DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 18/402,615 filed on January 2, 2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuenzel (US 20150197138) in view of Davis (US 2842395). With regard to claim 1, Kuenzel teaches a window visor extension 22 removably connected to at least a portion of a visor 58 of a vehicle, the window visor extension comprising: a main body 22 movably connected to the visor to at least partially cover a side window of the vehicle while disposed against the side window (Fig. 11); and a plurality of connecting rods 30/26 removably connected to at least a portion of the main body (via 24/28) to connect the main body to the visor. Kuenzel teaches of an optional movable extension 94 connected to the main body of the visor extension 92 such that the movable extension increases a total coverage area of the side window to block sunlight coming through the side window while the movable extension is extended, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the visor extension has a movable extension hingedly disposed on at least a portion of the main body. Davis teaches a similar visor comprising a main body 3,a movable extension 26 hingedly disposed on at least a portion of the main body (@27) to move from retracted against the main body in a first position (Fig. 3) to at least partially extended away from the main body in a second position (Fig. 2), and move from extended away from the main body in the second position to retracted against the main body in the first position, such that the movable extension increases a total coverage area of a window to block sunlight coming through the window while the movable extension is extended (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kuenzel to employ a movable extension hingedly attached to at least a portion of the main body with reasonable expectation for success in view of Davis in order to provide additional glare coverage as needed. With regard to claim 2, Kuenzel and Davis teach the visor extension, wherein the movable extension 26 has a size less than a size of the main body 3/22. With regard to claim 3, Kuenzel teaches the visor extension, wherein the plurality of connecting rods comprises: a first rod 26 movably connected to the main body 22; and a second rod 30 removably connected (via 42/42/52) to at least a portion of the visor to facilitate movement of the main body with respect to the visor. With regard to claim 4, Kuenzel teaches the visor extension, wherein the first rod moves in a first lateral direction or a second lateral direction in response to an application of force thereto (e.g. Fig. 15; when 26 is pushed in either direction and swivels on hinge 32). With regard to claim 5, Kuenzel teaches the visor extension, further comprising: a bracket 24 disposed on at least a portion of the main body 22 to receive the first rod 26 therethrough. Kuenzel lacks the specific teaching of a plurality of brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presentinvention to modify Kuenzel to employ a plurality of brackets (i.e. separate bracket 24 into 2 parts) with reasonable expectation for success in order to increase mounting flexibility and also since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuenzel and Davis as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ades (US 5306065). With regard to claim 6, Kuenzel teaches the visor extension, further comprising: a plurality of saddle pieces 44/42 with bands 52 removably connected to at least a portion of the visor, each of the plurality of saddle pieces to receive the second rod 30 thereon. Kuenzel lacks the teaching wherein the saddle pieces comprise of clips. Ades teaches a similar visor extension comprising: a plurality of clips 38/48 removably connected to at least a portion of a visor 42, wherein the clips can be used in alternative to bands 41 (Col. 3, lines 47-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kuenzel to modify the saddle pieces to include clips in view of Ades with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a more simple means of attachment to the visor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the visor extension as claimed, and particularly wherein each of the plurality of clips have a knurled surface therein to increase a friction level to prevent the second rod from moving away from each of the plurality of clips, and including the remaining structure of claim 7.
Suggestions for Applicant
It is believed that a combination of limitations of claims 4 and 5 (with slight modifications (in combination of claims 1 and 3)) would overcome the cited art as applied if the following amendments are performed:
4. The window visor extension of claim 3, wherein the first rod moves in a first lateral direction or a second lateral direction, relative to brackets fixed to at least a portion of the main body, in response to an application of force thereto.
Should applicant make this suggested amendment, claim 5 could be amended as follows:
5. The window visor extension of claim [3] 4, wherein the plurality of brackets .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ralston ‘726 has been cited to show a similar window visor extension comprising: a main body 19, a rod 21, a bracket 22, a visor 10, and clips 30 receiving the rod 21 to attach to the visor 10.
Lowry ‘813 has been cited to show a similar window visor extension comprising: a main body 11, a rod 12, brackets 13/14 fixed to the main body that can move relative to the rod, and clips 19 receiving the rod 12 to fix to a visor.
Murat ‘055 has been cited to show a similar window visor extension comprising: a main body 20, rods 41/42, a visor 50, and a moveable extension 90.
Campbell ‘252 has been cited to show the issued design patent of the present invention.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
January 22, 2026