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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 5560668 A) in view of Tisdale (US 20170158031 A1) and Uhm (US 20170349098 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) configured to block light from outside a vehicle (Li, abstract, provide shade from sun, which means it can block light from outside); 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 the 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), 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, the light-blocking portion covers 80% or more of an area of a windshield, the display portion is configured to function as a substrate of the light- blocking portion, and wherein, in the first position, the display portion is configured to display at least one of a video taken by a camera provided outside the vehicle and information to support driving.
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 for the occupants and the vehicle interior.
Uhm teaches the display portion is configured to function as a substrate of the light- blocking portion (Uhm, paragraph 99 and 115, has a display portion with adjustable transparency which allows light-blocking), and wherein, in the first position, the display portion is configured to display at least one of a video taken by a camera provided outside the vehicle and information to support driving (Uhm, Fig. 11a-11c and paragraph 431, can display image from camera, or video, or other driving relevant information, Fig. 11a-11c shows similar position as the first position taught by Li).
Uhm 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 Uhm with a reasonable expectation of success and have a display portion acting as substrate for the light blocking portion and displays video or information. Doing so provides means to show occupants various types of helpful information to enhance driving experience or for entertaining purposes.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li in view of Tisdale and Uhm 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li in view of Tisdale and Uhm 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 and Uhm teaches the light-blocking device according to claim 1, wherein the driving means comprises: a movable portion (Li, 61 in Fig. 4) connected to a support portion (Li, 33 in Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 8-9), which is connected to the display portion through a spring portion (Li, 32 in Fig. 2), the movable portion being configured to unfold the light-blocking portion and store the light-blocking device (Li, Col. 2 lines 13-16 and 8-9, winders drive the movable portion 61 to move the device between different positions); and a plurality of guide portions (Li, 41 in Fig. 3-4, one on each side), at least one of the plurality of guide portions being connected to a motor (Uhm, Fig. 22 and paragraph 323) and in contact with the movable portion (Li, Fig. 4).
Uhm 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 Uhm with a reasonable expectation of success and have a motor. Doing so provides automated operation to the device to make it more convenient for users.
The combination of Li in view of Tisdale and Uhm 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 and Uhm.
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 Uhm 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, Uhm, 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, Uhm, 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 and Uhm 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 and Uhm 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 and Uhm.
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 Uhm 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 and Uhm 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 and Uhm 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 and Uhm.
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 Uhm 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, Uhm, 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, Uhm, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the last paragraph on page 6 of Applicant’s Reply, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li, Tisdale, and newly applied reference Uhm. Uhm teaches the newly amended limitation regarding the display being substrate of the light blocking portion and displays one of a video and information to support driving. See rejection above for details.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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