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
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 1-10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR 20120130483 A) in view of Eschenfelder et al. (DE 102007040007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim a discloses sun visor system (Lim, Fig. 6) for a vehicle (Lim, abstract), the sun visor system comprising: a visor panel (Lim, 100 in Fig. 6) including a retainer receptacle (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) having a catch (Lim, 110 in Fig. 6); and a retainer (Lim, 200 in Fig. 6) including a retainer head (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5), the retainer head comprising: an asymmetric retainer side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, asymmetric due to having the guide channel on one side and not on the other side); and a detent (Lim, 210 in Fig. 6) defined in the retainer side that is configured to selectively engage the catch of the visor panel and to disengage from the catch of the visor panel in a first direction (Lim, Fig. 5, direction where the guide channel is located since one can insert or remove the visor along the guide channel) and disengage in an opposite second direction (Lim, Fig. 8, disengage in the forward direction opposite the guide channel’s direction), wherein an asymmetry of the retainer side is defined at least by a guide channel (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) defined in the retainer side that extends from the detent in the first direction (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, rearward direction) and includes an opening at an arcuate vertical corner (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) of the retainer head.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 5 from Lim
PNG
media_image2.png
423
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 6 from Lim
Lim fails to disclose selectively engage and disengage in both directions, specifically fails to disclose engage in the second direction.
Eschenfelder teaches engage in the second direction (Eschenfelder, spring 34 in Fig. 2 allows selective engage from the second direction, or the front direction opposite to the guide channel).
Eschenfelder is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle sun visor as Lim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Lim to incorporate the teachings of Eschenfelder with a reasonable expectation of success and have springs such that the detent and the catch can engage from the front side. Doing so biases the catch against the detent to provide a more secured connection while still allows disengagement, and allows adjustment in designing the engagement or disengagement strength so that the visor system can be optimized.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 1, wherein the retainer head further comprises an asymmetric second retainer side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, and both sides have the guide and the detent as shown in Fig. 6) formed on an opposite side from the retainer side and including a second detent (Lim, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 2, wherein the retainer head further comprises a front side and a rear side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) at an opposite end from the front side, wherein each of the retainer side and the second retainer side extends between the front side and the rear side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 3, wherein an asymmetry of the second retainer side is defined at least by a second guide channel extending from the second detent in the first direction (Lim, Fig. 6-7, same detent and guide channel as the first side).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 4, wherein the guide channel includes a height that tapers (Lim, Fig. 5 and 7, height is greater at the rear and decreases towards the detent) along the first direction.
The combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the claimed invention except for the second guide channel also has a height that tapers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second guide channel same as the first such that they both has heights that taper from the rear side to the detent, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows simplified manufacturing process and allows both sides to have the height taper so that the catches can be easily slide into the detents.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 5, wherein the retainer head further comprises an upper side and a bottom end (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) formed on an opposite side from the upper side, the front side and the rear side converging along a direction from the upper side to the bottom end (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, front and rear sides curves toward each other as they go from upper side to bottom end).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 6, wherein: the guide channel includes a first inner guide surface (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) recessed from the retainer side; and the second guide channel includes a second inner guide surface (Lim, Fig. 6) recessed from the second retainer side.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the sun visor system of Claim 6, wherein the retainer receptacle includes: a first receptacle side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) including a first catch (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) configured to engage the detent; and a second receptacle side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) including a second catch (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) configured to engage the second detent.
Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses a retainer (Lim, 200 in Fig. 6) for a vehicle sun visor system (Lim, Fig. 6), the retainer including a retainer head (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5), the retainer head comprising: a first retainer side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) including a first detent (Lim, 210 in Fig. 5) defined in the first retainer side and configured to selectively engage a first catch (Lim, 110 in Fig. 6, selectively engage through the guide channel) of a visor panel (Lim, 100 in Fig. 6) in a first direction (Lim, Fig. 5, direction of the guide channel, rear direction), the first retainer side having an asymmetry (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, asymmetric due to having the guide channel on one side and not on the other side) defined at least by a first guide channel (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) defined in the first retainer side that extends from the first detent in the first direction and includes an opening at a first arcuate vertical corner (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) of the retainer head; a second retainer side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, and both sides have the guide and the detent as shown in Fig. 6) formed on an opposite side from the first retainer side and including a second detent (Lim, Fig. 6) defined in the second retainer side and configured to selectively engage a second catch (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) of the visor panel in a first direction (Lim, rear direction where the guide channel is located), the second retainer side having an asymmetry (Lim, asymmetric in the same manner as the first side) defined at least by a second guide channel defined in the second retainer side that extends from the second detent in the first direction and includes an opening (Lim, Fig. 6) at a second arcuate vertical corner (Lim, Fig. 5, the second side also has a vertical arcuate corner like the first side) of the retainer head; and a retainer anchor (Lim, 201 in Fig. 6) extending from the retainer head and configured to secure the retainer to a vehicle body (Lim, fifth paragraph on page 3 of machine translation, secure to vehicle roof).
Lim fails to disclose selectively engage in the opposite second direction.
Eschenfelder teaches selectively engage in the second direction (Eschenfelder, spring 34 in Fig. 2 allows selective engage from the second direction, or the front direction opposite to the guide channel; Fig. 8 of Lim already teaches disengaging in the second direction).
Eschenfelder is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle sun visor as Lim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Lim to incorporate the teachings of Eschenfelder with a reasonable expectation of success and have springs such that the detent and the catch can engage from the front side. Doing so biases the catch against the detent to provide a more secured connection while still allows disengagement, and allows adjustment in designing the engagement or disengagement strength so that the visor system can be optimized.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the retainer of Claim 9, wherein the retainer head further comprises a front side and a rear side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) at an opposite end from the front side, each of the first retainer side and the second retainer side extending between the front side and the rear side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the retainer of Claim 10, wherein the first guide channel includes a height that tapers (Lim, Fig. 5, height is greater at the rear and decreases towards the detent) along the first direction from the rear side of the retainer head to the first detent.
The combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the claimed invention except for the second guide channel also has a height that tapers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second guide channel same as the first such that they both has heights that taper from the rear side to the detent, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows simplified manufacturing process and allows both sides to have the height taper so that the catches can be easily slide into the detents.
Regarding claim 15, Lim discloses a motor vehicle (Lim, claim 1 and Fig. 8, which shows inside of the vehicle) comprising: a vehicle body defining a passenger compartment (Lim, Fig. 8) having a headboard (Lim, P in Fig. 8); a visor panel (Lim, 100 in Fig. 6) pivotally (Lim, third paragraph on page 3 of machine translation, rotatable) attached to the headboard and defining a retainer receptacle (Lim, see annotated Fig. 6) having a catch (Lim, 110 in Fig. 6); and a retainer (Lim, 200 in Fig. 6) attached to the headboard (Lim, attached by 201 in Fig. 5) and including: an asymmetric retainer side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, asymmetric due to having the guide channel on one side and not on the other side); and a detent (Lim, 210 in Fig. 6) defined in the retainer side and configured to selectively engage the catch of the visor panel in a first direction (Lim, Fig. 5-7, engage and disengage through the guide channel) and disengage in an opposite second direction (Lim, Fig. 8), wherein an asymmetry of the retainer side is defined at least by a guide channel (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) defined in the retainer side that extends from the detent in the first direction and includes an opening at a rounded vertical corner (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) of the retainer.
Lim fails to disclose selectively engage and disengage in both directions, specifically fails to disclose engage in the second direction.
Eschenfelder teaches engage in the second direction (Eschenfelder, spring 34 in Fig. 2 allows selective engage from the second direction, or the front direction opposite to the guide channel).
Eschenfelder is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle sun visor as Lim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Lim to incorporate the teachings of Eschenfelder with a reasonable expectation of success and have springs such that the detent and the catch can engage from the front side. Doing so biases the catch against the detent to provide a more secured connection while still allows disengagement, and allows adjustment in designing the engagement or disengagement strength so that the visor system can be optimized.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the motor vehicle of Claim 15, wherein the retainer further includes a retainer head (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5), the retainer head comprising: a front side; a rear side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) at an opposite end from the front side; the retainer side extending between the front side and the rear side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5) and the guide channel extending from the rear side to the detent (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5); and an asymmetric second retainer side (Lim, see annotated Fig. 5, and both sides have the guide and the detent as shown in Fig. 6) formed on an opposite side from the retainer side and including a second detent (Lim, Fig. 6) defined in the second retainer side and a second guide channel (Lim, Fig. 6-7, same guide channel as the first side) extending from the rear side to the second detent, wherein an asymmetry of the second retainer side is defined at least by the second guide channel (Lim, Fig. 6-7).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the motor vehicle of Claim 16, wherein the guide channel includes a height that tapers (Lim, Fig. 5 and 7, height is greater at the rear and decreases towards the detent) along a direction from the rear side to the detent.
The combination of Lim in view of Eschenfelder teaches the claimed invention except for the second guide channel also has a height that tapers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second guide channel same as the first such that they both has heights that taper from the rear side to the detent, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows simplified manufacturing process and allows both sides to have the height taper so that the catches can be easily slide into the detents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the last paragraph on page 8 of Applicant's Reply, filed 2/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lim and Eschenfelder. See rejection above for details. Lim discloses the guide channels which allows for engagement and disengagement from a rear direction, and Fig. 8 of Lim discloses disengagement from the front direction. Lim does not explicitly disclose engagement from the front direction, but Eschenfelder teaches springs, which allows for engagement from the front direction when combined with Lim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 18-20 are 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the first retainer side and the second retainer side converging along a direction from the upper side to the bottom end as claimed in claims 13 and 18. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Previously applied reference Lee (KR 100506762 B1) teaches this limitation with their symmetrical structure. However, the most recent amendment requires asymmetry. Combining Lee with Lim and Eschenfelder would result in a symmetrical retainer therefore not meeting the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612