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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 24 February 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a viewing mechanism” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “a viewing mechanism” is being interpreted as a mirror as supported by the specification (see paragraph [0030]).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear which limitation “is locked” in line 5 is meant to be describing. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that “rotation of the cover body…is locked.” As such, the examiner suggests that a comma be added in line 3, so the beginning of the lines reads “of the cover body, in a direction…”
Regarding claims 7-8, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 6 through their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015016730 to Fujisaki et al., all citations are to the attached English language machine translation (hereafter Fujisaki), in view of US 2019/0359137 to Yoshida et al. (hereafter Yoshida).
Regarding claim 1, Fujisaki discloses a vehicular viewing device comprising: a viewing mechanism that assists viewing by an occupant (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1, where the device is a vehicular door mirror device); a support body that is attached to a vehicle body side and that supports the viewing mechanism (see at least the abstract and Figs. 1 and 2, where the base 22 is a support body); and a cover body that is provided with an insertion hole (see at least Figs. 1 and 2 and page 2, eighth paragraph, where upper cover 32A is a cover body), , and that covers the support body (see at least Fig. 1).
Fujisaki does not specifically disclose that the cover body is rotated in an insertion hole circumferential direction in a state in which the support body is inserted into the insertion hole whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body.
However, Yoshida teaches a vehicular viewing device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1), wherein a cover body is provided with an insertion hole, that is rotated in an insertion hole circumferential direction in a state in which a support body is inserted into the insertion hole whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body (see at least Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraph [0046], where engaging protrusions are inserted into engaging grooves by rotating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki to include the teachings of Yoshida so that the cover body is rotated in an insertion hole circumferential direction in a state in which the support body is inserted into the insertion hole whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 2, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yoshida also teaches that the device further comprises a raised portion that is provided at one of the support body or the cover body, and a recessed portion that is provided at another of the support body or the cover body and into which the raised portion is inserted whereby the cover body is locked in the insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body (see at least Figs. 3-4 and paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include further teachings of Yoshida so that the device further comprises a raised portion that is provided at one of the support body or the cover body, and a recessed portion that is provided at another of the support body or the cover body and into which the raised portion is inserted whereby the cover body is locked in the insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 3, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Yoshida also teaches that the raised portion is inserted into the recessed portion whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole radial direction to the support body (see at least Figs. 3-4 and paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include further teachings of Yoshida so that the raised portion is inserted into the recessed portion whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole radial direction to the support body for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 4, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yoshida also teaches a locking surface that is provided at a peripheral surface of the insertion hole and that is abutted against the support body whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole radial direction to the support body (see at least Fig. 3, where a portion of the cover locks into the shaft 16B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include further teachings of Yoshida so that the device further comprises a locking surface that is provided at a peripheral surface of the insertion hole and that is abutted against the support body whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole radial direction to the support body for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 5, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yoshida also teaches a peripheral wall of the cover body is abutted against the support body whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole radial direction to the support body (see at least Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include the further teachings of Yoshida so that a peripheral wall of the cover body is abutted against the support body whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole radial direction to the support body for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 6, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yoshida also teaches an engagement portion that is provided at the cover body and that is engaged with the support body whereby rotation of the cover body, in a direction in which the locking of the cover body in the insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body is canceled, is locked (see at least Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraph [0046], where engaging protrusions 40B are engagement portions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include the further teachings of Yoshida so that the device further comprises an engagement portion that is provided at the cover body and that is engaged with the support body whereby rotation of the cover body, in a direction in which the locking of the cover body in the insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body is canceled, is locked for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 7, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Yoshida also teaches that the engagement portion extends on an insertion hole circumferential direction side (see at least Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include the further teachings of Yoshida so that the engagement portion extends on an insertion hole circumferential direction side for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 8, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Fujisaki also discloses that the cover is made of resin (see at least page 2, seventh paragraph).
Yoshida also teaches that the cover is made of resin (see at least paragraph [0034]).
Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida does not specifically disclose that the engagement portion is elastic.
However, Official Notice is taken that elastic materials are old and well-known in the art for use in vehicular components.
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida so that the engagement portion is elastic for the purpose of choosing a known material that is flexible and durable since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujisaki also discloses that the support body supports the cover body in the insertion hole axial direction (see at least Figs. 1 and 2).
Yoshida also teaches that the support body guides the rotation of the cover body in the insertion hole circumferential direction (see at least Figs. 3 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujisaki as modified by Yoshida to include the further teachings of Yoshida so that the support body guides the rotation of the cover body in the insertion hole circumferential direction for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Regarding claim 10, Fujisaki discloses a method of assembling a vehicular viewing device including a viewing mechanism that assists viewing by an occupant, a support body that is attached to a vehicle body side and that supports the viewing mechanism, and a cover body that is provided with an insertion hole and that covers the support body (see at least Figs. 1 and 2 and the abstract).
Fujisaki does not specifically disclose that the cover body is rotated in an insertion hole circumferential direction in a state in which the support body is inserted into the insertion hole whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body.
However, Yoshida teaches a vehicular viewing device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1), wherein a cover body is rotated in an insertion hole circumferential direction in a state in which the support body is inserted into the insertion hole whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body (see at least Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraph [0046], where engaging protrusions are inserted into engaging grooves by rotating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fujisaki to include the teachings of Yoshida so that the cover body is rotated in an insertion hole circumferential direction in a state in which the support body is inserted into the insertion hole whereby the cover body is locked in an insertion hole axial direction and the insertion hole circumferential direction to the support body for the purpose of using a known technique for locking separate components into a fixed arrangement in order to provide a stable configuration for the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0315277 to Sawada et al. discloses a viewing device for a vehicle comprising a viewing mechanism (mirror), a support body, and a cover body (see at least Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights