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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim 1 limitation “driving means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant’s specification dated 2/16/2024 described the structure of driving means as having “the movable portion 71 and a plurality of guide portions 72” in paragraph 49, and/or “the movable portion 71, the plurality of guide portions 72, and winding portions 74” in paragraph 51.
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) is/are: First, second, and third mechanism in claim 7.
Applicant’s disclosure does not teach any structures of such claim limitations. Therefore, the mechanisms in claim 7 are interpreted as any structure capable of performing the claimed functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 it/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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 claims a first mechanism, a second mechanism, and a third mechanism. There is an absence of details in the disclosure regarding the structure of the parts.
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a transmitting portion". The metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear due to overly broad possibilities of what can be transmitted – light, sound, heat, vibration, electromagnetic waves, etc.
Claim 7 limitations “a first mechanism”, “a second mechanism”, and “a third mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions of unfolding or inclining as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokai (JP H0565629 U).
Regarding claim 7, Tokai discloses a light-blocking device (Fig. 1 and abstract) comprising: a light-blocking portion (5 in Fig. 1); a storage portion (Fig. 2a, storage recess in roof 2); and a driving means (3c in Fig. 2b, and 8 in Fig. 3), wherein the storage portion is positioned in a roof portion of a vehicle (Fig. 1-2, in vehicle roof 2), wherein the light-blocking portion comprises a first portion comprising an opening portion (see annotated Fig. 1), a second portion (see annotated Fig. 1) joined to the first portion, and a third portion (see annotated Fig. 1) joined to the second portion, wherein a size of the opening portion is larger than a size of a rear-view mirror (see annotated Fig. 1, opening fits a rear-view mirror) of the vehicle, wherein the driving means comprises a first mechanism (Fig. 2a, upper portion of 3 that pivotably connected to the roof storage recess) configured to unfold the light-blocking portion downwards from the roof portion to a lower part in a first state (Fig. 2a or 2b) where the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion overlap (Fig. 2a or 2b, all folded against each other in the visor 3) with one another, wherein the driving means comprises a second mechanism (Fig. 2b, hinge between the plates 6 folds laterally outward) configured to incline the light-blocking portion while being in the first state substantially parallel (Fig. 2b-2c, where the plates 6 are unfolded laterally outward to spread across the windshield) to a windshield of the vehicle without contact with the rear-view mirror (Fig. 2b-2c, no contact due to the opening portion), and wherein the driving means comprises a third mechanism (Fig. 2c, hinge 8 between third and second portions) configured to unfold the light-blocking portion in an inclined state (Fig. 2c, when unfolding the third portion from the second portion) so that the second portion and the third portion are substantially parallel (Fig. 1) to the windshield.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1 from Tokai
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 5560668 A) in view of Tisdale (US 20170158031 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a light-blocking device (Li, Fig. 1 and abstract) comprising: a light-blocking portion (Li, 12 in Fig. 1; Col. 2 line 13 describes 12 can provide shading from the sun); a storage portion (Li, 1 in Fig. 1); and a driving means (Li, movable portion 61 and guide portions 41 one on each side of the windshield), wherein the light-blocking portion comprises a display portion (Li, Fig. 1 and 5, interior surface of light-blocking portion 12; displays its surface to the vehicle interior) facing an inside of a vehicle, wherein the driving means is configured to unfold the light-blocking portion in a first position (Li, Fig. 1), wherein the driving means is configured to unfold the light-blocking portion in a second position (Li, Fig. 5 or a fully extended position of the curtain 12), wherein the driving means is configured to store the light-blocking portion in a third position inside the storage portion (Li, Col. 1 line 66 – Col. 2 line 1, when curtain 12 is housed inside storage portion 1), wherein the first position is a position where the light-blocking portion does not obstruct a driver's forward vision (Li, Fig. 1, vision is not obstructed since the windshield is not completely covered), and wherein the second position is a position where the light-blocking portion covers an area of a windshield (Li, when curtain 12 is pull all the way down to 21 in Fig. 1, it covers most area of windshield 2 in Fig. 1) of the vehicle.
Li fails to disclose the storage portion is positioned in a roof portion of the vehicle and the light-blocking portion covers 80% or more of an area of a windshield.
Tisdale teaches the storage portion is positioned in a roof portion of the vehicle (Tisdale, paragraph 93, storage 700 is above the window, where Li’s Fig. 5 shows that the roof is above the window, therefore combination would yield the storage to be in the roof portion that is above the window) and the light-blocking portion covers 80% or more of an area of a windshield (Tisdale, Fig. 1C shows covering entire windshield which is more than 80%, Fig. 6 shows stretchable light-blocking portion which allows full coverage).
Tisdale is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle light-blocking device as Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li to incorporate the teachings of Tisdale with a reasonable expectation of success and have the storage portion positioned in the roof and have the curtain covering 80% or more of the windshield area. Doing so provides additional headspace and more viewing area for the driver; and provides additional sun protection to the occupants and the vehicle interior.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li in view of Tisdale teaches the light-blocking device according to claim 1, wherein the light-blocking portion comprises a spring portion (Li, 32 in Fig. 2) connected to the display portion and a support portion (Li, 33 in Fig. 2) connected to the spring portion, wherein the support portion is connected to a movable portion (Li, 61 in Fig. 4 and Col. 2 lines 7-9) comprised in the driving means inside a pillar (Tisdale, Fig. 2, driving means components are embedded inside the A-pillar) of the vehicle, wherein the movable portion is connected to a first winding portion and a second winding portion (Li, 6 in Fig. 1, one on each lateral side), and wherein, when the driving means unfolds the light-blocking portion in the first position or the second position, either one or both of the first winding portion and the second winding portion are configured to perform a rotation operation (Li, Col. 2 lines 13-16, winding portions 6 are string winders therefore they rotate to move the string and pull the light-blocking portion 12 into desired positions).
Tisdale is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle light-blocking device as Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li to incorporate the teachings of Tisdale with a reasonable expectation of success and have the driving means positioned inside the pillar. Doing so saves vehicle interior space, protects the driving means, and enhances interior aesthetics.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li in view of Tisdale teaches the light-blocking device according to claim 5, wherein the storage portion comprises a transmitting portion (Li, wall of storage housing 1, it has matter/structure, therefore it transmits sound, vibration, and also some electromagnetic waves), and wherein the transmitting portion and the display portion overlap with each other when the light-blocking portion is stored in the third position (Li, Fig. 1 and 4, when light-blocking portion 12 is stored in the storage, they overlap).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li in view of Tisdale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (JP 2004271787 A) and Yoshizumi et al. (WO 2016020808 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li in view of Tisdale teaches the light-blocking device according to claim 1, but fails to teach the light-blocking portion comprises a reflective layer facing the outside of the vehicle, wherein the reflective layer comprises an aluminum layer and a silicon nitride layer over the aluminum layer, and wherein reflectance of the reflective layer is higher than or equal to 80 %.
Miura teaches a reflective layer (Miura, 2 in Fig. 1, on the outside; abstract also describes it as on the outside) facing the outside of the vehicle, wherein the reflective layer comprises an aluminum layer (Miura, paragraph 0022 of machine translation) and wherein reflectance of the reflective layer is higher than or equal to 80 % (Miura, paragraph 0022 of machine translation, 90%).
Miura is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle light-blocking device as Li in view of Tisdale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li in view of Tisdale to incorporate the teachings of Miura with a reasonable expectation of success and have an aluminum reflective layer. Doing so allows the vehicle interior to be relatively cooler from sun radiation.
Yoshizumi teaches a silicon nitride layer (Yoshizumi, last paragraph on page 25 of machine translation) over the aluminum layer (after combination, at least indirectly over).
Yoshizumi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle light-blocking device as Li in view of Tisdale and Miura.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li in view of Tisdale and Miura to incorporate the teachings of Yoshizumi with a reasonable expectation of success and have a silicon nitride layer. Doing so protects the surface of the device from scratches (Yoshizumi, last paragraph on page 25 of machine translation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li in view of Tisdale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20170359016 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li in view of Tisdale teaches the light-blocking device according to claim 1, but fails to teach the light-blocking portion comprises a solar battery facing the outside of the vehicle, and wherein the solar battery is a silicon-type solar battery, a CIGS-type solar battery, or a perovskite-type solar battery.
Kim teaches a solar battery (Kim, 40 in Fig. 2) facing the outside (Kim, Fig. 2, 40 faces outside) of the vehicle, and wherein the solar battery is a silicon-type solar battery, a CIGS-type solar battery, or a perovskite-type solar battery (Kim, paragraph 8, CIGS or perovskite).
Kim is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle light-blocking device as Li in view of Tisdale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li in view of Tisdale to incorporate the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success and have a solar battery. Doing so improves fuel economy and energy efficiency (Kim, paragraph 9).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li in view of Tisdale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizumi et al. (WO 2016020808 A1) and Xia et al. (CN 110395113 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li in view of Tisdale teaches the light-blocking device according to claim 1, but fails to teach the display portion is electrically connected to an image output portion, wherein the image output portion comprises an image processing portion, wherein the image processing portion is configured to perform correction processing on an image output to the display portion, and wherein the image processing portion is configured to extend the image in a vertical direction and correct the image into an image with a trapezoidal shape where left-right width of a lower part is wide.
Yoshizumi teaches the display portion (Yoshizumi, 51 in Fig. 1) is electrically connected to an image output portion (Yoshizumi, 67 in Fig. 2 and first paragraph on page 5 of machine translation), wherein the image output portion comprises an image processing portion (Yoshizumi, 71 in Fig. 7 and second to the last paragraph on page 14 of machine translation), wherein the image processing portion is configured to perform correction processing on an image output to the display portion (Yoshizumi, second to the last paragraph on page 14 of machine translation, correcting image).
Yoshizumi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle light-blocking device as Li in view of Tisdale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li in view of Tisdale to incorporate the teachings of Yoshizumi with a reasonable expectation of success and have an image output portion and an image processing portion that performs image correction. Doing so provides means to show occupants various types of helpful information to enhance driving experience or for entertaining purposes.
Xia teaches the image processing portion is configured to extend the image in a vertical direction (Xia, third paragraph on page 6 of machine translation, image correction can adjust image size) and correct the image into an image with a trapezoidal shape where left-right width of a lower part is wide (Xia, third paragraph on page 6 of machine translation, trapezoidal correction).
Xia is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window display device as Li in view of Tisdale and Yoshizumi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Li in view of Tisdale and Yoshizumi to incorporate the teachings of Xia with a reasonable expectation of success and the image correction involve size adjustment and trapezoid correction such that the image can be extended in the vertical direction and can be turned into a trapezoidal shape. Doing so optimizes viewing experience for the passengers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle light-blocking device for windows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights