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 .
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller (US Pat 8,544,933) in view of Peterson (US Pat 3,825,296), Metier (US Pat 3,369,837), Magness (US Pat 2,239,240), Damari (US Pat 9,073,409), and McKnight (US PG Pub 2022/0410671).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner interprets “an integrated structure arranged between the hand-held projecting sheet and the sun visor lens” to mean that the hand-held projecting sheet and the sun visor lens are a continuous structure and the hand-held projecting sheet is integrated into the sun visor lens, based on the specification and drawings provided.
Fuller discloses a sun visor for cars, comprising a back plane 102 and a sun visor lens 112, wherein an inner portion 402 of the back plane 102 is fixedly connected with a metallic magnetic sheet 400 (see Figures 4A-B; Col. 3, lines 20-27), a left portion of an upper end of the back plane 102 is fixedly connected with a left buckle 104A, and a right portion of the upper end of the back plane 102 is fixedly connected with a right buckle 104A (see Figures 1-3; Col. 2, lines 41-63); a rear portion of an upper end of the sun visor lens 112 is fixedly connected with a sun visor bottom plate 502, a middle portion of an upper end of the sun visor bottom plate 502 is inserted in a middle portion of the back plane 102; a middle portion of a front end of the sun visor lens 112 is provided with a hand-held projecting sheet 114, and a first magnet 500A and a second magnet 500B are positioned on the sun visor lens 112 (see Figure 5A; Col. 3, line 53-Col. 4, line 32); the metallic magnetic sheet is fixed between middle portions of opposite surfaces of two fixing plates (see Col. 3, lines 20-32), and wherein both upper end surfaces of the plurality of first magnets 500A and upper end surfaces of the plurality of second magnets 500B are flush with an upper end surface of the sun visor bottom plate 502 (see Figures 5A-B; Col. 3, line 53-Col. 4, line 60).
Fuller fails to disclose the metallic magnetic sheet is iron, a plurality of first magnets and a plurality of second magnets, and two second magnets are distributed transversely between the two adjacent first magnets; the back plane is made by sewing two fixing plates with the sewing thread and the iron sheet is fixed by glue; and an integrated structure is arranged between the hand-held projecting sheet and the sun visor lens and the sun visor bottom plate is pasted on the sun visor lens by glue.
Peterson discloses a sun visor 226 for a vehicle that is adjustable in position by using a magnetically attractable ball 244 made from iron, steel, or nickel that attracts a magnet 250 (see Figures 7-9; Col. 6, lines 33-47).
Metier discloses a sun visor for cars comprising a back plane 10 and a sun visor lens 35, a left portion of an upper end of the back plane 10 is fixedly connected with a left buckle 23, and a right portion of the upper end of the back plane 10 is fixedly connected with a right buckle 25 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 1, lines 66-71); a middle portion of an upper end of the back plane 10 is fixedly connected with a plurality of first magnets 33 and a plurality of second magnets 31 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 1-11, 33-56). Two second magnets 31 are distributed transversely between the two adjacent first magnets 33 (see annotated Figure 1 below; Col. 2, lines 1-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
201
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Magness discloses a sun visor for cars comprising a back plane 2 and a sun visor lens 10 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 18-28, 42-51), a middle portion of a front end of the sun visor lens 20 is provided with a hand-held projecting sheet 17 (see Figure 1; Col. 3, lines 31-37), and a sewing thread 7 is sewn between peripheries of the upper end of the back plane 16 (see Figure 9; Col. 2, lines 18-28). A rubber grip 18 is provided on the hand-held projecting sheet 17 to provide a more secure means of holding the hand-held projecting sheet 17 (see Figure 1; Col. 3, lines 31-37). A back plane 6 is made by sewing two fixing plates 4 with sewing thread 7 (see Figures 5-9; Col. 2, lines 18-28).
The claimed phrases “a sewing thread is sewn” and “is made by sewing two fixing plates with sewing thread” are being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the end product of Magness (with reference to sewing end product). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. It is noted however that Magness teaches “stitching” which generally requires thread and sewing.
Damari discloses a sun visor extender 10 for a car having a back plane 46, a sun visor panel 42 and left and right buckles 48, 50 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 24-28, 61-67). The sun visor panel 42 has two panels, 40, 42 that are connected in a non-separable manner by glue (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 34-43).
McKnight discloses a sun visor 100 having a sun visor lens 106 with a hand-held projection 206 that is integrated into the sun visor lens 106 (see Paragraphs 37-38 and 44). The sun visor 100 uses glue to secure two panels together (see Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the metallic metal sheet of Fuller from iron, with a reasonable expectation of success, because iron is ferromagnetic material that readily attracts a magnet is widely available, as taught by Peterson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the sun visor bottom plate of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, with a plurality of first magnets and a plurality of second magnets to fixedly connect the sun visor lens to the back plane with two second magnets distributed transversely between the two adjacent first magnets, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a removable connecting means that is simple, secure, and readily available, as taught by Metier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to sew two fixing plates with sewing thread to form the back plane of Fuller, as modified by Peterson and Metier, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a simple and well-known means of producing the back plane, as taught by Magness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to glue the iron sheet of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, and Magness, to a middle portion of the fixing plate, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a non-separable means of securing the iron sheet, as taught by Damari.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the hand-held projecting sheet and the sun visor lens of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, and Damari, as an integrated structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by McKnight, to simplify the manufacturing process and cut costs by avoiding the use of excess materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the sun visor bottom plate of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight, to the sun visor lens using glue, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by McKnight, to provide a means of securing the sun visor bottom plate that would remain durable and secure after repeated use.
Regarding claim 6, as understood, Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, discloses the sun visor for cars according to claim 1, wherein the sun visor lens 112 and the back plane 102 are connected with each other by magnetic attraction (see Col. 4, lines 9-22). It is noted that the use of “and” in the listing of additional connecting means is inclusive, indicating that all three connecting means are present in the same embodiment.
Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, fails to disclose the sun visor lens and back plane are additionally connected with each other by means of rollers, glue and hook and loop fasteners.
A second embodiment of Fuller discloses a sun visor for cars having a sun visor lens 112 and a back plane 102 that are connected with each other by magnetic attraction, and are connected with each other by means of rollers 1110 (see Figures 10-12; Col. 5, line 53-Col. 6, line 15). The rollers 1110 are used to better secure the sun visor lens 112 and back plane 102 when there is a loss of magnetic bond (see Col. 5, lines 53-58).
A third embodiment of Fuller discloses a sun visor lens 600 that is attached to the base plate 102 using hook and loop material 900 (see Figures 9A-B; Col. 5, lines 35-52.
Damari discloses a sun visor extender 10 for a car having a back plane 46, a sun visor panel 42 and left and right buckles 48, 50 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 24-28, 61-67). The sun visor panel 42 has two panels, 40, 42 that are connected in a non-separable manner by glue (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the sun visor lens and back plane of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, using rollers, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the sun visor lens remains in place when a loss of magnetic attraction occurs, as taught by a second embodiment of Fuller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the sun visor lens and back plane of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, McKnight twice, and a second embodiment of Fuller, using hook and loop fasteners, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the sun visor lens remains in place when a loss of magnetic attraction occurs, as taught by a third embodiment of Fuller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the sun visor lens and back plane of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, McKnight twice, and second and third embodiments of Fuller, using glue, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Damari, to ensure that the sun visor lens remains in place when a loss of magnetic attraction occurs, as taught by the second embodiment of Fuller.
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, in view of Brule (US Pat 8,226,149) and Monahan et al. (US Pat 6,648,396).
Regarding claim 4, Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, disclose the sun visor for cars according to claim 1, wherein the left buckle 104A comprises a fixing belt, one end of the fixing belt is sleeved with a fixing buckle lock, and one end of the fixing belt away from the fixing buckle lock is sleeved with a fixing release buckle (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 41-63).
Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, fail to disclose a front portion of an outer surface of the fixing belt is sleeved with a Tri glide button, and both a front portion of a lower end and a rear portion of the lower end of the fixing belt are sewn to a front side of the left portion of the upper end and a rear side of the left portion of the upper end of the back plane by the sewing thread.
Brule discloses a sun visor 101 for a car with a connecting means 103, 104 having a front portion of an outer surface of the fixing belt 108 sleeved with a Tri glide button 109 (see Figure 1C; Col. 3, lines 58-61).
Monahan et al. disclose a sun visor lens 12 having straps 24 attached to a lower end of the sun visor lens by being sewn into the lower hem 18 of the sun visor lens 12 (see Figures 1-5; Col. 3, lines 29-45). The lower hem 18 is formed by sewing sewing thread in a fabric of the sun visor lens 12 (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a front portion of an outer surface of the fixing belt of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, and McKnight twice, with a Tri glide button, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Brule, to provide an adjustment means that would allow use of the sun visor in multiple vehicles with differing sun visor sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to sew both a front portion of a lower end and a rear portion of the lower end of the fixing belt of Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, McKnight twice, and Brule, to a front side of the left portion of the upper end and a rear side of the left portion of the upper end of the back plane by sewing thread, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Monahan et al., to avoid using additional means of securing the fixing belt that would require additional cost to manufacture.
Regarding claim 5, Fuller, as modified by Peterson, Metier, Magness, Damari, McKnight twice, Brule, and Monahan et al., disclose the sun visor for cars according to claim 4, wherein the fixing buckle lock is engaged with the fixing release buckle, and a structure of the left buckle 104A is consistent with a structure of the right buckle 104B (see Figures 1-8; Col. 2, lines 41-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed February 6, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, Applicant asserts that Applicant’s invention is a standalone primary visor, while Fuller is an add-on extender for an existing factory sun visor. This argument relies upon an intended use of the visor. The rejection of claim 1 as presented, using Fuller as a base reference, discloses the structure as recited in claim 1 and whether it is used as an add-on or a standalone visor does not change the structural similarities between the recited configuration and the prior art, nor does it prohibit the structure of Fuller to act as “a sun visor for cars” as is recited by claim 1, making the rejection appropriate.
On pages 5-6 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, Applicant asserts that the upper end surfaces of Fuller are flush with the upper end surface of the sun visor bottom plate. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In Figure 5A of Fuller, the plurality of magnets are shown positioned on the bottom plate 502. Figure 5B of Fuller shows that the magnets are flush with a surface of the bottom plate 508 and this is further supported by the disclosure of Fuller (see Col. 3, line 53-Col. 4, line 22). Examiner interprets the “upper end surface” of the bottom plate to be the surface shown in Figure 5A normal to the page, or the surface shown opposite the handle 506 in Figure 5B (see annotated Figure 5B below), and the magnets are therefore flush with this surface, meeting the limitation recited in claim 1 and making the rejection appropriate.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On page 6 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, Applicant asserts that Metier does not disclose “two second magnets are distributed transversely between the two adjacent first magnets”. Metier shows a first set of magnets arranged at a top portion of a plate and a second set of magnets arranged at a bottom portion of the plate, with at least two of the second set of magnets arranged transversely offset from the first set of magnets in a central portion of the plate. The configuration of Metier meets the recited configuration of the first and second sets of magnets and is taught “to provide a removable connecting means that is simple, secure, and readily available” by Metier, making the rejection appropriate. Additionally, the recited arrangement of magnets is a matter of design choice and the arguments presented relating to the magnetic field homogeneity and stability are not found in Applicant’s specification, making any future claim to criticality an issue of new matter.
On page 6 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, Applicant asserts that Examiner’s reliance on Magness to teach a stitching or sewing process does not meet the recited claim language. Claim 1 recites “the first and second fixing plates are joined together by the sewing thread”. Examiner relies on Magness to teach that two materials are joined together by stitching, which requires a sewing thread disclosed by Magness as reference numeral 7. Examiner’s reliance on Magness to teach the sewing thread is therefore appropriate, given that the reference explicitly teaches a sewing thread to join two materials, as the claim language recites in both claims 1 and 4.
On page 7 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, Applicant asserts that “Claim 1 requires: “an integrated structure is arranged between the hand-held projecting sheet and the sun visor lens”” and addresses Wu et al. and Fuller; however, Examiner relies upon McKnight to teach an integrated structure, fully addressing the limitation and making the rejection appropriate.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 7 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, Examiner does provide reasoning for the combination of references in each obviousness statement made in the rejections found above.
Examiner has addressed arguments made by Applicant regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 4-6 and for the reasons outlined above, the rejection using previously presented prior art is maintained and appropriate.
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 VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is (571)272-9415. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-3pm 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, 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.
/VERONICA M CONDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612