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 windshield and automobile recited in claim 1 and
the “non-integrated member engagement portion” and the “non-integrated member” recited in claims 7-10
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 3-5 and 13-14 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 3: claim 3 recites “an engagement release structure for releasing engagement between the cover-side engagement portion...” This is unclear because the term “between” requires identification of at least two elements or locations (i.e., “between A and B”). As written, the claim identifies only one element (“the cover-side engagement portion”) and provides no second element or location after the word “between”. It is therefore unclear what the engagement release structure is releasing engagement between. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering Claim 3 indefinite.
Regarding claim 3: claim 3 also recites “the cover-side engagement portion has an insertion path that extends to inside of the cover-side engagement portion from outside of the cover-side engagement portion,…and the cover is formed in the insertion path”. This language is unclear and fails to clearly define the claimed insertion path. It is unclear how a path can meaningfully “extend to inside of the same structure from outside of the same structure and it is also unclear how the cover is formed inside the insertion path when the drawings show the cover as a separate structure from the cover-side engagement portion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 3.
Regarding claims 4-5: the phrase “a rear end on an opposite side to a direction of insertion” does not clearly define the positional relationship of the rear end relative to the direction of insertion. A direction of insertion does not itself define a “side:, and it is therefore unclear what is meant by the rear end being “on an opposite side” of the direction of insertion. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed alignment between the rear end and the opening end portion if the insertion hole is unclear. This also applies to claim 5.
Regarding claims 13-14: claim 13 recites “the bracket-side engagement portion and the cover-side engagement portion are close to each other on a forward side in a direction in which the cover is slid… the connection portion is folded back on a backward side that is an opposite side to the forward side” The phrase “on a forward side in a direction” is unclear because what constitute the “forward side” of a direction? The claim does not clearly define the spatial relationship represented by the terms “forward side” and “backward side” relative to the direction in which the cover is slid. In particular, it is unclear what constitute the “forward side” of the claimed direction and, consequently, what constitutes the “backward side” that is allegedly opposite thereto. Accordingly, claim 13 is indefinite. For the purpose of rejection, it would be assumed that any side is the forward and/or backward side. This also applies to claim 14.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Held Stefan (DE102016005207A1).
Regarding claim 1, Held Stefan discloses an in-vehicle equipment holding device (1; see fig. 1 and refer to para 0021) comprising:
an in-vehicle equipment bracket (4, fig. 1) for setting in-vehicle equipment (2) at a windshield (9) of an automobile (refer to para 0021);
a cover (as broadly claimed, “5” is a cover because the surface of 5 that is in contact with 4 provides “covering”, as shown in fig. 1) attached to the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4; see fig. 1); and
a tether (6) having a non-binding combiner ([0030] in the specification as filed states that “In other words, each non-binding combiner is not a knot or the like formed by manual tying of a string or the like made of fiber or vinyl”. The entire specification of Held Stefan is silent to tether 6 being a knot or the like; therefore, tether 6 is a non-binding combiner based on the definition in [0030] of applicant’s specification) capable of combining the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4) and the cover (5) without being tied with the in-vehicle equipment bracket and the cover (as shown in figs. 1-2),
wherein the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4) and the cover (5) are anchored to each other by the tether (see figs. 1-2) in a state in which the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4) and the cover (5) are combined (see fig. 1) and in a state in which the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4) and the cover (5) are separated (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Held Stefan discloses wherein the tether (6) has a connection portion (7) having an elongated shape (see fig. 2; it is much longer that it is wide), and the non-binding combiner (8) formed at both ends of the connection portion (7), and the non-binding combiner has a bracket-side engagement portion (8) that is formed at one end portion of the connection portion (7) and engages with the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4), and a cover-side engagement portion (8) that is formed at the other end portion of the connection portion (7) and engages with the cover (5).
Regarding claim 6, Held Stefan discloses wherein the non-binding combiner (8) is provided by forming the tether (6) integrally with the in-vehicle equipment bracket or/and the cover (4, 5; The expression “integral” has a somewhat broad connotation and is not necessarily restricted to a one-piece article. They are integral in a functional sense, In re Clark, 41 CCPA 974, 214 F.2d 148, 102 USPQ 241 (CCPA 1954) "Integral" is sufficiently broad as to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte (CCPA) 177 USPQ 326).
Regarding claim 7, Held Stefan discloses wherein in a case in which the non-binding combiner is provided by forming the tether integrally with the in-vehicle equipment bracket or the cover, the non-binding combiner (8) has a non-integrated member engagement portion (para 0021: “screws”) that engages with a non-integrated member (structure receiving the screws) that is the in-vehicle equipment bracket or the cover and that is not formed integrally with the tether (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Held Stefan discloses wherein the in-vehicle equipment holding device (1) is disposed at the windshield (9, figs. 1 and 2) at a position near an instrument panel of the automobile (near the dashboard panel).
Regarding claim 12, Held Stefan discloses wherein the in-vehicle equipment holding device (1) is disposed at the windshield (9, figs. 1 and 2) at a position near an instrument panel of the automobile (near the dashboard panel).
Regarding claim 13, Held Stefan discloses wherein in the state in which the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4) and the cover (5) are combined (as shown in fig. 1), the bracket-side engagement portion (8) and the cover-side engagement portion (8) are close to each other on a forward side in a direction in which the cover is slid to be attached to the in-vehicle equipment bracket (see fig. 1 and refer to para 0021), and the connection portion (7) is folded back on a backward side that is an opposite side to the forward side (see fig. 1; see the 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, Held Stefan discloses wherein in the state in which the in-vehicle equipment bracket (4) and the cover (5) are combined (as shown in fig. 1), the bracket-side engagement portion (8) and the cover-side engagement portion (8) are close to each other on a forward side in a direction in which the cover is slid to be attached to the in-vehicle equipment bracket (see fig. 1 and refer to para 0021), and the connection portion (7) is folded back on a backward side that is an opposite side to the forward side (see fig. 1; see the 112b rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Held (U.S. 11,203,297B2), Morgan (U.S. 2021/0387577A1), Maxwell (U.S. 2019/0135190A1), Eberlein et al. (U.S. 2008/0238112A1), Moreno (U.S. 6,042,076), and Toda (U.S. 4,243,196).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights