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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Japanese Application JP2024-064921 filed April 12th, 2024).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 7th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed September 26th, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 – 4 beyond formalities and 112b Rejections.
Applicant canceled claim 5.
Applicant added new claim 6.
The pending claims are 1 – 4 and 6 [Page 6 lines 1 – 7].
Applicant provides their summary of the previous Office Action [Page 6 lines 8 – 15]. The Applicant lists the references against the claims in their Summary.
Applicant amended the Specification and Abstract to overcome Examiner’s Drawing and Specification Objections [Page 6 lines 16 – 19]. The Examiner may raise new Objections based on new / amendments to the claims.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s Claim Objection [Page 6 lines 20 – 22]. The Examiner reconsiders the Objections based on claim amendments made.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejections [Page 6 lines 23 – 26]. The Examiner reconsiders the Rejections based on claim amendments made.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First, the Applicant recites amended independent claim 1 [Page 7 lines 1 – 25].
Second, the Applicant contends Tuefel lacks teachings of the claimed garnishes [Page 7 lines 26 – 29] and recites features of claim 1 in which Tuefel allegedly lacks [Page 7 lines 30 – 34] contending a guide rail is not taught as well as the concave feature claimed [Page 8 line 1 – 7]. The Examiner notes Tuefel in Paragraphs 41 – 46 suggesting the concave feature claimed, but in the sole interest to expedite prosecution cites a new reference against the claims.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited [Including those cited against claim 5] or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references [some features of claim 5 are incorporated and those references were not argued but claim 5 was not fully incorporated into the amendment]. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Third, the Applicant concludes claim 1 is allegedly allowable [Page 8 lines 8 – 13].
While the Applicant’s points maybe understood to which the Examiner respectfully disagrees; the Examiner in view of the amended claims cites a new reference against the claims.
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 “the display further comprises a second display face at an opposite side of the display face” 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 Interpretation – Functional Analysis
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 use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first motor gear that …” in claim 3.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “second motor gear that …” in claim 3.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor that is configured to …” in claim 3.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display and the arm portion are configured to …” in claim 1.
The Examiner notes the claimed “processor” and “motor gear” would connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and the terms do NOT invoke Functional Analysis in the present Application.
Regarding the “display” recited in claim 1, the Examiner in the sole interest to expedite prosecution affords the claimed “display” status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the “arm portion” recited in claim 1, the Examiner previously afforded the claimed “arm” status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus currently does.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the display further comprises a second display face at an opposite side of the display face”, however, the Specification does not describe the “opposite” arrangement claimed, the use of a second display face or the functionality of such a “display face”. Additionally there is no reference character 30B in the Specification as would be expected. Further, no specific support for the amendment was made [Page 6 lines 1 – 8].
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 1- 4 and 6 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 1, the phrase "such that" [“the display device is configured such that …” limitation] renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “outer sides of the roof portion” has Indefinite metes and bounds where the roof portion has not been defined and thus the “outer” furthers Indefiniteness of the limitation without improperly importing the Specification into the claims.
Regarding claims 2 – 4 and 6, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim from which they depend and thus is similarly Rejected.
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.
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.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuefel (US PG PUB 2025/0026281 A1 referred to as “Tuefel” throughout), and further in view of Koseki (WO2024/157482 A1 referred to as “Koseki” throughout) [First Cited in the Office Action mailed September 26th, 2025] and Lu (US PG PUB 2022/0176889 A1 referred to as “Lu” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, Tuefel teaches display storage system to be mounted in the vehicle roof. Koseki renders obvious additional details of the orientation and moving the display / screen for viewing in the rear of a vehicle. Lu teaches covering rails / sliders, covers, and display considerations (e.g. two faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tuefel to arrange the display in the facing manners and the angles orientations as taught by Koseki with additional display, covering, and arrangements as taught by Lu. The combination teaches
a display provided with a display face [Tuefel Figures 4, 6, and 10 (see at least reference character 4) as well as Paragraphs 45 – 46 (display with a screen rendering obvious the “face” claimed)]; and
an arm portion including a first portion side rotatably supported relative to a roof portion of a vehicle interior and including a second portion side that rotatably supports the display rotatably supported [Tuefel Figures 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, and 19 (see at least reference characters 1 (the roof), 4, 10, 12 (guides / slides), 13, 14 and 19 (arms), S2 and S3 (enabling rotations)) as well as Paragraphs 27 – 28 (display coupled in a roof in a vehicle), 35 – 36 (devices / screens in a roof), 39 – 42 (arm connecting the display to the slide rails in the roof with pivots to rotate the display with the arm and in the housing / rails in the roof combinable with Paragraphs 23 – 26), 52 (display in a roof)],
wherein the display and the arm portion are configured to assume a storage position disposed along the roof portion [Tuefel Figures 1 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 24 and 35 (stowed / storage positions in the roof) or alternatively Koseki Figures 6 – 9 and 14 (see as well as Paragraphs 19 – 23 and 31 (display in a roof lining in a stored configuration)],
the roof portion comprises a pair of roof side rails provided at vehicle width direction outer sides of the roof portion [Tuefel Figures 1, 5, 8, and 17 – 21 (see at least reference characters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10) in combination with Lu Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included and see at least reference characters 2 and 3 (roof portion), and 13, 14, 16, 18 (rails) as well as Paragraphs 29 – 32 (rails and roof portion)], and
a roof window having its length direction along a vehicle front-rear direction and extends between the pair of roof side rails [Tuefel Figures 1, 5, 8, and 17 – 21 (see at least reference characters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10) in combination with Lu Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included and see at least reference characters 2 and 3 (roof portion), and 13, 14, 16, 18 (rails) as well as Paragraphs 29 – 32 (rails in direction with the roof portion)],
each of the pair of roof side rails is covered by a roof rail garnish from a side of the vehicle interior [Tuefel Figures 1 – 5, 6, 10, 13, and 19 – 21 (see at least reference characters 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 21, and 25 where the rails would be obvious to duplicate parts (two rails as illustrated) see also MPEP2144.04 VI B) as well as Paragraphs 38 – 45 (rails for support with the system in a vehicle roof); Koseki Figures 2, 4, 6 (see at least reference characters 12, 13, 19, 19A, 31, 23, 24), and 10 – 12 as well as Paragraphs 13 – 18 (covers / garnishes over the rails / moving portions) and 28 – 32 (lids / covers over the display covering moving parts and rails / supports)],
each of the roof rail garnishes has a concave portion that is recessed toward the vehicle width direction outer side and that is open at a vehicle lower side [Tuefel Figures 1 – 5, 10, and 19 (see at least reference characters 2, 4, and 10 fit within the roof of a vehicle in Figure 1); Koseki Figures 2, 4, 6 (see at least reference characters 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 19A, 31, 23, 24 (concave portion / recess for housing gear / pivot / turning point)), and 10 – 12 as well as Paragraphs 13 – 18 (covers / garnishes over the rails / moving portions with parts recessed / holding ) and 28 – 32 (lids / covers over the display covering moving parts and rails / supports); Lu Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference characters 9, 10, and 14) as well as Paragraphs 29 – 32 and 35 – 37 (cavity for holding the display in fixed position)], and
the display device is configured such that, in the storage position, the arm portion is housed in the concave portion as viewed from a vehicle vertical direction [See next limitation for citations], and the display and the arm portion are housed within a height of the roof rail garnish as viewed from a vehicle width direction [Tuefel Figures 1 – 5, 11, 14, 17, and 20 (stored / stowed configurations in which the arms are hidden from view / level with the housing within the height of the frame / housing) as well as Paragraphs 24 and 35 – 38 (stowed configurations with arms hidden within heigh of the housing – combinable with Koseki and Lu); Koseki Figures 2, 4, 6 (see at least reference characters 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 19A, 31, 23, 24 (concave portion / recess for housing gear / pivot / turning point) and the display stored within the height of the garnish / cover of the rails for the display) as well as Paragraphs 13 – 18 (covers / garnishes over the rails / moving portions with parts recessed / holding the display within the height of the housing) and 28 – 32 (lids / covers over the display covering moving parts and rails / supports and stowed display within the housing / cover); Lu Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference characters 9, 10, and 14) as well as Paragraphs 29 – 32 and 35 – 37 (cavity for holding the display in fixed position within the height of the rails / housing)].
The motivation to combine Koseki with Tuefel is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of in-vehicle displays [Koseki Paragraphs 1 – 2] in order to improve visibility of the passengers / occupants [Koseki Paragraphs 4 and 7 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (B), (D), or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Lu with Koseki and Tuefel is to combine features in the same / related field of invention display devices in vehicles [Lu Paragraphs 1 – 3] in order to improve movement / orientation of the display device in a vehicle for occupant’s viewing experience [Lu Paragraphs 3 – 4 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Tuefel, Koseki, and Lu which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Tuefel teaches display storage system to be mounted in the vehicle roof. Koseki renders obvious additional details of the orientation and moving the display / screen for viewing in the rear of a vehicle. Lu teaches covering rails / sliders, covers, and display considerations (e.g. two faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tuefel to arrange the display in the facing manners and the angles orientations as taught by Koseki with additional display, covering, and arrangements as taught by Lu. The combination teaches
in the storage position, the display face faces a vehicle lower side [Tuefel Figures 1 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 24 and 35 (stowed / storage positions in the roof); Koseki Figures 6 – 9 and 14 (see at least reference characters 25 and 92 which is facing toward the vehicle interior / inside) as well as Paragraphs 4, 19 – 23, 26 and 31 (display in a roof lining in a stored configuration with the screen facing towards the inside of the vehicle)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tuefel, Koseki, and Lu.
Regarding claim 6, Tuefel teaches display storage system to be mounted in the vehicle roof. Koseki renders obvious additional details of the orientation and moving the display / screen for viewing in the rear of a vehicle. Lu teaches covering rails / sliders, covers, and display considerations (e.g. two faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tuefel to arrange the display in the facing manners and the angles orientations as taught by Koseki with additional display, covering, and arrangements as taught by Lu. The combination teaches
wherein the display further comprises a second display face at an opposite side of the display face [Lu Figures 2, 4 – 5 (see at least reference characters 5 and 6) as well as Paragraphs 28 – 29 and 33 – 38 (front / back side displays where one if facing opposite the other)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Tuefel, Koseki, and Lu.
Claim(s) 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuefel, Koseki, Lu, and further in view of Onogi, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0131157 A1 referred to as “Onogi” throughout).
Regarding claim 3, Tuefel teaches display storage system to be mounted in the vehicle roof. Koseki renders obvious additional details of the orientation and moving the display / screen for viewing in the rear of a vehicle. Lu teaches covering rails / sliders, covers, and display considerations (e.g. two faces). Onogi teaches the use of controllers in controlling display movement / servo / motor control of display housings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tuefel to arrange the display in the facing manners and the angles orientations as taught by Koseki with additional display, covering, and arrangements as taught by Lu with the controller taught by Onogi to control the elements of Tuefel, Koseki, and Lu. The combination teaches
a first motor gear that rotates the arm portion relative to the roof portion [See claim 1 for citations regarding the “arm portion” and “roof portion” and additionally Tuefel Figures 1 – 5 and 19 – 21 as well as Paragraphs 22 – 25, 39 – 41, and 50 – 52 (using drive units / motors / gears to rotate the arms of the display into positions and further to control the pivot points S2 and S3); Koseki Paragraphs 21 – 23 (drive unites for the display unit to rotate the display and controlling rotation mechanisms / drive units)];
a second motor gear that drives the display relative to the arm portion [See claim 1 for citations regarding the “arm portion” and “roof portion” and additionally Tuefel Figures 1 – 5 and 19 – 21 as well as Paragraphs 22 – 25, 39 – 41, and 50 – 52 (using drive units / motors / gears to rotate the arms of the display into positions and further to control the pivot points S2 and S3 connecting at the display and the arm into the roof); Koseki Paragraphs 21 – 23 (drive unites for the display unit to rotate the display and controlling rotation mechanisms / drive units)]; and
a processor that is configured to controls the first motor gear and the second motor gear [See the above two limitations regarding the “drive unit” claimed and additionally Onogi Figures 4, 5, 7, and 9 (see at least reference characters 4, 9 and 19 which controls pivot points / arms) as well as Paragraphs 46 (driver of components similar to Tuefel and Koseki rendering obvious to combine) and 56 – 59 (controllers for drive units / drivers to activate pivot points)],
wherein the controller is configured to control the first motor gear and the second motor gear [See previous 3 limitations for citations] such that when the first motor gear is driven such that the second portion side of the arm portion moves apart from the roof portion, the second motor gear is driven such that an area of the display face, as viewed from a direction orthogonal to a rotation axis of the display and along a horizontal direction, becomes larger than the area of the display face before movement of the arm portion [Tuefel Figures 10, 13, 16, and 19 – 21 (see display opening towards viewers) as well as Paragraphs 24 – 26, 39 – 42 and 50 – 52 (angles for setting the display to increase viewable screen size to viewer and driving / rotating the pivots on the arm(s) with the driver / controller (see Onogi teachings) to accomplish the rotation); Koseki Figures 1 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 2, 4, and 21 – 27 (angle of the display where the viewing area increases as the display is rotated / opened)].
See claim 2 for the motivation to combine Tuefel, Koseki, and Lu as similar motivation exists as improvements in the same / related field of invention are made.
The motivation to combine Onogi with Lu, Koseki and Tuefel is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of display devices in vehicles [Onogi Paragraphs 2 – 5] in order to improve adjusting the location of the device and using known controller parts in other display devices [Onogi Paragraphs 1 – 4 and 145 – 150 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (B), (D), or (F) are applicable in particular with the simple incorporation of a controller towards Tuefel’s or Koseki’s components to automate a manual activity at least (MPEP2144.04 III)].
This is the motivation to combine Tuefel, Koseki, Lu, and Onogi which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Tuefel teaches display storage system to be mounted in the vehicle roof. Koseki renders obvious additional details of the orientation and moving the display / screen for viewing in the rear of a vehicle. Lu teaches covering rails / sliders, covers, and display considerations (e.g. two faces). Onogi teaches the use of controllers in controlling display movement / servo / motor control of display housings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tuefel to arrange the display in the facing manners and the angles orientations as taught by Koseki with additional display, covering, and arrangements as taught by Lu with the controller taught by Onogi to control the elements of Tuefel, Koseki, and Lu. The combination teaches
wherein the processor is configured to control the first motor gear such that an angle of the arm portion relative to the roof portion [See claim 3 for citations of the claims “controller” (including Onogi Citations) and additionally Tuefel Figures 2 – 3 and 10, 13, and 16 (angles / tilting of the display) as well as Paragraphs 25 and 50 – 52 (orientation angles possible enumerated of the display as controlled by the arm and pivots in Paragraphs 39 – 41 using a controller / drive unit / motor)] becomes a predetermined angle [See previous Tuefel citations and additionally Koseki Paragraphs 2 and 4 (angle / predetermined angle taught – renders obvious the teachings of Tuefel as predetermined)].
See claim 3 for the motivation to combine Tuefel, Koseki, Lu, and Onogi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487