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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I(a) (i.e., Claims 1-9, drawn to a mirror assembly for a vehicle) in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 is not acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant traverses the restriction requirement. MPEP 803 provides that if the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden, the Examiner must examine it on the merits, even though it includes claims to independent or distinct inventions. Applicants respectfully submit that it would not be a serious burden on the Examiner to examine each of Groups I(a), I(b) and II, as a search for each group would require a search for similar features, including a mirror element, a light sensor for detecting an intensity of light incident on a reflective surface of the mirror element, and reduction of an intensity of reflections. Likewise, Applicants believe that a search performed for each group would include a search of common classes. Thus, Applicants submit that a search conducted for each of Groups I(a), I(b) and II would involve searching similar technology areas, and thus would not be a serious burden.”
This is not found persuasive because “the claims of an application may properly be required to be restricted to one of two or more claimed inventions only if they are able to support separate patents and they are either independent (MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)).” See MPEP § 803.
Per Requirement for Restriction/Election (dated 05 December 2025), Examiner explicitly recites “Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification (e.g., Claims 10-15 classified in G06V 40/10, Claims 1-9 classified in B60R 1/088 and G02F 1/15, Claims 16-20 classified in B60W 10/00, etc.)…(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; e.g., searching exclusively within references of a mirror assembly requiring specific structural limitations of layers will not yield results for a vehicle system comprising a memory having computer readable instructions, vice versa, and for other mutually exclusive combinations)…”
Per Requirement for Restriction/Election (dated 05 December 2025), Examiner explicitly recites “Invention II (i.e., method comprising monitoring a user of a vehicle) can be practiced with a material different product than Invention I (i.e., mirror assembly for a vehicle, and a vehicle system), for the same monitoring method (e.g., detecting whether a user is looking at a mirror assembly) could be executed utilizing a different mirror device, camera arrangement, or sensor platform not having the specific mirror element, control device, or processing architecture recited in Invention I” and “the combination (i.e., Invention I(b), drawn to a vehicle system) as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination (i.e., Invention I(a), drawn to a mirror assembly for a vehicle) as claimed because Invention I(b) does not require the specific structural layered mirror assembly architecture of Invention I(a), such as the mirror element forming a mirror layer disposed between a back-plane light sensor layer and a fore-plane transparent layer…The subcombination (i.e., Invention I(a), drawn to a mirror assembly for a vehicle) has separate utility such as the layered mirror assembly, including the mirror layer positioned between the back-plane and the fore-plane layers, being utilized in other vehicle systems or monitoring applications without requiring the memory-based processing system or method recited in Invention I(b).”
Examiner submits that the applicant has failed to prove or provide an argument, supported by facts, that the utility suggested by the Examiner cannot be accomplished and that the claims are not directed to independent or distinct inventions. See MPEP § 806. Thus, the reply to the restriction requirement is incomplete. See MPEP 818.01(a) and 37 CFR 1.111. Examiner further reminds the applicant that “A prima facie showing of serious search and/or examination burden may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant.” Examiner submits that the applicant has not provided appropriate showings or evidence to specifically rebut the inventions acquiring a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and/or the inventions requiring a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which they base their conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I(a) (i.e., Claims 1-9, drawn to a mirror assembly for a vehicle) in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 light source, image generation, detected incident light intensity, control device, intensity of reflections in a subset, transparent layer, transparent layer having a plurality of sections, each section corresponding to a respective region of the reflective area, transparency of each section being independently controllable, the control device is configured to reduce the transparency of a section by applying an electric current to the section, mirror element is partially transparent, processing device configured to determine the incident light intensity detected by each light sensor, and compare the incident light intensity to a threshold intensity, threshold intensity value including selected intensity value, and difference between a detected incident light intensity at a first region and a detected incident light intensity at a second region must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 5A, illustrating a reflective surface of a conventional dimmable mirror 90, should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 3, the sentences recite “wherein a transparency of each section is independently controllable” and it is unclear how the phrase “independently controllable” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations. “Controllable” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying whether the controllability and/or claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the mirror assembly comprising the control device. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, this phrase does not establish the relationship between the controllable condition and the claimed invention. See 35 USC § 112(f) rejection for further details.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are: “a control device configured to locally reduce an intensity of reflections” in Claim 1, “wherein a transparency of each section is independently controllable” in Claim 3, “the control device is configured to reduce the transparency of a section by applying an electric current to the section” in Claim 4, “a processing device configured to determine the incident light intensity detected by each light sensor, and compare the incident light intensity to a threshold intensity” in Claim 7, and “the processing device is configured to reduce the transparency of a section of the transparent layer based on the incident light intensity detected for a region being greater than the threshold intensity” in Claim 8.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-9 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the recitation “a mirror element configured to reflect light from a light source and generate an image” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the phrase “generate an image” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations. In the instant case, it is unclear and ambiguous how the mirror “generates an image,” for a mirror normally reflects light rather than generating an image itself. The claim language does not specify whether the image is formed by the reflected light on another component (e.g., a display surface or sensor) or formed by the optical system as whole, or somehow produced directly by the mirror element itself. There is no location nor cooperating claimed elements responsible for image formation, and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how the mirror performs the function of image generation or what sufficient structure(s) is required to meet the claim limitation(s).
With respect to Claims 1-9, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g).
In the current instance, “a control device configured to locally reduce an intensity of reflections in a subset of the plurality of regions based on the detected incident light intensity” in Claim 1, “wherein a transparency of each section is independently controllable” in Claim 3, and “a processing device configured to determine the incident light intensity detected by each light sensor, and compare the incident light intensity to a threshold intensity” in Claim 7, recite functional language, for the claim limitations merely recite a function or result achieved by the invention. For example, “a processing device configured to determine the incident light intensity…and compare the incident light intensity,” merely claims a function without reciting sufficient structure(s) material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function, and thus, these limitations are purely functional and result-oriented. Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claims 7-9, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the current instance, for example, “a processing device configured to determine the incident light intensity detected by each light sensor, and compare the incident light intensity to a threshold intensity” in Claim 7, and “wherein the threshold intensity includes at least one of a selected intensity value” in Claim 9, recite methods of using the apparatus within method/process claim limitations. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows determining incident light intensity, comparing incident light intensity to a threshold intensity, and selecting an intensity value, or whether infringement occurs when incident light intensity is actually determined, incident light intensity is actually compared to a threshold intensity and an intensity value is actually selected. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a mirror assembly.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 (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 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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo US 20200089072 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Kubo discloses a mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]) for a vehicle (electrooptical device used as vehicle mirror configured to electrically control reflectance, a reflectance-variable mirror; [0003]; preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. and MPEP § 2111), comprising:
a mirror element (mirror member 102, i.e., reflective member; [0029-32]) configured to reflect light (mirror/reflective member configured to reflect light; [0029]) from a light source (e.g., ambient light; [0028]) and generate an image (EC mirror has sufficient reflection characteristics, i.e., displaying reflected image; [0064]);
a light sensor assembly (detector 105; [0033]) configured to detect an intensity of light incident (detector 105 configured to determine intensity of light incident, incident light 110 entering EC mirror 100; [0033-36]) on a plurality of regions (plurality of regions; [0035-36]) corresponding to a reflective area (surface of light reflective member; [0035-36]) of the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]); and
a control device (EC device controller 106; [0033]) configured to locally (broad weak light distinguishable from localized strong light, EC mirror 100 can be controlled to appropriate reflectances; [0075]) reduce an intensity of reflections (when incident light hinders visual recognition, EC device controller 106 increases transmittance of EC device 101, to thereby reduce effect of incident light 110; [0078]) in a subset (surface of light reflective member divided into regions for individual recognition; [0035]) of the plurality of regions (plurality of regions; [0035-36]) based on the detected incident light intensity (controller 106 configured to operate, with reference to data of intensity of light incident; [0033]).
With respect to Claim 2, Kubo discloses the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]) of claim 1, wherein the light sensor assembly (detector 105; [0033]) includes a support structure (EC device 101; [0032]) having a surface parallel (as seen in figs. 1a-1b) to the mirror element (mirror member 102, i.e., reflective member; [0029-32]), and a plurality of light sensors (optical sensors 103; [0032]) arrayed along the surface (as seen in fig. 1b), each light sensor (of optical sensors 103; [0032]) corresponding to a respective region (of divided plurality of regions; [0035-36]) of the reflective area (surface of light reflective member; [0035-36]).
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo US 20200089072 A1 in view of another embodiment of Kubo.
With respect to Claim 3, Kubo discloses the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]) of claim 2, the control device (EC device controller 106; [0033]), and the reflective area (surface of light reflective member; [0035-36]).
The first embodiment of Kubo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a transparent layer having a plurality of sections, each section corresponding to a respective region of the reflective area, wherein a transparency of each section is independently controllable.
However, in another embodiment, Fig. 4 of Kubo further teaches the positional relation between the EC device (101; [0057]) and the light reflective member in the EC mirror ([0019], [0057]), further comprising a transparent conductive electrode (i.e., front electrode 402; [0057]), a light transmissive substrate formed of glass (front substrate 401; [0057]), and a spacer formed of glass fiber ([0060]) aligned relative to the light reflective member ([0057]; fig. 4), wherein the light transmissive substrates and electrodes transmit light and have transmittances of 50% or more and 100% or less, thereby varying transparency of the substrates and electrodes ([0057]). Fig. 4 of Kubo further teaches the light reflective member including a plurality of openings ([0065]) that enable incident light (110; [0057]) entering the surface of the EC device (101; [0057]) to pass through a portion of the light reflective member to reach an optical sensor, and even in the case of localized incidence of light, light modulation can be appropriately performed ([0065-68]; EC mirror configured to individually recognize divided light detection regions; [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the EC mirror of the first embodiment of Kubo, to combine the technical features of transparent and glass elements having varying transparency through differing transmittance properties and light modulation of individually recognized light, for the purpose of achieving minimum reflectance and/or high transmittance within desirable antiglare functionality of a mirror and maintaining stability in reaction to an EC material, as taught by Kubo ([0056-58]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 4, Kubo (first embodiment in view of fig. 4) teaches the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]) of claim 3, the control device (EC device controller 106; [0033]; first embodiment of Kubo) and applying an electric current (direct/indirect electrical connection to any one of the electrodes of the EC device, voltage-current characteristics; [0033], [0038]; first embodiment of Kubo).
The first embodiment of Kubo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the control device is configured to reduce the transparency of a section by applying an electric current to the section.
However, Fig. 4 of Kubo further teaches reducing the transparency of a section (reflectance of EC mirror being controlled, reduction of light transmittance in areas of the openings can be achieved via lower light transmittance and higher reflectance of the mirror, thereby reducing transparency of the substrates and electrodes; [0057], [0067-69]; fig. 4 of Kubo) by applying an electric current to the section (EC device 101 used for EC mirror combined with light reflective member and configured to electrically control reflectance of the mirror; [0051]; fig. 4 of Kubo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the EC mirror of the first embodiment of Kubo, to combine the technical features of reducing transparency and applying an electric current within an electrode, for the purpose of achieving maximum reflectance and/or low transmittance within desirable antiglare functionality of a mirror, resulting in a better appearance, and maintaining stability and conductivity in reaction to an EC material, as taught by Kubo ([0056-58], [0069]). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 5, Kubo (first embodiment in view of fig. 4) teaches the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]; first embodiment of Kubo) of claim 3, and the mirror element (mirror member 102, i.e., reflective member; [0029-32]) being configured to allow an amount of the light to pass through (light incident on light detection region passes through light guide unit to reach light detection unit, light incident on mirror passes through openings and enters optical sensors 103, wherein detector 105 is configured to determine intensity of light incident on optical sensors 103; [0029], [0032-33]; first embodiment of Kubo) the mirror element (mirror member 102, i.e., reflective member; [0029-32]) to the light sensor assembly (detector 105; [0033]).
The first embodiment of Kubo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the mirror element is partially transparent.
However, Fig. 4 of Kubo further teaches the positional relation between the EC device (101; [0057]) and the light reflective member in the EC mirror ([0019], [0057]), further comprising a transparent conductive electrode (i.e., front electrode 402; [0057]), a light transmissive substrate formed of glass (front substrate 401; [0057]), and a spacer formed of glass fiber ([0060]) aligned relative to the light reflective member ([0057]; fig. 4), wherein the light transmissive substrates and electrodes transmit light and have transmittances of 50% or more and 100% or less, thereby varying transparency of the substrates and electrodes ([0057]). Fig. 4 of Kubo further teaches the light reflective member including a plurality of openings ([0065]) that enable incident light (110; [0057]) entering the surface of the EC device (101; [0057]) to pass through a portion of the light reflective member to reach an optical sensor, and even in the case of localized incidence of light, light modulation can be appropriately performed ([0047], [0065-68]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the EC mirror of the first embodiment of Kubo, to combine the technical features of transparent and glass elements having varying transparency through differing transmittance properties and light modulation of individually recognized light, for the purpose of achieving a range of reflectance and/or light transmittance within desirable antiglare functionality of a mirror and maintaining stability in reaction to an EC material, as taught by Kubo ([0056-58]). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 6, Kubo (first embodiment in view of fig. 4) teaches the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]; first embodiment of Kubo) of claim 5, the mirror element (mirror member 102, i.e., reflective member; [0029-32]), the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]), the light sensor assembly (detector 105; [0033]) and the control device (EC device controller 106; [0033]), wherein the mirror element (mirror member 102, i.e., reflective member; [0029-32]) forms a first layer (as seen in figs. 1a-1b) of the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]), and the light sensor assembly (detector 105; [0033]) forms a back-plane layer (as seen in figs. 1a-1b).
The first embodiment of Kubo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the transparent layer of the control device forms a fore-plane layer, and the mirror element is a mirror layer disposed between the back-plane layer and the fore-plane layer.
However, Fig. 4 of Kubo further teaches the positional relation between the EC device (101; [0057]) and the light reflective member in the EC mirror ([0019], [0057]), wherein, relative to the orientation on which the incident light 110 is incident is defined as front ([0057]), the transparent conductive electrode (i.e., front electrode 402; [0057]) forms a front layer ([0057]; fig. 4) and the mirror element/light reflective member (light reflective member disposed at a position 410, 411, or 412; [0063]) is a mirror layer formed between the transparent conductive electrode (i.e., front electrode 402; [0057]) and a back-plane layer (back substrate 405, similar to the front transparent substrate; [0057], [0061]; fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the EC mirror of the first embodiment of Kubo, to combine the technical features of forming a mirror element between a transparent electrode and back-plane layer of a substrate, for the purpose of achieving a resultant EC mirror with sufficient reflection characteristics, as taught by Kubo ([0064]).
With respect to Claim 7, Kubo (first embodiment in view of fig. 4) teaches the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]; first embodiment of Kubo) of claim 3, further comprising a processing device (combination of control method and EC device employed via controller; [0080]; method of first embodiment of Kubo) configured to determine (via light-detection and density-control step of the EC mirror; [0082]) the incident light intensity (EC device controller is used to evaluate the amount of incident light relative to the amount of ambient light; [0085]) detected by each light sensor (optical sensor 103, ambient light sensor 107, and detector 105 used to detect amount of incident light and amount of ambient light; [0032], [0084]), and compare the incident light intensity to a threshold intensity (resultant evaluated value of amount of incident light relative to amount of ambient light, in order to perform control in consideration of the difference between ambient light and incident light, this difference is evaluated in S102; [0085]; first embodiment of Kubo). Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). When the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
With respect to Claim 8, Kubo (first embodiment in view of fig. 4) teaches the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]; first embodiment of Kubo) of claim 7, wherein the processing device (combination of control method and EC device employed via controller; [0080]) is configured to reduce the transparency of a section (reflectance of EC mirror being controlled, reduction of light transmittance in areas of the openings can be achieved via lower light transmittance and higher reflectance of the mirror, thereby reducing transparency of the substrates and electrodes; [0057], [0067-69]; first embodiment in view of fig. 4 of Kubo) of the transparent layer (transparent conductive electrode i.e., front electrode 402; [0057]) based on the incident light intensity detected for a region being greater than the threshold intensity (when incident light has high maximum intensity, light dazzles, in such a case, appropriate reflectance of EC mirror is low; [0087]; first embodiment of Kubo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the EC mirror of the first embodiment of Kubo, to combine the technical features of reducing transparency within an electrode, for the purpose of achieving maximum reflectance and/or low transmittance within desirable antiglare functionality of a mirror, resulting in a better appearance, and maintaining stability and conductivity in reaction to an EC material, as taught by Kubo ([0056-58], [0069]). See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). See also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
With respect to Claim 9, Kubo (first embodiment in view of fig. 4) teaches the mirror assembly (EC mirror 100; [0031]; first embodiment of Kubo) of claim 7, wherein the threshold intensity (resultant evaluated value of amount of incident light relative to amount of ambient light, in order to perform control in consideration of the difference between ambient light and incident light, this difference is evaluated in S102; [0085]; first embodiment of Kubo) includes at least one of a selected intensity value (whether or not evaluated value of amount of incident light is larger than a predetermined value is determined with EC device controller; [0088-90]; first embodiment of Kubo), and a difference between a detected incident light intensity at a first region and a detected incident light intensity at a second region (when data of intensities of incident light detected with plurality of optical sensors is used, value of amount of incident light on whole surface, e.g., first region, of EC mirror is accurately estimated and calculated, compared with case of using data obtained from single optical sensor, e.g., second region; [0087]; first embodiment of Kubo). See also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Knox et al. discloses particle detectors similar to that of the claimed invention. Tonar et al. discloses an electrochromic rearview mirror assembly incorporating a display/signal light substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872