Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishimoto (USPN 2019/0258873).
With regard to claim 1,
Kishimoto discloses an electronic device, comprising: a dimming structure (2); a control unit (5,7) electrically connected to the dimming structure; a plurality of sensors (4,8,9) electrically connected to the control unit (7) to output a sensing result based on sensing values sensed by the plurality of sensors; and an angle sensor (6) electrically connected to the control unit to sense a rotation angle of the dimming structure, wherein the control unit outputs a voltage to the dimming structure based on the sensing result and the rotation angle (see paragraph 55).
With regard to claim 2,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are light sensors, and the sensing values are light sensing values (see paragraph 42).
With regard to claim 3,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 2, wherein two of the sensors arranged adjacent to each other are separated by a central angle (by definition).
With regard to claim 4,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a lens (4b) disposed corresponding to the plurality of sensors.
With regard to claim 5,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the dimming structure includes a liquid crystal structure (3a, see paragraph 48) and a frame body (2) surrounding (via 2d2) the liquid crystal structure.
With regard to claim 6,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed on the frame body (see paragraph 41).
With regard to claim 7,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the liquid crystal structure includes a plurality of sub-areas (pixels, paragraph 70) respectively electrically connected to the control unit (5,7), and the control unit outputs at least one voltage to at least one sub-area based on the sensing result and the rotation angle (see paragraphs 55,81).
With regard to claim 8,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the control unit further adjusts the voltage output based on a comparison of the sensing value and a sensing threshold (image sensor, paragraph 42).
With regard to claim 10,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a detector (8) for detecting a distance between eyes of a driver or passenger and a car roof (see paragraph 65), and the control unit outputs a voltage to the dimming structure based on the distance, the sensing result and the rotation angle (see paragraphs 55,71,81).
With regard to claim 11,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dimming structure is rotatably installed (via 2c) to a car through a rotating shaft structure (F).
With regard to claim 12,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the angle sensor is electrically connected to the rotating shaft structure (via 6b2) to receive a rotation signal of the rotating shaft structure so as to determine the rotation angle of the dimming structure (see paragraph 51).
With regard to claim 13,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the plurality of sensors are arranged on a substrate of the frame body (see paragraph 41), and the substrate has an arc surface arranged thereon the plurality of sensors (see figures).
With regard to claim 14,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the plurality of sensors are arranged on a substrate of the frame (see paragraph 41), the substrate has a plane arranged linearly thereon the plurality of sensors (see figures), and a lens (4b) is arranged on the plurality of sensors.
With regard to claim 15,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the detector further detects a distance from the driver or passenger to the dimming structure (See paragraph 65), and the control unit outputs a voltage to the dimming structure based on the distances, the sensing result and the rotation angle (See paragraphs 55,71,81).
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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (as above).
With regard to claim 16,
Kishimoto discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 7. While Kishimoto does not disclose the details of the liquid crystal structure, stacking a first substrate, a first transparent electrode, a liquid crystal layer, a second transparent electrode and a second substrate, and the first transparent electrode and the second transparent electrode are correspondingly divided into a plurality of sub-electrodes to form a plurality of sub-areas was well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to the same to incorporate into the device of Kishimoto in order to provide a liquid crystal display as instructed by Kishimoto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, the plurality of sensors to be solar cells or to be arranged in a cross shape on a spherical base. Claims 9, 17-20 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 2025/0001841, 2024/0326566, 2024/0308303, 2017/0363898, 2024/0166031, 2013/0190974, 2007/0126255, 2019/0263230, 2020/0114736, CN203046842.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
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 R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights