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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a phrase which can be implied (i.e. “To provide a technique that relates to a door mirror and/or a door mirror manufacturing method”).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the abstract as follows:
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 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foote et al. (US 2009/0115631 hereinafter refer as “Foote”).
Regarding claim 13, Foote discloses a door mirror for a vehicle (10, see Fig. 1), the door mirror comprising: a lamp attaching portion (an indicator receiving portion or mounting portion or structure 26, see Fig. 4, Para. 0035); a first lamp (an illumination source or indicator 28) that is attached to the lamp attaching portion via a bracket (part of the housing 24); and a housing cover (mirror shell or casing 14, back plate 20 with backing portion 20a, see Figs. 1 and 3-4) that has an opening (an aperture 20b, see Fig. 3, Para. 0041) through which light emitted from the first lamp is transmitted, wherein the bracket has at least one closing rib (part of the housing 24, see Fig. 3) that is located around the opening (see Fig. 3) and protrudes toward the housing cover, and the at least one closing rib has a height that is changed in a circumferential direction of the opening.
Regarding claim 15, Foote further discloses the height of the at least one closing rib (e.g. side wall portion of the housing 24) is set to be higher (e.g., the right side, see Fig. 1) on an inner side in a vehicle width direction than on an outer side in the vehicle width direction.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote.
Regarding claim 14, Foote further discloses the housing cover (back plate 20 with backing portion 20a, see Figs. 1 and 3-4) has a peripheral wall that is formed to define the opening (20b, see Fig. 3) the peripheral wall has a height that is continuously or intermittently changed in a circumferential direction of the opening (see Fig. 3).
However, Rodriguez Barros is silent with respect to a change in height of the closing rib being complementary to the change in height of the peripheral wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foote such that the change in height of the closing rib to be complementary to the change in height of the peripheral wall in order to effectively seal or cover the opening, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, configuring the height of the closing rib to vary in a complementary manner with varying height of the peripheral wall would have been a predictable and routine choice. Such a configuration would have flowed naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the specific sealing and covering requirements of the particular application with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving an effective seal or closure of the opening.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Barros (US 2017/0210282).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Rodriguez Barros discloses an inherent method of forming a door mirror (see Figs. 4-6) for a vehicle, the method includes a group of housing parts (e.g., frame (FR) of the housing (H) that includes the lower housing cover (H2), see Figs. 6 and 7, Para. 0147) each of which has a lamp attaching portion (portion of the lower housing with an opening or mouth (OE), see Fig. 6, Para. 0239); attaching a first lamp (e.g., lamp that includes laser emitter (LE1) and a mini projector (PR, see Figs. 6, 29, Para. 0146) to a bracket (the wo side portion that includes screw opening, see Fig. 6, Para. 0239) to assemble a lamp unit; attaching the bracket of the lamp unit to the lamp attaching portion of a first housing part included in the group of housing parts continuously formed (clips or module or container welding (CD), see Fig. 6, Para. 0239); and attaching a second lamp (e.g., laser line (LL1) generated from the vehicle can zoom in or out at will as shown in Fig. 30, see Para. 0236) to the lamp attaching portion of a second housing part included in the group of housing parts continuously formed. Rodriguez Barros further discloses a group of housing covers (the lower housing cover H2) each of which has a common opening (an opening or mouth (OE), see Fig. 6, Para. 0239) for the first and second lamps.
However, Rodriguez Barros is silent with respect to the manufacturing
method including continuously forming the group of housing parts and housing covers using a predetermined die device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a manufacturing method that includes continuously forming the group of housing parts and housing covers using a predetermined die device as a matter of routine design choice and the use of well-known manufacturing technique, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, selecting a predetermined die device for continuously forming the group of housing parts and housing covers would have been a predictable and routine choice that would have flowed naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the specific manufacturing requirements of the particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to independent claim 1, Applicant has sufficiently claimed and particularly defined a door mirror for a vehicle having a combination of structural and functional limitation that is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art, particularly the specific arrangement and interaction of the claimed elements relative to one another specifically, the claimed the door mirror includes: (1) a first lamp that is attached to the lamp attaching portion via a bracket; (2) a second lamp having lighting characteristics different from the first lamp and being attachable to the lamp attaching portion as an alternative to the first lamp; and (3) a housing cover having an optical opening through which light emitted from the first lamp is transmitted. Furth, the bracket is configured to cause an optical axis of the first lamp while the first lamp is attached to the lamp attaching portion to be inclined in a direction different from a direction in which an optical axis of the second lamp is inclined when the second lamp is alternatively attached to the lamp attaching portion, as specifically recited in the claim.
The closest prior art, Rodriguez Barros, discloses a door mirror for a vehicle (see Figs. 4-6), the door mirror comprising: a lamp attaching portion (e.g. an attachment portion near the lower housing cover (H2), see Fig. 6, Para. 0146); a first lamp (e.g., a lamp that includes laser emitter (LE1) and a mini projector (PR, see Figs. 6, 29, Para. 0146) that is attached to the lamp attaching portion via a bracket; and a housing cover (e.g., lower housing cover (H2)) that has an optical opening (opening or mouth (OE) which facilitates the output of light emission, see Fig. 6, Para. 0239) through which light emitted from the first lamp is transmitted, wherein a second lamp (e.g., laser line (LL1) generated from the vehicle can zoom in or out at will as shown in Fig. 30, Para. 0236) that is different in lighting characteristics from the first lamp is attachable to the lamp attaching portion as an alternative to the first lamp.
However, Rodriguez Barros does not disclose or fairly suggest the bracket being configured to cause the optical axis of the first lamp when the first lamp is attached to the lamp attaching portion, to be inclined in a direction different from the direction in which an optical axis of the second lamp is inclined when the second lamp is alternatively attached to the lamp attaching portion, as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the Rodriguez Barros reference in the manner required by the claims.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not anticipated by Rodriguez Barros because the reference does not disclose the claimed alternative attachment arrangement in combination with the bracket and the specified relative inclination of the two optical axes.
Dependent claims 2-12 are allowable because they depend from claim 1 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 17 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 17 recites subject matter similar to allowable subject matter previously recited in claim 1, specifically that “the bracket causes an optical axis of the first lamp while the first lamp is attached to the lamp attaching portion via the bracket to be inclined in a direction different from a direction in which an optical axis of the second lamp is inclined when the second lamp is alternatively attached to the lamp attaching portion.”
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Rodriguez Barros does not disclose or fairly suggest the bracket being configured to cause the optical axis of the first lamp when the first lamp is attached to the lamp attaching portion, to be inclined in a direction different from the direction in which an optical axis of the second lamp is inclined when the second lamp is alternatively attached to the lamp attaching portion., as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the Rodriguez Barros reference in the manner required by the claims. Accordingly, claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SAWADA et al. (US 2017/0066386) teaches a vehicle visual recognition device that projects an image; Schnellbach (US 2020/0331394) discloses an exterior rearview mirror assembly that includes an illumination device that includes a base portion and a movable portion movably disposed at the base portion, with the movable portion including a light source; Favero et al. (US 2019/0324362) discloses a vehicle puddle lamp assembly that includes a housing, a light source, a cover that is removably coupled to a base portion of the housing and an optical member disposed between the housing and the cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights