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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-2, 4-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2019/0064636) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2005/0074579).
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 plurality 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.
Suzuki discloses an anti-glare sheet (see figure 9, for instance), wherein the anti-glare sheet (10) includes formations (2) which are cone-shaped formations ([0040], “circular cone”) configured to scatter incident light in multiple directions to reduce glare on a target display or camera ([0042]).
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 as exemplified by Suzuki in the formations of the glare shield of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve transmittance in proportion to the reduction of reflectance, while improving the antireflection property of the surface, while using an alternative shape of the formations as a matter of design choice, as taught by Suzuki ([0042]), and as disclosed in MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the cone-shaped formations (Suzuki 2) are arranged in a uniform pattern across the textured surface (see Suzuki figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Kang in view of Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki figures 2 and 9).
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 13, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein a base diameter of the cone-shaped formations (Suzuki 2) is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm (see Suzuki [0097]).
Regarding claim 14, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein the cone-shaped formations (Suzuki 2) have a cone half-axis angle in a range of 5-20 degrees (see Suzuki figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the glare shield of claim 14, wherein the cone half-axis angle is in a range of 7-10 degrees (see Suzuki figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the glare shield of claim 1, wherein a cone orientation angle of the cone-shaped formations (Suzuki 2) in an installed glare shield relative to a horizontal plane is in a range of 55-105 degrees (see Suzuki figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, Kang in view of Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 plurality 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 the formations are cone-shaped formations.
Suzuki discloses an anti-glare sheet (see figure 9, for instance), wherein the anti-glare sheet (10) formed by molding ([0100]) includes formations (2) which are cone-shaped formations ([0040], “circular cone”) configured to scatter incident light in multiple directions to reduce glare on a target display or camera ([0042]).
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 as exemplified by Suzuki in the formations of the glare shield of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve transmittance in proportion to the reduction of reflectance, while improving the antireflection property of the surface, while using an alternative shape of the formations as a matter of design choice, as taught by Suzuki ([0042]), and as disclosed in MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 23, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising selecting one or more dimensions for the plurality of cone-shaped formations (Suzuki 2) to optimize a Total Hemispherical Reflectance (THR) value for the vehicle camera system.
Regarding claim 24, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the one or more dimensions for the plurality of cone-shaped formations (Suzuki 2) are determined based on a simulation of light scattering and reflection patterns.
Regarding claim 25, Kang in view of Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki, and in further view of Miyashita et al. (US 2023/0083180).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the glare shield of claim 1 and method of claim 21. However, Kang in view of Suzuki 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 Suzuki, and in further view of Murata et al. (US 2014/0098325).
Regarding claim 27, Kang in view of Suzuki discloses the method of claim 21. However, Kang in view of Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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
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 2/24/2026