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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2019/0064636) in view of Asang et al. (DE 102019134006 A1; translation attached herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a glare shield for a vehicle camera system (see figure 1, for instance), the glare shield comprising: a body (70) having a textured surface (80), the textured surface (80) including a zone of formations (90, 110, 130), wherein the formations (90, 110, 130) are configured to scatter incident light in multiple directions to reduce glare ([0004]) on a camera of the vehicle camera system (40). However, Kang does not expressly disclose wherein the formations are cone-shaped formations, wherein a base diameter of each cone-shaped formation in the zone is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm.
Asang discloses an anti-glare sheet (see figures 1-3, for instance), wherein the anti-glare sheet (8, “macrostructure”) includes formations (10) which are cone-shaped formations (see page 3, ¶ 5, “in the form of pyramids and/or cones and/or truncated cones”) configured to scatter incident light in multiple directions to reduce glare on a target display or camera, wherein a base diameter of each cone-shaped formation in the zone is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm (see page 3, ¶ 6, “A ‘multiplicity’ is to be understood here in particular as at least 20 per cm2, preferably at least 100 per cm2”, which would yield an average diameter range of 1 mm < D < 5 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cone-shaped formations with the dimensions as exemplified by Asang in the formations of the glare shield of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce light reflection as much as possible, while optimizing the size of the macrostructures for such a purpose, as taught by Asand (page 2, ¶ 5), and as disclosed in MPEP § 2144.05 II. A, “Routine Optimization”, and MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B, “Changes in Shape”.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the cone-shaped formations (Asang 11) are arranged in a uniform pattern across the textured surface (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the body of the glare shield includes an elliptical or dished profile (Kang fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the cone-shaped formations are arranged in a uniform pattern in which base diameters of adjacent cones are contiguous (see Asang figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the body of the glare shield (70) includes a convergent tray structure mountable inside a windscreen or on a structure of a vehicle (Kang figures 2-3), wherein a direction of convergence of the convergent tray structure is directed towards the camera (40) of the vehicle camera system.
Regarding claim 7, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 6, wherein the plurality of cone-shaped formations (80) is provided on at least one interior surface of the convergent tray structure (70).
Regarding claim 8, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 6, wherein a rear wall of the convergent tray structure (72) includes slots or openings to accommodate the camera of the vehicle camera system (40, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 6, wherein, relative to the camera (40), a distal region of the convergent tray structure (72) is shallower than a proximal region of the convergent tray structure.
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 6, wherein the convergent tray structure (72) is manufactured using a sintered tool steel insert to facilitate venting during a molding process of the convergent tray structure (product-by-process claim, see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 11, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 10, wherein the sintered tool steel insert comprises a venting pattern that corresponds to an arrangement of cone-shaped formations (80, product-by-process claim, see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 12, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein at least some of the cone-shaped formations (80) are configured to reduce or optimize a Total Hemispherical Reflectance (THR) value for the vehicle camera system.
Regarding claim 14, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the cone-shaped formations (Asang 11) have a cone half-axis angle in a range of 5-20 degrees (see Asang figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 14, wherein the cone half-axis angle is in a range of 7-10 degrees (see Asang figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein a cone orientation angle of the cone-shaped formations (Asang 11) in an installed glare shield relative to a horizontal plane is in a range of 55-105 degrees (see Asang figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1, further comprising an electromechanical system (20) configured to adjust an orientation of the glare shield in real time based on a position of an external light source ([0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 17, wherein the electromechanical system (20) is coupled to a control system that receives input from a vehicle environmental sensor to determine the position of the external light source ([0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 18, wherein the electromechanical system (20) is configured to move the glare shield (70) along or around one or more axes based on data received by the vehicle environmental sensor (28).
Regarding claim 20, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 17, wherein the electromechanical system (20) is further configured to store a plurality of predetermined glare shield (70) orientations corresponding to a time of day or the position of the external light source.
Regarding claim 21, Kang discloses a method of manufacturing a glare shield for a vehicle camera system (see figure 1, for instance), the method comprising: molding a body (70) of the glare shield to form a textured surface (80) including a zone of formations (90, 110, 130); and configuring the plurality of formations to scatter incident light in multiple directions to minimize glare ([0004]) on a camera of the vehicle camera system (40). However, Kang does not expressly disclose wherein a base diameter of each cone-shaped formation is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm, and wherein the formations are cone-shaped formations.
Asang discloses an anti-glare sheet (see figures 1-3, for instance), wherein the anti-glare sheet (8, “macrostructure”) includes formations (10) which are cone-shaped formations (see page 3, ¶ 5, “in the form of pyramids and/or cones and/or truncated cones”) configured to scatter incident light in multiple directions to reduce glare on a target display or camera, wherein a base diameter of each cone-shaped formation in the zone is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm (see page 3, ¶ 6, “A ‘multiplicity’ is to be understood here in particular as at least 20 per cm2, preferably at least 100 per cm2”, which would yield an average diameter range of 1 mm < D < 5 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cone-shaped formations with the dimensions as exemplified by Asang in the formations of the glare shield of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce light reflection as much as possible, while optimizing the size of the macrostructures for such a purpose, as taught by Asand (page 2, ¶ 5), and as disclosed in MPEP § 2144.05 II. A, “Routine Optimization”, and MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B, “Changes in Shape”.
Regarding claim 23, Kang in view of Asang discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising selecting one or more dimensions for the plurality of cone-shaped formations (Asang 11) to optimize a Total Hemispherical Reflectance (THR) value for the vehicle camera system.
Regarding claim 24, Kang in view of Asang discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the one or more dimensions for the plurality of cone-shaped formations (Asang 11) are determined based on a simulation of light scattering and reflection patterns.
Regarding claim 25, Kang in view of Asang discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising integrating an electromechanical system (20) with the glare shield (70) to adjust an orientation of the glare shield in real time based on a position of an external light source.
Regarding claim 26, Kang in view of Asang discloses the method of claim 25, wherein integrating the electromechanical system (20) includes programming the electromechanical system with a plurality of predetermined glare shield orientations (70).
Claim(s) 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Asang, and in further view of Miyashita et al. (US 2023/0083180).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, Kang in view of Asang discloses the glare shield of claim 1 and method of claim 21. However, Kang in view of Asang does not expressly disclose wherein the textured surface is coated with a low-reflectivity coating.
Miyashita discloses a glare shield (see figure 13, for instance), wherein the textured surface (503) is coated with a low-reflectivity coating (502; [0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the low-reflectivity coating of Miyashita to coat the surface of the textured surface of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to further reduce reflectivity of the textured surface while also to suppress impairment of the viewability of an image, as taught by Miyashita ([0196]).
Claim(s) 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Asang, and in further view of Murata et al. (US 2014/0098325).
Regarding claim 27, Kang in view of Asang discloses the method of claim 21. However, Kang in view of Asang does not express the method further comprising manufacturing the body using a sintered tool steel insert to facilitate venting during a molding process of the body.
Murata discloses a method for manufacturing a glare shield ([0137]), the method further comprising manufacturing the body using a sintered tool steel insert to facilitate venting during a molding process of the body ([0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the step of using a sintered tool steel insert to facilitate venting during a molding process of the body as taught by Murata in the method of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate rainbow unevenness to obtain excellent visual results, as taught by Murata ([0206]).
Regarding claim 28, Kang in view of Asang and in further view of Murata discloses the method of claim 27, wherein the sintered tool steel insert comprises a venting pattern that corresponds to an arrangement of the plurality of cone-shaped formations (see Murata [0137]).
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 27 March 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 4/21/2026
Prosecution Insights