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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/26.
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 “rotating discs with the spots positioned off center” in claim 5 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The terms “flat panel”, “gray” and “shading” in claim 1 do not appear in the specification. The terms “multiple layers” and “shaded film” in claim 2 do not appear in the specification. The terms “mechanism of clear acrylic sliding platform”, “sweep” and “adjust” in claim 3 do not appear in the specification. The terms “motorized”, “adjusted”, “automatically“, “data”, “sensor” and “angle” in claim 4 do not appear in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 1, it is thought that “The two dark spots of claim 1, are composed” should be changed to --The sun automotive sun blocking system of claim 1, wherein the two dark spots are composed—as is standard claim formatting. In claim 2, line 2, it is thought that “could” should be changed to –can--.
In claim 3, line 1, it is thought that “In another embodiment, the two dark spots of claim 1 should be changed to --The sun automotive sun blocking system of claim 1, wherein the two dark spots-- as is standard claim formatting.
In claim 4, it is thought that “The sweeping mechanism of claim 3“ should be changed to --The sun automotive sun blocking system of claim 1, wherein— followed by language with clear antecedence, as is standard claim formatting.
In claim 5, it is thought that “In another embodiment, the two dark spots of claim 1” should be changed to --The sun automotive sun blocking system of claim 1, wherein the two dark spots-- as is standard claim formatting. On line 3, it is thought that –a—should be inserted before ”distance”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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.
The recitation in claim 4 that the mechanism of claim 3 “can be motorized” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no mention of the claim terms “motorized”, “adjusted”, “automatically“, “data”, “sensor” and “angle” in the specification. As such, it is not clear how one would go about “motorizing” the “mechanism” of claim 3 which is also not mentioned in the specification.
The recitation in claim 5 of “rotating discs with the spots positioned of the center, so that if the driver rotates the discs, the spots can be adjusted so that a distance between the centers is matched with the driver’s pupillary distance” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, these features are not shown or mentioned in the specification. In addition, rotation of a disc with the spots thereon would appear to result in the spots being misaligned in a horizontal direction rather than function to match a driver’s pupillary distance. As such, no reasonable search for these features can be conducted and claim 5 has not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-5 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.
In claim 1, line 2, “visor” lacks clear antecedent basis.
In claim 3, it is unclear how affixing the spots on a “mechanism of clear acrylic sliding platform” results in horizontal and vertical adjustment. Specifically, the disclosed mechanism required for such adjustment is made up of first (121; Fig. 1) and second (122; Fig. 1) platforms, where the first platform is slidable relative to the flat panel for adjustment in a horizontal direction and the second platform, to which the spots are affixed, is slidable relative to the first platform for adjustment in a horizontal direction, where it is the second platform which “sweeps horizontally and vertically” to adjust the position of the dots.
In claim 4, line 1, “sweeping mechanism” and on line 2, “data” lacks clear antecedent basis.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin et al. US 4,167,287 in view of Robles US 5,855,405 and Martinek US 2,286,219.
Regarding claim 1, Franklin et al. disclose
An automotive sun blocking system with an attaching mechanism (22; Fig. 1) to attach to the visor (12; Fig. 1) on the driver's side, comprising of:
A flat panel (20; Fig. 1) of glare reducing material (col. 3, lines 21-23).
However, Franklin et al. do not disclose that the flat panel is made of clear acrylic with a light gray color, has two dark spots affixed on the panel in the center, where these two dark spots are 64 mm apart, center to center and these two dark spots are 20 to 25 mm in diameter.
Notwithstanding, Robles discloses a sun blocking panel (60; Fig. 3) for a visor (with back member 76; Fig. 3), where the sun blocking panel (60; Fig. 3) selectively extends below the visor body as shown in Fig. 3. The sun blocking panel is made from acrylic and includes a gray tint. See col. 5, lines 38-43.
In addition, Martinek discloses a sun blocking system made up of circular screens or “spots” (46; Fig. 8) on a windshield (40; Fig. 8; see the last two lines of col. 4 through the first four lines of col. 5), where when used for both eyes two screens (46; Fig. 8) are used which are spaced apart one from the other, each are allotted to one of the two eyes, as described in col. 2, lines 7-12. The spots are centered with respect to the direction of the driver’s eyes are pointed during operation of the vehicle. Also, with respect to current claim 2, the screens or “spots” (46; Fig. 8) composed of multiple shaded layers (48, 49, 50; Fig. 9) or “films”, see the last two lines of col. 4 through the first four lines of col. 5.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the flat panel of Franklin et al. from a gray tinted acrylic as taught by Robles with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce intensity of solar transmittance. Motivation provided by Robles in col. 5, lines 34-37.
Additionally, it 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 to provide the flat panel of Franklin et al. with two tinted, “dark” (a term of degree where the tinted spots are considered to be “dark”, as broadly as recited) spots affixed on the panel in the center, each in the form of multiple layers of tinted material, as taught by Martinek with a reasonable expectation of success to effectively prevent glare onto the eyes the driver while leaving the remainder of the field of vision clear. Motivation provided by Martinek in col. 4, lines 29-32.
Furthermore, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the sun blocking system of Franklin et al., as modified by Robles and Martinek, so that the two dark spots are 64 mm apart from center to center and are 20 to 25 mm in diameter with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 2, Franklin et al., as modified by Robles and Martinek, disclose:
The sun automotive sun blocking system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the two “dark” (a term of degree where the tinted spots are considered to be “dark”, as broadly as recited) spots are composed of multiple layers of “dark” (as broadly as recited) shaded films (see the last two lines of col. 4 through the first four lines of col. 5 of Martinek), so that the darkness of the spots can naturally be adjusted from completely to partially blocking as desired by the driver as is the natural result of stacking a certain number of tinted layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Indication of allowable subject matter in claim 3 is dependent upon rewriting claim to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to correct the claim objections set forth in this Office action. Specifically, clearly reciting that the “mechanism” includes first and second platforms, where the first platform is slidable relative to the flat panel for adjustment in a horizontal direction and the second platform, to which the spots are affixed, is slidable relative to the first platform for adjustment in a horizontal direction, where it is the second platform which “sweeps horizontally and vertically” to adjust the position of the dots would result in a claimed invention which is neither shown nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Franklin et al. US 4,167,287, the base reference used above, lacks adjustment features. Also, Berger US 3,158,396 discloses an auxiliary tinted visor (19; Fig. 1) attached to visor (29; Fig. 1) which is adjustable horizontally and adjustable rotatably which includes a degree of vertical displacement, however, the mechanism which provides such movement is not a “clear acrylic platform”, rather it is a rod (10; Fig. 1) and spring clip (24; Fig.1) arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berger US 3,158,396 discloses an auxiliary tinted visor (19; Fig. 1) attached to visor (29; Fig. 1) which is adjustable horizontally and adjustable rotatably which includes a degree of vertical displacement, however, the mechanism which provides such movement is not a “clear acrylic platform”, rather it is a rod (10; Fig. 1) and spring clip (24; Fig.1) arrangement.
Olander US 3,499,679 discloses an auxiliary glare shield (20; Fig. 1) for a vehicle visor (15; Fig. 1) which is adjustable.
Honor, Sr. US 3,499,679 discloses a sliding disc shaped glare shield (15; Fig. 1) for a vehicle visor (10; Fig. 1).
Acuff US 4,003,597 discloses an adjustable disc sun blindness eliminator (13; Fig. 1) for a vehicle visor (15; Fig. 1)
Faris US 6,786,610 discloses a sun blocking device including a plurality of pixels on an optically transparent surface whose light transmittance can be controlled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612