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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 5,580,118 – Crotty III, hereinafter Crotty in view of PG Pub. US 2011/0074178 A1 – Saitoh et al., hereinafter Saitoh.
Regarding Claim 1:
Crotty discloses a removable sun visor for car windows the removable (Shown removed in fig 2) sun visor comprising:
an inner frame (16, fig 1);
a hinge (Column 3, lines 29-31; Proximate its top edge 30, inner core member 16 includes a hollow hinge portion in which rod 42 of the mounting bracket and arm assembly 14 slidably inserts.) having an axis of rotation that is parallel with a top edge of said removable visor to a hinge pivot that is configured to allow said inner frame, that is covered by a fabric (Column 3, lines 5-7; Suitable upholstery materials known in the art include fabric, vinyl, or cloth with a bonded foam backing) cover, to rotate about a hole (See fig 4) adjacent to said vehicle side window and adjacent to a headliner of said vehicle (Column 1, lines 12-14; It is well known to provide a sun visor for the windshield of a vehicle, wherein the sun visor is mounted on the vehicle body roof); and
said inner frame further includes a first shade (40, fig 1) that is configured to store within said inner frame and securely slide a limited distance outside of said inner frame (See fig 1).
Crotty does not disclose a clip on top of an inner frame of the removable sun visor having a major axis that is configured to slidably secure said inner frame on a top edge in a parallel relationship to a major axis of a vehicle side window;
said clip having a bottom edge that is adjacent to a mouth of said clip and is opposite a bend of said clip that connects with a hinge at a bottom of said clip having an axis of rotation that is parallel with a top edge of said removable visor that allows a hinge pivot to rotate greater than 180 degrees on said clip and said pivot
said hinge pivot being connected to a rotating shoulder that allows said inner frame to rotate perpendicular to said hinge;
said rotating shoulder extends through said hole, wherein said hole is shaped to limit rotation of said hinge pivot in said hole;
said rotating shoulder is configured to pass through said hole in either side of said hole of said inner frame to limit rotation of said inner frame for a driver side said vehicle side window or limit rotation of said inner frame on a passenger said vehicle side window,
However, Saitoh teaches a clip (11, fig 4) on top of a removable sun visor (See fig 4) that is configured to slidably secure said inner frame on a top edge in a parallel relationship to a major axis of a vehicle side window (although depicted clipped to a visor, the clip itself is configured in such a way as to be able to clip to the top edge of a partially rolled down side window glass);
said clip having a bottom edge (See annotated fig 4) that is adjacent to a mouth of said clip (See annotated fig 4) and is opposite a bend of said clip (See annotated fig 4) that connects with a hinge at a bottom of said clip (See annotated fig 4) having an axis of rotation that is parallel with a top edge of said removable visor (See annotated fig 4) that allows a hinge pivot to rotate greater than 180 degrees on said clip and said pivot (See annotated fig 4);
said hinge pivot being connected to a rotating shoulder (13, fig 4) that allows said inner frame to rotate perpendicular to said hinge (compare figs 3a and 4);
said rotating shoulder (13, fig 5) extends through said hole (12a, fig 2b; in member 12, See fig 5.), wherein said hole is shaped to limit rotation of said hinge pivot in said hole (the hole is shaped to limit rotation to a single axis of rotation within the hole. See also paragraph [0034]; As shown in FIG. 2B, the horizontal rotating shaft 13 or the vertical rotating shaft 14 can be stopped by a ratchet mechanism at an arbitrary rotational angle with respect to a through-hole 12a formed in the support member 12);
said rotating shoulder is configured to pass through said hole (See fig 5) in either side of said hole of said inner frame to limit rotation of said inner frame for a driver side said vehicle side window or limit rotation of said inner frame on a passenger said vehicle side window hole (the hole is shaped to limit rotation to a single axis of rotation within the hole),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the visor of Crotty with the clip, pivot, and hinges of Saitoh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the use of the shade of Crotty as an auxiliary shade, as in Saitoh, or as a shade clippable to a side window.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Crotty and Saitoh teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Crotty further discloses said first shade (40, fig 1) has at least one curved upper edge (See fig 1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Crotty and Saitoh teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Modified Crotty does not teach said first shade further includes at least one lock tab that prevents said first shade from sliding completely outside of said inner frame.
However, Saitoh further teaches said first shade further includes at least one lock tab (17b, fig 1a) that prevents said first shade from sliding completely outside of said inner frame.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Crotty and Saitoh with the locking tab of Saitoh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of preventing the full extraction of the first shade during normal use.
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Crotty and Saitoh teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Crotty further discloses said first shade (40, fig 1) further includes at least one finger tab (See fig 2) located on an outer left side or right side edge of said first shade.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Crotty and Saitoh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2009/0315360 A1 – Olep et al., hereinafter Olep.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Crotty and Saitoh teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach at least a second shade that is configured to rotate out a left or a right side from within of said inner frame.
However, Olep teaches at least a second shade (176, fig 13) that is configured to rotate out a left or a right side from within of said inner frame (172, fig 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Crotty and Saitoh with the second shade of Olep. (Note that Olep teaches at least two shade extensions in use together. See fig 12) One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing extension of the visor to expand its coverage in use.
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Olep teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination (in Olep) further teaches said second shade (176, fig 13) is configured to translate horizontally out (there is a horizontal component to the pivoting translation of the second shade of Olep) from within a left side or a right side of said inner frame (See fig 13).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Olep teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination (in Olep) further teaches said second shade rotates out a left or a right side of said inner frame through a pivot connection with said inner frame (See fig 13).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Olep teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination (in Olep) further teaches said second shade further includes at least one finger tab (Sliding pin in track 182, accessible by finger, see fig 13) located on an outer edge (outer edge of face seen in fig 13) of said second shade out a left side or a right side of said inner frame.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Olep as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2017/0072774 A1 – Kim et al., hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Olep teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination does not teach a hinged tinted flap that is configured to hinge below said inner frame.
However, Kim teaches a hinged tinted flap (1, fig 27a) that is configured to hinge below said inner frame (See figs 27a and 27b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Olep with the flap of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing selective light filtering with partial visibility below the visor.
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, Olep, and Kim teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Modified Crotty does not teach said tinted flap further includes a magnetic clasp that retains said tinted flap in an aligned orientation with said inner frame.
However, another embodiment of Kim teaches said tinted flap further includes a magnetic clasp (Paragraph [0150]; affixing methods known by those skilled in the art may be implemented to attach a collar 74 and an optical filter 1, for example, with adhesive, welding, screw-on, magnet,) that retains said tinted flap in an aligned orientation with said inner frame.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Crotty, Saitoh, Olep, and Kim with the magnetic clasp of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing releasable retention of the flap.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Crotty and Saitoh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2011/0067278 A1 – Hulbert.
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Crotty and Saitoh teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach said rotating shoulder has detents on an outer radial circumference that creates locked step rotation of said inner frame relative to said hinge.
However, Hulbert teaches said rotating shoulder has detents (See elements 33 and 36 in fig 2) on an outer radial circumference (The detents are arranged on an outer radial circumference of bolt 31 in fig 2. See also fig 4) that creates locked step rotation of said inner frame relative to said hinge.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Crotty and Saitoh with the detents of Hulbert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing predictable positioning of the visor.
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Hulbert teaches all limitations of claim 12.
The combination (in Hulbert) teaches said detents are formed as complementary tabs and grooves (See elements 33 and 36 in fig 2).
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Crotty, Saitoh, and Hulbert teaches all limitations of claim 13.
The combination (in Hulbert) teaches said tabs and grooves (See elements 33 and 36 in fig 2) limit a rotation of said inner frame (Paragraph [0042]; The pivotable plate 33 is pivoted from one of the positions to overcome the tension device 34 to release the protrusions from the recessions and pivot the placard holder 20 and releasing the pivotable plate 33 to allow the tension device to engage the protrusions in the recessions to lock the placard holder in the other of the positions.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Crotty reference has no connection to a vehicle side window and that it is not removeable. This is not persuasive, as Crotty recites in column 2, lines 54-59: As is conventional, assembly 14 allows pivoting of the entire sun visor body 12 between alignments in juxtaposition with the front windshield and side window, as well as provides a horizontal axis about which sun visor body 12 rotates between a storage position and a window covering position. This demonstrates a clear connection to a vehicle side window. Also, fig 2 shows the sun visor of Crotty removed from its installation to a vehicle. Note the unplugged electrical connector above 14. Examiner notes that the Crotty reference is not relied upon to teach the feature of a clip on top of an inner frame of the removable sun visor having a major axis that is configured to slidably secure said inner frame on a top edge in a parallel relationship to a major axis of a vehicle side window.
Applicant argues that the Saitoh reference does not disclose use on a side window of a vehicle. This is not persuasive, as the claimed limitation “a clip … configured to slidably secure … on a top … of a vehicle side window” is clearly taught by element 11 in fig 4 of Saitoh. The clip of Saitoh is capable of, without reconfiguration, clipping a sun visor to an edge of a window glass even though such clipping is not shown. By way of illustration, PG Pub. US 2005/0017534 A1 – Driscoll shows an auxiliary sun visor clipped to a sun visor of a vehicle in fig 9. Driscoll further shows the same auxiliary sun visor, without reconfiguration, clipped to an edge of a window glass of a side window of a vehicle in fig 10. Applicant argues that fig 5 fig 5 of the Saitoh reference does not show a hole. This is not persuasive, as fig 5 shows element 13 extending through element 12. Also, fig 2b shows the hole 12a in element 12 with element 13 penetrating. Also, paragraph [0034] recites “As shown in FIG. 2B, the horizontal rotating shaft 13 or the vertical rotating shaft 14 can be stopped by a ratchet mechanism at an arbitrary rotational angle with respect to a through-hole 12a formed in the support member 12.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Saitoh reference provides a motivation for a clippable sun visor for an automobile that is clippable to various thin sheet articles found in an automobile, for the purpose of blocking sunlight. The Crotty III reference discloses a sunshade with an inner frame and sliding extensions for the purpose of blocking sunlight. It would be obvious to combine these features to arrive at the currently claimed invention as currently claimed for the purpose of allowing a user to have more flexibility in sunshading applications about the cabin of a motor vehicle. Also, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the tab 17b of Saitoh does not prevent the glare shield from being completely withdrawn from the frame, and that 17b is merely an overtravel stop preventing overinsertion of the glare shield into the frame. This is not persuasive, as paragraph [0030] of Saitoh recites “the upper stopper 17b to restrict a further slide movement of the glare shield 17 so that the glare shield 17 does not come off from the guide frame 15.”.
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that Olep does not teach horizontal translation of the second shade because the second shade of Olep rotates from a pivot. This is not persuasive, as the pivoting translation of the second shade of Olep has a horizontal component. Furthermore, claim 6 depends from claim 5 which requires that the second shade rotate out from within the inner frame. As dependent claims inherit the limitations of the claims from which they depend, the second shade of claim 6 must rotate to satisfy the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that Hulbert fails to teach detents on an outer radial circumference of the rotating shoulder. This is not persuasive, as Hulbert teaches detents (See interlocking ridges in elements 33 and 36 in fig 2) on an outer radial circumference (The detents are arranged on an outer radial circumference of bolt 31 in fig 2. See also fig 4).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Pub. US 2005/0017534 A1 – Driscoll shows an auxiliary sun visor clipped alternatively to a sun visor of a vehicle in fig 9, and without reconfiguration, clipped to an edge of a window glass of a side window of a vehicle in fig 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634