DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
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 2-3 and 12-13 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite that “the first hinge system includes a ball joint configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body”. This recitation is unclear as it appears to be in conflict with parent claims 1 and 11 which recite the “cover coupled with the visor body by a second hinge system”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of this claim are not easily ascertainable. Based on the examiner’s best understanding, claims 2 and 12 are being examined with the understanding that it is meant to recite that the second hinge system allows the cover to move in multiple axis.
Claims 3 and 13 recite that “the first hinge system includes a detachable hinge configured to separate the cover from the visor body”. This recitation is unclear as it appears to be in conflict with parent claims 1 and 11 which recite the “cover coupled with the visor body by a second hinge system”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of this claim are not easily ascertainable. Based on the examiner’s best understanding, claims 3 and 13 are being examined with the understanding that it is meant to recite that the second hinge system includes a detachable hinge configured to separate the cover from the visor body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahan (US 20220118828).
Regarding claim 1: Mahan discloses a visor system for a vehicle (Fig. 1; title; abstr.; [0007]). Mahan discloses a visor body 111 coupled with the vehicle by a first hinge system 114, 115 (Fig. 1; [0035]). Mahan discloses the visor body configured as a 110first shade (Fig. 1). Mahan discloses a cover 120, 121, coupled with the visor body by a second hinge system 130 (Fig. 1; [0035], [0044]). Mahan discloses the cover configured as a second shade (Fig. 1; [0049]). Mahan discloses a mirror 112 on the visor body, the cover configured to selectively cover the mirror (Fig. 1; [0047]).
Regarding claim 6: Mahan discloses that the vehicle includes a front windshield and a side window, wherein the visor body extends over the front windshield while the cover extends over the side window to simultaneously shade both front and side light (abstr.; [0007], [0048]).
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Worden (US 20180297453).
Regarding claim 1: Worden discloses a visor system for a vehicle (Figs. 1, 2A; title; abstr.; [0009]). Worden discloses a visor body 110, 610, 620 coupled with the vehicle by a first hinge system (Figs. 1, 6; [0028], [0031] – the hinge system is illustrated in Fig 6 but not described). Worden discloses the visor body configured as a first shade (Fig. 6; [0028]). Worden discloses a cover 170 coupled with the visor body by a second hinge system 140, 150, 158, 300 (Fig. 1; [0028]). Worden discloses the cover configured as a second shade (Fig. 1; [0028]). Worden discloses a mirror 116, 174 on the visor body, the cover configured to selectively cover the mirror (Fig. 2A; [0029]).
Regarding claim 4: Worden discloses that the cover includes an extension configured to expand the cover in length from the visor body (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 6: Worden discloses that the vehicle includes a front windshield and a side window, wherein the visor body extends over the front windshield while the cover extends over the side window to simultaneously shade both front and side light (Fig. 8).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden (US 20180297453) in view of Johananoff (US 20180339575).
Worden discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2: Worden discloses that the second hinge system is configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body (Figs. 3-5). However, Worden does not explicitly disclose that the second hinge system includes a ball joint. Johananoff discloses that a hinge system can include a ball joint 108 configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body (Figs. 1-5, 7; [0054]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Worden so the second hinge system is configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body as taught by Johananoff. As Worden and Johananoff are both directed to a vehicle visor system, as Worden illustrated the recited movement, as Worden is silent regarding a ball joint but does not preclude such, and as Johananoff explicitly teaches a ball joint to effect the movement such as illustrated by Worden, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific pivot system to allow movement in multiple axis from a finite selection of pivot system allowing movement in multiple axis. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3: Worden, as modified by Johananoff, discloses that the second hinge system includes a detachable hinge (Johananoff – 140) configured to separate the cover from the visor body (see above; Johananoff – Figs. 1, 7; [0054]).
Regarding claim 9: Worden, as modified by Johananoff, discloses that the second hinge system includes a ball joint 108 and a detachable hinge and that the ball joint is configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axes relative to the visor body when
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden (US 20180297453) in view of Marcus et al. (US 20110109117).
Worden discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5: Worden does not explicitly disclose that the cover includes a perimeter section defining an opening and includes a door coupled with the perimeter section by a third hinge system. Marcus discloses that the cover includes a perimeter section defining an opening and includes a door 72 coupled with the perimeter section by a third hinge system 71 (Figs. 1-3, 8). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Worden so that the cover includes a perimeter section defining an opening and includes a door coupled with the perimeter section by a third hinge system as taught by Marcus. As Worden and Marcus are both directed to a vehicle visor system, as Worden does not preclude modifications to the visor system (Worden – [0033]), and as Marcus explicitly teaches an additional cover and hinge system, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific cover and hinge configuration from a finite selection of cover and hinge configurations. Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses that the cover includes a perimeter section defining an opening and includes a door 72 coupled with the perimeter section by a third hinge system 71 and that the opening registers with the mirror 74 so that the door is configured to alternatively cover and uncover the mirror (see above; Marcus - Figs. 1-3, 8; [0049]).
Regarding claim 8: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a lamp on the visor body adjacent to the mirror, and comprising a switch configured to activate the lamp when the door is opened (see above; Marcus - Fig. 3; [0049], [0066]).
Regarding claim 10: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a lamp on the visor body and that the lamp is configured to remain off when the cover is opened for shading purpose (see above; Marcus - Fig. 3; [0049], [0066] – Marcus discloses switches 141, 143, 145, and dimmer 147 control the lights and as the lights can be selectively turned off; these meet the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 11: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a visor system for a vehicle (Worden - Figs. 1, 2A; title; abstr.; [0009]). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a visor body (Worden - 110, 610, 620) coupled with the vehicle by a first hinge system, the visor body configured as a first shade (Worden - Figs. 1, 6; [0028], [0031] – the hinge system is illustrated in Fig 6 but not described). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a cover (Worden – 170) coupled with the visor body by a second hinge system (Worden - 140, 150, 158, 300), the cover configured as a second shade (Fig. 1; [0028]). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a mirror (Worden - 116, 174) on the visor body, the cover configured, when closed, to selectively cover the mirror (Worden - Fig. 2A; [0029]). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a door (Marcus – 72) coupled with the cover by a third hinge system (Marcus – 71), the door configured to uncover the mirror when the cover is closed (see above; Marcus - Figs. 1-3, 8).
Regarding claim 14: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses that the cover includes an extension configured to expand the cover in length from the visor body (see above; Worden - Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 15: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses that the cover includes a perimeter section defining an opening and that the door (Marcus – 72) is configured to close the opening (see above; Marcus - Figs. 1-3, 8).
Regarding claim 16: Worden discloses that the vehicle includes a front windshield and a side window, wherein the visor body extends over the front windshield while the cover extends over the side window to simultaneously shade both front and side light (see above; Worden - Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses that the cover includes a perimeter section defining an opening, wherein the opening registers with the mirror so that the door is configured to alternatively cover and uncover the mirror (see above; Marcus - Figs. 1-3, 8; [0049]).
Regarding claim 18: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a lamp on the visor body adjacent to the mirror, and comprising a switch configured to activate the lamp when the door is opened. (see above; Marcus - Figs. 1-3, 8; [0049], [0066]).
Regarding claim 20: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a visor system for a vehicle (Worden - Figs. 1, 2A; title; abstr.; [0009]). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a visor body (Worden - 110, 610, 620) coupled with the vehicle by a first hinge system, the visor body configured as a first shade (Worden - Figs. 1, 6; [0028], [0031] – the hinge system is illustrated in Fig 6 but not described). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a cover (Worden – 170) coupled with the visor body by a second hinge system (Worden - 140, 150, 158, 300), the cover configured as a second shade (Fig. 1; [0028]). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a mirror (Worden - 116, 174) on the visor body, the cover configured, when closed, to selectively cover the mirror (Worden - Fig. 2A; [0029]). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses a door (Marcus – 72) coupled with the cover by a third hinge system (Marcus – 71), the door configured to selectively uncover the mirror when the cover is closed (see above; Marcus - Figs. 1-3, 8). Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses that the second hinge system includes a detachable hinge and a multi-axis hinge to allow the cover to move in multiple axes relative to the visor body (see above; Worden - Figs. 3-5).
Claims 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden (US 20180297453) and Marcus et al. (US 20110109117), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Johananoff (US 20180339575).
Worden and Marcus disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: Worden, as modified by Marcus, discloses that the second hinge system is configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body (Worden - Figs. 3-5). However, Worden, as modified by Marcus, does not explicitly disclose that the second hinge system includes a ball joint. Johananoff discloses that a hinge system can include a ball joint 108 configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body (Figs. 1-5, 7; [0054]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Worden, as modified by Marcus, so the second hinge system is configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axis relative to the visor body as taught by Johananoff. As Worden, Marcus, and Johananoff are directed to a vehicle visor system, as Worden illustrated the recited movement, as Worden and Marcus are silent regarding a ball joint but do not preclude such, and as Johananoff explicitly teaches a ball joint to effect the movement such as illustrated by Worden, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific pivot system to allow movement in multiple axis from a finite selection of pivot system allowing movement in multiple axis. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13: Worden, as modified by Marcus and Johananoff, discloses that the second hinge system includes a detachable hinge (Johananoff – 140) configured to separate the cover from the visor body (see above; Johananoff – Figs. 1, 7; [0054]).
Regarding claim 19: Worden, as modified by Marcus and Johananoff, discloses that the second hinge system includes a ball joint (Johananoff – 108) and a detachable hinge and that the ball joint is configured to allow the cover to move in multiple axes relative to the visor body when the detachable hinge is detached (see above; Johananoff – Figs. 1, 5, 7; [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
3/3/2026