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 .
In response to amendment filed 02/27/2026, claims 4 and 16 have been amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claim 21 is new.
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 1-3, 6-8, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by FREDERICKSEN KARL J (WO 2014098911 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Fredericksen teaches, A display assembly for a vehicle comprising: (See figs. 3-5)
a variable transmittance panel in connection with a support structure connecting the display assembly to the vehicle, the variable transmittance panel comprising: (See figs. 3-7, abstract, A vehicle sun visor includes a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel. Also see paragraph 20, the panel 22 includes an inner surface 36 (e.g., facing the occupant 24) substantially aligned with an inner surface 38 of the sun visor 20, and an outer surface 40 (e.g., facing the object 26) substantially aligned with an outer surface 42 of the sun visor 20. Because the light modifying panel 22 extends through the sun visor 20)
an electro-optic element configured to vary in transmittance in response to a transmittance control signal; and (See fig. 6, paragraph 23, The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state. For example, the first and/or third layers may include a suspended particle device, an electrochromic device, a polymer dispersed liquid crystal device, and/or a microblind device. As will be appreciated, such devices may be configured to vary a degree of light transmittance through the layer based on a magnitude of electrical power supplied to the device. Also see paragraphs 25-27)
a display that is at least partially light-transmissive and configured to output a display light, the display having opposing display surfaces on a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is disposed adjacent to the electro-optic element; and (Claim does not clearly specify what it means by “display light” (e.g. display pixel element uniquely generated?). Under the BRI, Examiner interprets this as anything other than complete dark state that can be viewed by passenger/driver on visor display. See figs. 3-6, two opposite sites having display. See paragraph 13, the sun visors may include a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel. Such a sun visor may enable an occupant to reduce light transmission into the vehicle interior 12 without substantially diminishing the visual area available to the driver. For example, during bright conditions in which the sun is not directly in the line of sight of the driver, the driver may deploy the sun visor and transition the light modifying panel to the dimmed state.)
at least one controller configured to adjust the variable transmittance panel to a plurality of states comprising a first state and a second state, (See paragraph 13, the sun visors may include a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel. Such a sun visor may enable an occupant to reduce light transmission into the vehicle interior 12 without substantially diminishing the visual area available to the driver. For example, during bright conditions in which the sun is not directly in the line of sight of the driver, the driver may deploy the sun visor and transition the light modifying panel to the dimmed state. Also see paragraph 28. Lastly see fig. 3-5, second interface 30 and slider 28)
wherein the display light is output from only one of the first side and the second side in the first state, and the display light is output from both the first side and the second side in the second state. (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 13, the sun visors may include a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state. In this state, the display light is output from both sides. Also see paragraph 28, To establish the dimmed state or the substantially darkened state, the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a state that reduces light flow through the layer and/or blocks light flow through the layer, thereby establishing the desired transmittance. Finally, to establish the substantially reflective state, the third layer 52 may be transitioned to a substantially darkened state and the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a substantially light transmissive state. As a result, light entering the panel from the outer surface 40 will be blocked by the third layer 52, while light entering the panel from the inner surface 36 will pass through the first layer 44 and be reflected by the reflective surface 48 of the second layer 46. In this case, only one side is in a substantially darkened state (e.g. no light) while the other side displays light (e.g. reflection 34 shown in fig. 5 (seen from driver/passenger side) and/or also any reflection of light coming off from the front side (i.e. when seen from windshield side)))
In regards to claim 2, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1, wherein the display assembly is at least one of a visor, a privacy panel, or a sunshade positioned between a passenger compartment and an exterior window of the vehicle. (See figs. 2-5, sun visor)
In regards to claim 3, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 2, wherein the display assembly is selectively deployed proximate to a light transmitting surface of the exterior window, between the exterior window and the passenger compartment. (See figs. 2-5, sun visor location satisfies claimed position/location)
In regards to claim 6, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1, wherein in the second state, the at least one controller controls the transmittance of the electro-optic element to a transmissive state and the display light is output from the first side and the second side. (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 15, the panel 22 is in a substantially light transmissive state, thereby enabling a vehicle occupant 24 (e.g., driver, front passenger, etc.) to see an object 26, such as the illustrated car, that would otherwise be partially obscured by the sun visor…paragraph 28, by transitioning the first and third layers 44 and 52 to a substantially light transmissive state, light may pass directly through the panel 22, thereby enabling the occupant 24 to view the object 26. See figs. 3-5, teaches slider 28 where any adjustment to this slider and its amount of display output can be interpreted as “state”. Thus, claimed second state can be interpreted as less darkened/dimmed state compared to claimed first state by adjustment of slider)
In regards to claim 7, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 6, wherein the transmissive state of the electro- optic element transmits the display light from the second side and through the electro-optic element, such that the display light is transmitted into a passenger compartment of the vehicle, and the display light is transmitted from the second side through an exterior window of the vehicle. (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 15, the panel 22 is in a substantially light transmissive state, thereby enabling a vehicle occupant 24 (e.g., driver, front passenger, etc.) to see an object 26, such as the illustrated car, that would otherwise be partially obscured by the sun visor…paragraph 28, by transitioning the first and third layers 44 and 52 to a substantially light transmissive state, light may pass directly through the panel 22, thereby enabling the occupant 24 to view the object 26. See figs. 3-5, teaches slider 28 where any adjustment to this slider and its amount of display output can be interpreted as “state”. Thus, claimed second state can be interpreted as less darkened/dimmed state compared to claimed first state by adjustment of slider)
In regards to claim 8, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1, wherein the display light output from the second side is transmitted through the electro-optic element and through a windshield of the vehicle. (See fig. 3, and associated paragraphs)
In regards to claim 15, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1, wherein the electro-optic element is an electrochromic element. (See paragraph 25, electrochromic devices include an electrochromic layer and an ion storage layer. The electrochromic layer is naturally substantially light transmissive. However, when an electric current is applied to the device, ions from the ion storage layer are transferred to the electrochromic layer, thereby inducing an oxidation reaction within the material of the electrochromic layer. The oxidation reaction reduces the light transmittance through the electrochromic layer. )
In regards to claim 16, Fredericksen teaches, A method for controlling a variable transmittance panel comprising a display that is at least partially light transmissive and disposed proximate to an exterior window of a vehicle, the method comprising: (See figs. 2-5 and abstract, A vehicle sun visor includes a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel.)
controlling the variable transmittance panel in a first state by controlling the display to emit display light from a first side and a second side and controlling an electro-optic element to a darkened or opaque state; and (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 13, paragraph 28, To establish the dimmed state or the substantially darkened state, the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a state that reduces light flow through the layer and/or blocks light flow through the layer, thereby establishing the desired transmittance…paragraph 23, The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state. )
controlling the variable transmittance panel in a second state by controlling the display to emit display light from a first side and a second side and controlling an electro-optic element to a light transmissive state, where the light transmissive state outputs the display light from the first side through an exterior window of the vehicle and from the second side into a passenger compartment of the vehicle. (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 15, the panel 22 is in a substantially light transmissive state, thereby enabling a vehicle occupant 24 (e.g., driver, front passenger, etc.) to see an object 26, such as the illustrated car, that would otherwise be partially obscured by the sun visor…paragraph 28, by transitioning the first and third layers 44 and 52 to a substantially light transmissive state, light may pass directly through the panel 22, thereby enabling the occupant 24 to view the object 26. See figs. 3-5, teaches slider 28 where any adjustment to this slider and its amount of display output can be interpreted as “state”. Thus, claimed second state can be interpreted as less darkened/dimmed state compared to claimed first state by adjustment of slider)
In regards to claim 17, Fredericksen teaches the method according to claim 16,
wherein the display light emitted from the first side of the display is blocked from being output from an exterior window of the vehicle by the darkened or opaque state of the electro-optic element. (See paragraph 28, fig. 4-5, to establish the dimmed state or the substantially darkened state, the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a state that reduces light flow through the layer and/or blocks light flow through the layer, thereby establishing the desired transmittance. Finally, to establish the substantially reflective state, the third layer 52 may be transitioned to a substantially darkened state and the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a substantially light transmissive state. As a result, light entering the panel from the outer surface 40 will be blocked by the third layer 52, while light entering the panel from the inner surface 36 will pass through the first layer 44 and be reflected by the reflective surface 48 of the second layer 46.)
In regards to claim 19, Fredericksen teaches the method according to claim 18,
wherein in the third state, the method further comprises: adjusting a light transmission of the environmental light passing through the variable transmittance panel by selectively adjusting a transmittance of the electro-optic element. (See fig. 3-5, slider 28 and associated paragraphs)
In regards to claim 20, Fredericksen teaches, A display assembly for a vehicle comprising: (See figs. 3-5)
a variable transmittance panel in connection with a support structure connecting the display assembly to the vehicle, the variable transmittance panel comprising: (See figs. 3-7, abstract, A vehicle sun visor includes a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel. Also see paragraph 20, the panel 22 includes an inner surface 36 (e.g., facing the occupant 24) substantially aligned with an inner surface 38 of the sun visor 20, and an outer surface 40 (e.g., facing the object 26) substantially aligned with an outer surface 42 of the sun visor 20. Because the light modifying panel 22 extends through the sun visor 20)
an electro-optic element configured to vary in transmittance in response to a transmittance control signal; and (See fig. 6, paragraph 23, The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state. For example, the first and/or third layers may include a suspended particle device, an electrochromic device, a polymer dispersed liquid crystal device, and/or a microblind device. As will be appreciated, such devices may be configured to vary a degree of light transmittance through the layer based on a magnitude of electrical power supplied to the device. Also see paragraphs 25-27)
a display that is at least partially light-transmissive and configured to output a display light, the display having opposing display surfaces on a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is disposed adjacent to the electro-optic element; and (Claim does not clearly specify what it means by “display light” (e.g. display pixel element uniquely generated?). Under the BRI, Examiner interprets this as anything other than complete dark state that can be viewed by passenger/driver on visor display. See figs. 3-6, two opposite sites having display. See paragraph 13, the sun visors may include a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel. Such a sun visor may enable an occupant to reduce light transmission into the vehicle interior 12 without substantially diminishing the visual area available to the driver. For example, during bright conditions in which the sun is not directly in the line of sight of the driver, the driver may deploy the sun visor and transition the light modifying panel to the dimmed state.)
at least one controller configured to adjust the variable transmittance panel to a plurality of states comprising a first state and a second state, wherein: (See paragraph 13, the sun visors may include a light modifying panel configured to selectively transition between a substantially light transmissive state that facilitates light passage through the light modifying panel, a dimmed state having a lower transmissivity than the substantially light transmissive state, and a substantially reflective state that reflects light off the light modifying panel. Such a sun visor may enable an occupant to reduce light transmission into the vehicle interior 12 without substantially diminishing the visual area available to the driver. For example, during bright conditions in which the sun is not directly in the line of sight of the driver, the driver may deploy the sun visor and transition the light modifying panel to the dimmed state. Also see paragraph 28. Lastly see fig. 3-5, second interface 30 and slider 28)
in the first state, the at least one controller controls a transmittance of the electro-optic element to a darkened or opaque state and in the darkened or opaque state, the display light from the display is output from the second side and blocked from transmission through the electro-optic element on the first side; and (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 13, paragraph 28, To establish the dimmed state or the substantially darkened state, the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a state that reduces light flow through the layer and/or blocks light flow through the layer, thereby establishing the desired transmittance…paragraph 23, The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state…paragraph 28, To establish the dimmed state or the substantially darkened state, the first layer 44 may be transitioned to a state that reduces light flow through the layer and/or blocks light flow through the layer, thereby establishing the desired transmittance. )
in the second state, the at least one controller controls the transmittance of the electro-optic element to a transmissive state and the display light is output from the first side and the second side, such that the display light is transmitted into a passenger compartment of the vehicle, and the display light is transmitted from the second side through an exterior window of the vehicle. (See figs. 3-6, paragraph 15, the panel 22 is in a substantially light transmissive state, thereby enabling a vehicle occupant 24 (e.g., driver, front passenger, etc.) to see an object 26, such as the illustrated car, that would otherwise be partially obscured by the sun visor…paragraph 28, by transitioning the first and third layers 44 and 52 to a substantially light transmissive state, light may pass directly through the panel 22, thereby enabling the occupant 24 to view the object 26. See figs. 3-5, teaches slider 28 where any adjustment to this slider and its amount of display output can be interpreted as “state”. Thus, claimed second state can be interpreted as less darkened/dimmed state compared to claimed first state by adjustment of slider)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FREDERICKSEN KARL J (WO 2014098911 A1) in view of Wang; Jianhua et al. (US 20190389282 A1)
In regards to claim 9, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1.
Fredericksen does not specifically teach, further comprising a camera in connection with the display assembly and configured to capture image data in a field of view directed into the passenger compartment.
Wang further teaches, further comprising a camera in connection with the display assembly and configured to capture image data in a field of view directed into the passenger compartment. (See fig. 1, 3, paragraph 48, The assembly 220 may include a camera positioned to be facing the driver. When the driver switches the “electronic mirror” on, the electronic mirror 232 displays the drivers face as captured by the camera.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the display assembly of Fredericksen to further comprise camera taught by Wang because implementation of electronic mirror into sun visor provides a clearer, glare-free view by being able to adjust brightness and contrast based on lightning conditions. This enhances visibility during both day and night, improving driver comfort and safety (paragraph 48).
In regards to claim 10, Fredericksen-Wang teaches The display assembly according to claim 9, wherein the image data is displayed on the display in the first state, thereby providing a vanity display of a passenger in the field of view. (See Wang fig. 1, 3, paragraph 48, The assembly 220 may include a camera positioned to be facing the driver. When the driver switches the “electronic mirror” on, the electronic mirror 232 displays the drivers face as captured by the camera. Also see Fredericksen fig. 5 and associated paragraphs)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FREDERICKSEN KARL J (WO 2014098911 A1) in view of Kothari; Ankit Dilip (US 20170313248 A1)
In regards to claim 11, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1.
Fredericksen does not specifically teach, further comprising a camera in communication with the controller and located in the passenger compartment away from the display assembly, wherein the camera is configured to capture image data in a field of view directed into a rear passenger area of the passenger compartment.
Kothari further teaches, further comprising a camera in communication with the controller and located in the passenger compartment away from the display assembly, wherein the camera is configured to capture image data in a field of view directed into a rear passenger area of the passenger compartment. (See fig. 4A and paragraph 24, 99, 150, view of rear passengers is displayed via camera installed on rear side. Also see fig. 12, paragraph 195, rear passenger camera 1206))
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the display assembly of Fredericksen to further comprise rear view camera further taught by Kothari because showing the rear passenger camera feed on the visor helps parents easily check on a child in the back seat without turning around, improving safety and peace of mind while driving.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FREDERICKSEN KARL J (WO 2014098911 A1) in view of Burger et al. (US 20230226972 A1)
In regards to claim 12, Fredericksen teaches The display assembly according to claim 1.
Fredericksen does not specifically teach, wherein the variable transmittance panel further comprises:a privacy filter adjacent to the second side of the display, wherein the privacy filter limits a display angle output from the second side of the display into the vehicle to a limited viewing angle.
Burger further teaches, wherein the variable transmittance panel further comprises:a privacy filter adjacent to the second side of the display, wherein the privacy filter limits a display angle output from the second side of the display into the vehicle to a limited viewing angle. (See paragraph 4, switchable private filter, by means of which information is displayed in at least two modes. In the first mode, a viewing angle is limited so that only a view of the filter from a near-normal orientation is possible. In the second mode, the viewing angle increases so that the information can also be seen from a larger oblique angle…paragraph 13, the passenger display comprises a prismatic foil which, in order to avoid reflections in a windscreen of the motor vehicle which are irritating for the driver, causes the screen brightness to be dimmed from a predefined limit angle. In particular, reflections of the light rays of the illuminant caused by the passenger display, which are reflected on the windscreen and lead to obstructed vision and distraction of the driver, are prevented by the prismatic foil. Lastly see paragraph 15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the display assembly of Fredericksen to further comprise privacy filter taught by Burger because limiting viewing angle can minimize driver’s distraction, thereby improving safety (paragraph 6).
In regards to claim 13, Fredericksen-Burger teaches The display assembly according to claim 12, wherein the privacy filter comprises a liquid crystal structure that selectively activates a privacy setting of the display. (See Burger paragraph 4, switchable private filter, by means of which information is displayed in at least two modes. In the first mode, a viewing angle is limited so that only a view of the filter from a near-normal orientation is possible. In the second mode, the viewing angle increases so that the information can also be seen from a larger oblique angle…paragraph 13, the passenger display comprises a prismatic foil which, in order to avoid reflections in a windscreen of the motor vehicle which are irritating for the driver, causes the screen brightness to be dimmed from a predefined limit angle. In particular, reflections of the light rays of the illuminant caused by the passenger display, which are reflected on the windscreen and lead to obstructed vision and distraction of the driver, are prevented by the prismatic foil. Also see paragraphs 2, 15, As a substitute for a backlight, a liquid crystal display is illuminated with daylight reflected by a mirror or light from an illumination device. Lastly see Fredericksen paragraph 26)
In regards to claim 14, Fredericksen-Burger teaches The display assembly according to claim 12, wherein the limited viewing angle defines a viewing region in a passenger compartment of the vehicle that is directed to a passenger seat area and blocks transmission to a driver's seat area. (See Burger paragraph 4, switchable private filter, by means of which information is displayed in at least two modes. In the first mode, a viewing angle is limited so that only a view of the filter from a near-normal orientation is possible. In the second mode, the viewing angle increases so that the information can also be seen from a larger oblique angle…paragraph 13, the passenger display comprises a prismatic foil which, in order to avoid reflections in a windscreen of the motor vehicle which are irritating for the driver, causes the screen brightness to be dimmed from a predefined limit angle. In particular, reflections of the light rays of the illuminant caused by the passenger display, which are reflected on the windscreen and lead to obstructed vision and distraction of the driver, are prevented by the prismatic foil. Lastly see paragraph 15)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FREDERICKSEN KARL J (WO 2014098911 A1) in view of Alvarez Rivera et al. (US 2011/0267279 A1)
In regards to claim 21 Fredericksen teaches the display assembly according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the variable transmittance panel adjusting an environmental light transmittance through the variable transmittance panel (See figs. 3-6 and associated paragraphs)
Fredericksen does not specifically teach, and a display light transmittance of display light output from the display.
Alvarez Rivera further teaches, and a display light transmittance of display light output from the display. (See figs. 3-4, paragraphs 46, the OLED panel 34 is a light emissive structure such that pixels defined within the OLED panel can emit light of various colors… That is, the pixels of the OLED display actually emit light in response to electrical control signals… the OLED panel 34 is transparent or substantially transparent such that the underlying layers, e.g., switchable layer 50 and/or a background layer 52, may be visible through sections of the OLED panel 34 that are not actively emitting light….paragraphs 45, 50-52, FIGS. 5 and 6 depict the respective layers discussed with respect to FIG. 4 with the switchable layer 50 in an opaque state in FIG. 5 and in a light transmissive (e.g., transparent or clear) state in FIG. 6. In the example of FIG. 5, ambient light 60 is depicted as being incident upon the display 10. Because the switchable layer 50 is in an opaque state, the ambient light 60 does not reach, and is not reflected by, the background layer 52 (e.g., a white or transflective background layer). Thus, the light emanating from the display 10 is primarily the light 62 generated by the OLED panel 34. An example of this effect is depicted in FIG. 3, in which a home screen of the handheld device 40 is depicted as having a generally dark or black background which, in accordance with one embodiment, may be implemented by setting a switchable layer 50 of the display 10 to an opaque state.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vehicle sun visor display assembly of Fredericksen to further comprise processor-controlled transparent OLED display assembly taught by Alvarez Rivera because doing so would enable independent control over both environmental light transmittance through the variable transmittance panel and display light transmittance of display light output from the display, allowing a vehicle occupant to simultaneously optimize glare reduction and display visibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, applicant argues that Examiner’s BRI of “display light” is unreasonable and inconsistent with the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cited “Merriam-Webster” dictionary definition of “output” as “power of energy produced or delivered by a machine or system” in support of the argument that “output display light” requires active production by the display. The Examiner respectfully submits that this definition does not necessarily mandate power of energy being produced, but mere delivery of power of energy can still satisfy the meaning of “output”. Yet, applicant’s argument appears to address only the first part which is the “production” but not the “delivery”. This selective application of the cited definition is improper.
Fredericksen’s light modifying panel constitutes a machine or system that actively delivers light to a viewer through its operational states. In its substantially reflective state, Fredericksen’s panel delivers reflected light to the viewer on the interior facing side, where panel is the machine and the reflected light reaching the viewer’s eye is the energy delivered by that machine (par. 13, “enabling the panel to function as a vanity mirror”). Also, during substantially light transmissive state, Fredericksen’s panel delivers transmitted light through both opposing surfaces to viewers on either side (paragraphs 13-15, fig. 3). Both operational states constitute delivery of light by a machine or system within the plain and complete meaning of the Merrian-Webster definition.
Furthermore, applicant argues that the Examiner’s BRI is inconsistent with the specification, citing paragraph 39 of applicant’s disclosure as evidence that the display is an active component configured to generate display content. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that throughout the applicant’s disclosure, there is no explicit definition of “output by the display” being provided that Examiner must follow. Paragraph 39 uses term “may” which describes one exemplary embodiment in which display output “may” be controlled via one or more applications or apps operating on the mobile phone or tablet. Examiner notes that this merely recites one possible implementation, and it is not the explicit definition applicable to the full scope of the claims. Also, applicant’s position with respect to the specification is inconsistent. Applicant argues that the specification is “the best single guide” and “dispositive” on the meaning of “display light” to support narrowing the Examiner’s BRI, while also acknowledging that “it is imperative that the scope of the claims not be limited by the specification”. Applicant cannot invoke the specification as dispositive authority when it supports applicant’s position while disclaiming its limiting effect when it does not. The specification merely describes examples of “output display light” that inform but do not define claim scope.
Also, claims 1 and 16 do not recite any of the active-generation limitations applicant seeks to import from the specification. Claim 1 recites “a display that is at least partially light-transmissive and configured to output a display light” and claim 16 recites “controlling the display to emit display light”. It is noted that these claims don’t recite “actively generate”, “actively produce”, “pixel-addressable display content”, “image data”, “OLED”, and/or “independent of environmental light”. Examiner further notes that “Emit display light” is not meaningfully distinct from “output display light” and are synonyms (plain meaning of “emit” is “to send out” or “to give off”), therefore, Examiner applies similar response to the rejection of claim 16 and maintains the rejection.
Lastly, in page 6 of applicant’s response, applicant states that interpretation of emitted display light with regard to the rejections of claims 16-18 is contradictory, and therefore, further unreasonable.
Claim 16 requires that the display to emit display light from both sides. Claim 17 requires that display light from the first side does not pass through the exterior window. These are two different events at two different locations, where emission is at the display surface itself while blocking/passing through is at the exterior window (i.e. what happens after the light has already been emitted). The panel emits light from both opposing surfaces and the darkened electro-optic element blocks the first-side light from passing through to the exterior window in Fredericksen. Further clarification of “exterior window” into claim language would be suggested.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668