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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0022, line 10, “immanent” should be changed to --imminent--.
In paragraph 0022, line 12, “immanent” should be changed to --imminent--.
In paragraph 0022, line 12, “vulnerable” should be changed to --a vulnerable--.
In paragraph 0022, line 13, “receive” should be changed to --received--.
In paragraph 0025, line 10, “immanent” should be changed to --imminent--.
In paragraph 0026, line 1, “rotary” should be changed to --rotationally--.
In paragraph 0028, line 1, “rotary” should be changed to --rotationally--.
In paragraph 0040, line 2, “exemplary” should be change to --exemplarily--.
In paragraph 0045, line 1, “exemplary” should be change to --exemplarily--.
In paragraph 0046, line 2, “exemplary” should be change to --exemplarily--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “rotary” should be changed to --rotationally--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “rotary” should be changed to --rotationally--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “the trigger signal indicating that the vehicle…is about to collide or is colliding with the vulnerable road user”, and the claim also recites “in particular the windshield” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szlag (DE 102021210928 A1). Szlag discloses a vehicle (paragraphs 0002, 0007, 0013, 0014, 0026, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0039, 0040, 0042, 0045 and 0047) comprising: a windshield system comprising: a windshield (paragraphs 0007, 0013, 0014, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0034, 0036, 0039 and 0045); a component arrangement (at 34), the component arrangement being attached to the windshield and comprising one or more components (e.g., a camera and/or a camera plate 34), the one or more components relating to at least one of: a rear-view device or a sensor (e.g., a camera; paragraphs 0028, 0042 and 0046-0049); and a weakening arrangement 20 configured to weaken a structural integrity of the windshield in case the vehicle is about to collide with a vulnerable road user (paragraphs 0013 and 0045), the weakening arrangement being arranged adjacent to and/or inside the component arrangement (Figs. 2a and 2b).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2007/0216768 A1) and Bolay et al. (DE 102020118985 A1). Smith teaches a vehicle 10 comprising: a windshield system comprising: a windshield (e.g., 20); a component arrangement, the component arrangement being attached to the windshield and comprising one or more components (e.g., 46A, 46B, 62), the one or more components relating to at least one of: a rear-view device or a sensor (paragraph 0031). The windshield system comprises a component housing 36. The component housing is at least partially configured as a sensor trim for the sensor (Fig. 3). Smith does not teach a weakening arrangement as claimed. Bolay teaches a vehicle 1 comprising: a windshield system comprising: a windshield 7; and a weakening arrangement configured to weaken a structural integrity of the windshield in case the vehicle is about to collide with a vulnerable road user (paragraphs 0004 and 0010). The windshield system further comprises a headliner, the weakening arrangement being at least partially arranged inside the headliner (Fig. 2). The weakening arrangement comprises an actuator 11 and a weakening device 12, the actuator being configured to actuate the weakening device for weakening the structural integrity of the windshield. The actuator is configured to receive a trigger signal to actuate the weakening device, the trigger signal indicating that the vehicle, in particular the windshield, is about to collide or is colliding with the vulnerable road user (paragraphs 0005 and 0011). The windshield system further comprises a trigger arrangement configured to transmit the trigger signal to the actuator (paragraphs 0005 and 0011). The weakening arrangement is configured to weaken the structural integrity of the windshield by moving the weakening device along a surface of the windshield (Figs. 2-4), wherein the weakening arrangement is configured to linearly (i.e., “translationally” – see paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0017 and 0021) or rotationally move the weakening device along the surface of the windshield (Figs. 2-4). The weakening arrangement is configured to weaken the structural integrity of the windshield by impacting a spot of the windshield with the weakening device (Figs. 2-4), wherein the weakening arrangement is configured to linearly (i.e., “translationally” – see paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0017 and 0021) or rotationally move the weakening device for impacting the spot of the windshield (Figs. 2-4). Bolay does not teach a component arrangement as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a windshield system as taught by Smith with a weakening arrangement as taught by Bolay so that “By moving the actuator element relative to the building shell, a desired bending moment can be specifically introduced into the windshield. This allows the residual stress in the laminated glass to be increased until a defined breakage of the windshield occurs. This allows for a defined breakage in the windshield in the event of a head impact or collision with the windshield. The defined break in the windshield allows for the optimization of desired energy dissipation in a collision with a pedestrian.” (Paragraph 0004 of Bolay.) Advantageously, “A windshield with defined refractive instability can absorb significantly more energy than an intact windshield. Furthermore, the defined fracture optimizes the crack behavior and stiffness of the windshield with regard to a pedestrian impact.” (Paragraph 0010 of Bolay.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a windshield arrangement as taught by Bolay with a component arrangement as taught by Smith “for night vision applications, detecting pedestrians and other pre-crash sensing applications. Visible light applications (which are also usually sensitive to near infrared wavelengths) may be used for adaptive cruise control in various other pre-crash sensing applications” (paragraph 0002 of Smith) and for “other night vision systems, rain detectors for automatic windshield wipers, occupant sensors or other types of sensors” (paragraph 0031 of Smith). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an invention based on such a combination of Smith and Bolay with the weakening arrangement being arranged adjacent to and/or inside the component arrangement, wherein the weakening arrangement is at least partially arranged inside a component housing of the component arrangement, since both the component arrangement in Smith and the weakening arrangement in Bolay are arranged at an upper edge of a windshield (see Fig. 3 of Smith; see Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 0007, 0018 and 0020 of Bolay), and making the weakening arrangement at least partially arranged inside a component housing of the component arrangement would provide a compact assembly having a cohesive arrangement and appearance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an invention based on such a combination of Smith and Bolay with the weakening arrangement being arranged adjacent to and/or inside the component arrangement, wherein the weakening arrangement is at least partially arranged inside a component housing of the component arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C). For such a combination, the component housing 36 would also correspond to the claimed weakening housing (as in claims 6 and 19), the component housing / weakening housing being arranged adjacent to the component arrangement (see paragraph 0020 of the instant application (i.e., 19/256,284)). All the claimed elements were known in the cited 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. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2007/0216768 A1) and Bolay et al. (DE 102020118985 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schofield et al. (US 2012/0224065 A1). Neither Smith nor Bolay teaches the limitations of claim 3. Schofield teaches a component housing (e.g., 20 and 28) that is at least partially configured as a mirror trim of a mounting element of a rear-view device 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an invention based on a combination of Smith and Bolay, as set forth above, with a rear-view device integrated with the component housing, according to the known technique taught by Schofield, in order to provide the driver with a “rearview” (paragraph 0108 of Schofield). All the claimed elements were known in the cited 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. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2007/0216768 A1) and Bolay et al. (DE 102020118985 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cleary et al. (WO 2020/005554 A1). Neither Smith nor Bolay teaches the limitations of claim 9. Cleary teaches a trigger signal that further indicates that a vehicle is travelling within a predetermined speed range (paragraph 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an invention based on a combination of Smith and Bolay, as set forth above, such that the trigger signal further indicates that a vehicle is travelling within a predetermined speed range, according to the know technique taught by Cleary, in order to avoid unnecessarily weakening the windshield for a low speed collision for which weakening the windshield would be of no real benefit. MPEP §2143(C, D and F). All the claimed elements were known in the cited 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. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614