side mirror is attached to the first vehicle at a first height above a road surface, the second side mirror is attached to the second vehicle, which is different from the first vehicle, at a second height above the road surface, and the first height is lower than the second height. Song teaches e first side mirror is attached to the first vehicle at a first height (claim 3) above a road surface, the second side mirror is attached to the second vehicle, which is different from the first vehicle, at a second height above the road surface (claim 4), and the first height is lower than the second height for better blind spot removal (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez Barros and Bravo Corbacho in view of Song for better blind spot removal.
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez Barros teaches a vehicle side mirror which includes the lower unit according to claim 3 (see fig. 22-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights