DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 14, 24, and 25 are cancelled.
Claims 26-28 are new.
Claims 1-13, 15-23, and 26-28 are pending for examination.
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 Amendment
With regards to the claim objection made to claim 7 in the previous office action, the amendments made to the claims have clarified the claim language. Therefore, the claim objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Response to Argument
With regards to the 103 rejection to claims 1, 3-8, 13-17, 19, and 23-25 in the previous office action the arguments made in the applicant’s remarks 02/09/2026 pg. 18-20 overcome the 103 rejection in the previous office action. Therefore, the 103 rejection to these claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Fredericksen (WO 2014098911 A1) and evidenced by Xu (CN 213261896 U).
With regards to the 103 rejection to claims 11, 22, and 23 in the previous office action the arguments made in the applicant’s remarks 02/09/2026 pg. 14-16 overcome the 103 rejection in the previous office action. Therefore, the 103 rejection to these claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Fredericksen (WO 2014098911 A1) and evidenced by Xu (CN 213261896 U) and further evidenced by Gramatke (DE102008052761A1).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 213 179.4, filed on 11/23/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 13-17, 19, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Fredericksen as evidenced by Xu.
Fredericksen was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Fredericksen discloses a sun visor assembly for a vehicle interior ([Fig. 2]; Items 20 in Fig. 2 representing sun visors inside a vehicle), the sun visor assembly comprising a visor part arranged to be displaceable between a functional position and a resting position ([Fig. 2]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that typical sun visors that are provided in vehicles are capable of being displaced from a resting position to a functional position), the visor part having an electrically activatable light-inhibiting functional layer ([0023]; “The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state. For example, the first and/or third layers may include a suspended particle device, an electrochromic device, a polymer dispersed liquid crystal device, and/or a microblind device. As will be appreciated, such devices may be configured to vary a degree of light transmittance through the layer based on a magnitude of electrical power supplied to the device.”), and a rigid frame surrounding the carrier layer ([Fig. 3]; Depicts the sun visor and shows a frame surrounding layer 22, item 2 being composed of the activatable light-inhibiting functional layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the frame of a sun visor is typically rigid to maintain its shape, the rigidity of the sun visor would make it easier to manipulate the position of the sun visor and protect the components that are housed within the sun visor.),
Although the sun visor disclosed by Fredericksen comprises various layers, Fredericksen does not explicitly teach a light-transmitting flexible carrier layer that is superimposed over the light-inhibiting functional layer.
However, Xu teaches at least one light-transmitting, flexible carrier layer having an open mesh configuration ([n0031]; “The evenly distributed mesh avoids completely obstructing the driver's view through the windows, and the semi-transparent mesh fabric 1 allows the driver to effectively observe the outside environment while reducing the impact of direct sunlight.”),
the electrically activatable light-inhibiting functional layer being connected to the carrier layer and being superimposed over substantially an entire extent of the carrier layer. ([n0020]; “The sun visor body includes a mesh fabric and a PVC electrostatic film adhered to the mesh fabric. The elastic support frame is a ring frame. Both the mesh fabric and the PVC electrostatic film are disposed within the elastic support frame and connected to it via the connecting edging.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen and Xu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to add the mesh layer for protection.
Regarding claim 2, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Xu discloses the carrier layer is configured as knitted fabric, the knitted fabric spanning the frame. ([n0031] “Referring to Figure 1, as an optional implementation, the mesh fabric 1 is a dark-colored shading mesh fabric 1 sheet with mesh holes evenly distributed on its end face and configured to be semi-transparent; the number of mesh holes per square centimeter on the mesh fabric 1 is N, where 400 ≤ N ≤ 600.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a mesh is considered a knitted fabric.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen and Xu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial add the mesh layer for protection.
Regarding claim 3, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Fredericksen discloses the carrier layer is molded in one piece with the frame. ([Fig. 3 & 0018]; “The sunshade (100) is formed by integrally forming a UV-blocking coating film on a substrate made of a transparent material such as glass or acrylic.”
Note: It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that the carrier layer would be molded in one piece on the frame as it is a plate shaped material of glass or acrylic.)
Regarding claim 4, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Fredericksen discloses outer dimensions of the light- inhibiting functional layer are less than or equal to inner dimensions of an internal cross-section of the frame. ([Fig. 3]; Depicts the outer dimensions of the light-inhibiting functional layer being less than the inner dimensions of the frame.)
Regarding claim 5, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Fredericksen discloses the light-inhibiting functional layer comprises a PDLC film. ([0022]; “The first layer 44 is configured to selectively vary light transmittance through the first layer.”)
Regarding claim 6, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Additionally Fredericksen discloses the PDLC film comprises a protective surface on a side remote from the carrier layer. ([0022]; “Further embodiments, may sandwich the illustrated layers between protective layers of transparent glass and/or plastic.”)
Regarding claim 15, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Additionally Fredericksen discloses the add-on functional part is arranged on a holder fixed to the vehicle. ([Fig. 2]; One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that commonly used sun visors in vehicles use a swivel joint to connect the sun visor to the vehicle. The add-on attachment being connected to the visor under BRI would make it also fixed to the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 16, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Additionally Fredericksen discloses the add-on functional part comprises a digital display unit. ([0014]; “As discussed in detail below, the sun visor 20 may include other components including lights, controls, displays, etc.”)
Regarding claim 17, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Fredericksen discloses a guide track, the visor part being guided displaceably along the guide track between the resting position and the functional position, and the guide track is arranged, when fitted on the vehicle and in an operating state, parallel to a door frame of a front side door of a vehicle. ([Fig. 2]; One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that commonly used sun visors in vehicles are capable of being adjusted to a position parallel to the front side door in situations where the sun is positioned towards the side of the vehicle. In addition, the use of guide tracks is commonly used to allow the sun visor to be displaced inwards and outwards to allow the occupant to adjust its position to their preference.)
Regarding claim 19, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Fredericksen discloses a motor vehicle having at least one sun visor assembly as claimed in Claim 1. ([Fig. 2]; Depicts a sun visor in a motor vehicle.)
Regarding claim 20, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Xu discloses the carrier layer is configured as a textile woven fabric. ([n0031] “Referring to Figure 1, as an optional implementation, the mesh fabric 1 is a dark-colored shading mesh fabric 1 sheet with mesh holes evenly distributed on its end face and configured to be semi-transparent; the number of mesh holes per square centimeter on the mesh fabric 1 is N, where 400 ≤ N ≤ 600.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a mesh is considered a knitted fabric.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen and Xu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial add the mesh layer for protection.
Claim 23 comprises limitations that can be found in claim 17. Therefore is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 28 comprises limitations that can be found in claim 17. Therefore is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Fredericksen as evidenced by Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20200007132 A).
Regarding claim 9, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Lee discloses the frame has electrical contacting elements in contact with electrical connecting elements of the light-inhibiting functional layer to activate the light-inhibiting functional layer electrically. ([0061]; “The AC or DC voltage generated in this way is transmitted to the glass holder (120) and the connecting member (180) through the connector (140), and ultimately, this signal can be used to control the transparency variable film (100) according to the voltage variation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu and Lee. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Lee cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been obvious that the frame would contain electrical contacting elements in order to control the light-inhibiting functional layers taught by Fredericksen.
Regarding claim 10, Fredericksen in combination with Xu and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally Lee discloses a voltage converter is associated with the frame, the voltage converter converting a DC voltage from a vehicle electrical system into an AC voltage for electrical activation of the light-inhibiting functional layer. ([0049]; “The inverter or converter (220) generates an AC or DC voltage to control a transparency variable film (100) according to voltage variation using the vehicle battery (230) voltage (approximately 12 V) according to a PWM signal generated by the MCU (210).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu and Lee. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Lee cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to supply the light-inhibiting functional layer with an AC voltage in order to vary the transparency of the layer.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Fredericksen as evidenced by Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and further evidenced by Kim (KR20140136128A).
Kim was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 7, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Kim discloses the frame has at least one frame portion comprising a transparent plastics material, and the carrier layer is injection- molded onto the at least one frame portion by injection molding. ([0020]; “The frame (200) is manufactured by injection molding polypropylene (PP)”
Note: Polypropylene typically has semitransparent properties.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu and Kim. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Kim cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to create the frame using a transparent material to allow the user to have a better view past the sun visor when enabling the transparency feature of the sun visor. In addition, injection molding is a commonly used manufacturing method for constructing plastic parts.
Regarding claim 8, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Kim discloses the carrier layer has a peripheral edge and the peripheral edge of the carrier layer is mechanically fixed in the frame. ([0020]; “The frame (200) is attached to surround the edge of the shade plate (100) and serves as an outer frame.”
Note: One of ordinary skill would recognize that the carrier layer would be mechanically fixed onto the frame to secure it.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu and Kim. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Kim cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and many sun visors in the art typically utilize mechanical fixing to attach parts together.
Claims 11, 12, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Fredericksen as evidenced by Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and further evidenced by Gramatke.
Regarding claims 11, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gramatke teaches a sensor system ([0009]; “The sun visors work together with electronic switches 10 and 11, through which the position of the sun visors 3 and 4 can be detected.”), the frame being associated with the sensor system ([Figure & 0009]; “The sun visors work together with electronic switches 10 and 11, through which the position of the sun visors 3 and 4 can be detected.”
Note: Shown in the figure items 10 and 11 or connected to the visor frame.), the sensor system detecting a functional position of the visor part ([0009]; “The sun visors work together with electronic switches 10 and 11, through which the position of the sun visors 3 and 4 can be detected.”), the sun visor assembly further comprising a control system activating or deactivating the light-inhibiting functional layer as a function of detection of the functional position of the visor part by the sensor system. ([0010]; “The electronic control unit 13 is connected to the switches 10 and 11 via sensor lines shown in dashed lines and is designed in such a way that the transparency of the fields of vision can be changed separately or together only or also depending on the position of the sun visors 3 and/or 4.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu, and Gramatke. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Gramatke cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to control the light-inhibiting functional layer by detecting the position of the sensor. This would provide easy seamless control when moving the sun visor from an open/close position.
Regarding claim 12, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gramatke discloses a sensor system, the frame being associated with the sensor system ([0009]; “It shows a glare protection device on a windshield 1 with a light sensor 12 for detecting the brightness of the sunlight, which is installed in a known manner, for example, behind the mounting of an interior mirror 5”
Note: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the light sensor and the sun visor being part of the glare protection device means that they are associated with each other), the sensor system being configured for detecting a light intensity of ambient luminous radiation ([0005]; “The glare protection device according to the invention on a vehicle window, in particular a windshield, is preferably but not necessarily equipped with a light sensor for detecting the brightness of an external light source”), the sun visor assembly further comprising a control system for controlling a degree of darkening of the light-inhibiting functional layer ([0005]; “The control unit can change the transparency of the field of view, preferably but not necessarily, depending on the detected brightness of the external light source, in particular the sunlight.”), the sensor system being coupled to the control system. ([Figure & 0009]; “Furthermore, an electronic control unit 13 is shown, which can change the transparency of the fields of view 6, 7 and 8 together or separately via control lines drawn with dashed lines.”
Note: The dashed lines shown in the figure show that the light sensor is coupled to the control unit 13 since data is sent from the light sensor to the ECU.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu, and Gramatke. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Gramatke cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to control the light-inhibiting functional layer by detecting the sunlight. As the light intensity from the sun increases it would be beneficial for the light-transmitting layer to block more sunlight.
Claim 21 comprises limitations that can be found in claim 11. Therefore is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 26 comprises limitations that can be found in claim 11. Therefore is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, Fredericksen discloses a sun visor assembly for a vehicle interior ([Fig. 2]; Items 20 in Fig. 2 representing sun visors inside a vehicle), the sun visor assembly comprising a visor part arranged to be displaceable between a functional position and a resting position ([Fig. 2]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that typical sun visors that are provided in vehicles are capable of being displaced from a resting position to a functional position), the visor part having an electrically activatable light-inhibiting functional layer ([0023]; “The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state. For example, the first and/or third layers may include a suspended particle device, an electrochromic device, a polymer dispersed liquid crystal device, and/or a microblind device. As will be appreciated, such devices may be configured to vary a degree of light transmittance through the layer based on a magnitude of electrical power supplied to the device.”), a frame ([Fig. 3]; Depicts the sun visor and shows a frame surrounding layer 22, item 2 being composed of the activatable light-inhibiting functional layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the frame of a sun visor is typically rigid to maintain its shape, the rigidity of the sun visor would make it easier to manipulate the position of the sun visor and protect the components that are housed within the sun visor.)
Although the sun visor disclosed by Fredericksen comprises various layers, Fredericksen does not explicitly teach a light-transmitting flexible carrier layer that is superimposed over the light-inhibiting functional layer.
However, Xu teaches at least one light-transmitting, flexible carrier layer having an open mesh configuration ([n0031]; “The evenly distributed mesh avoids completely obstructing the driver's view through the windows, and the semi-transparent mesh fabric 1 allows the driver to effectively observe the outside environment while reducing the impact of direct sunlight.”),
the light-inhibiting functional layer being fixed to the carrier layer and being superimposed over an entiretyof the carrier layer. ([n0020]; “The sun visor body includes a mesh fabric and a PVC electrostatic film adhered to the mesh fabric. The elastic support frame is a ring frame. Both the mesh fabric and the PVC electrostatic film are disposed within the elastic support frame and connected to it via the connecting edging.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen and Xu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to add the mesh layer for protection.
In addition, although the sun visor taught by Fredericksen is capable of controlling a light-inhibiting layer, Fredericksen does not explicitly teach sensors and a controller to control the light-inhibiting layer based on sensor input.
However, Gramatke does teach the sun visor assembly further comprising a sensor system detecting a functional position of the visor part ([0009]; “The sun visors work together with electronic switches 10 and 11, through which the position of the sun visors 3 and 4 can be detected.”), the frame being associated with the sensor system ([Figure & 0009]; “The sun visors work together with electronic switches 10 and 11, through which the position of the sun visors 3 and 4 can be detected.”
Note: Shown in the figure items 10 and 11 or connected to the visor frame.), a control system for controlling a degree of darkening of the light-inhibiting functional layer ([0010]; “The electronic control unit 13 is connected to the switches 10 and 11 via sensor lines shown in dashed lines and is designed in such a way that the transparency of the fields of vision can be changed separately or together only or also depending on the position of the sun visors 3 and/or 4.”), the sensor system being coupled to the control system. ([0010]; “The electronic control unit 13 is connected to the switches 10 and 11 via sensor lines”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu, and Gramatke. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Gramatke cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to control the light-inhibiting functional layer by detecting the position of the sensor. This would provide easy seamless control when moving the sun visor from an open/close position.
Claims 13, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Fredericksen as evidenced by Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and further evidenced by Glaser (DE102008032391A1).
Regarding claim 13, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Glaser discloses at least one add-on functional part disposed adjacent the visor part ([Fig. 2] Items 4 and 6 depict a sun visor (4) and an additional visor (6) figure 2 depicts these 2 placed adjacent from each other.), the add-on functional part being mounted for swiveling movement about the swivel axis coaxial with a swivel axis of the visor part. ([0013]; “The swivel mechanism for the additional visor and/or sun visor can be implemented particularly easily and simplifies the handling of the aforementioned components.”)
Regarding claim 18, Fredericksen discloses a sun visor assembly for a vehicle interior ([Fig. 2]; Items 20 in Fig. 2 representing sun visors inside a vehicle), the sun visor assembly comprising a visor part arranged to be displaceable between a functional position and a resting position ([Fig. 2]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that typical sun visors that are provided in vehicles are capable of being displaced from a resting position to a functional position), the visor part having an electrically activatable light-inhibiting functional layer ([0023]; “The first and third layers 44 and 52 may include materials configured to transition between a substantially light transmissive state and a substantially darkened/dimmed state. For example, the first and/or third layers may include a suspended particle device, an electrochromic device, a polymer dispersed liquid crystal device, and/or a microblind device. As will be appreciated, such devices may be configured to vary a degree of light transmittance through the layer based on a magnitude of electrical power supplied to the device.”), and a dimensionally stable frame surrounding the carrier layer ([Fig. 3]; Depicts the sun visor and shows a frame surrounding layer 22, item 2 being composed of the activatable light-inhibiting functional layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the frame of a sun visor is typically rigid to maintain its shape, the rigidity of the sun visor would make it easier to manipulate the position of the sun visor and protect the components that are housed within the sun visor.) including a guide track, the visor part being guided displaceably along the guide track between the resting position and the functional position, the guide track being arranged, when fitted on a vehicle and in an operating state, parallel to a door frame of a front side door of the vehicle ([Fig. 2]; One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that commonly used sun visors in vehicles are capable of being adjusted to a position parallel to the front side door in situations where the sun is positioned towards the side of the vehicle. In addition, the use of guide tracks is commonly used to allow the sun visor to be displaced inwards and outwards to allow the occupant to adjust its position to their preference.)
Although the sun visor disclosed by Fredericksen comprises various layers, Fredericksen does not explicitly teach a light-transmitting flexible carrier layer that is superimposed over the light-inhibiting functional layer.
However, Xu teaches at least one light-transmitting, flexible carrier layer having an open mesh configuration ([n0031]; “The evenly distributed mesh avoids completely obstructing the driver's view through the windows, and the semi-transparent mesh fabric 1 allows the driver to effectively observe the outside environment while reducing the impact of direct sunlight.”),
the electrically activatable light-inhibiting functional layer being extensively applied onto the carrier layer. ([n0020]; “The sun visor body includes a mesh fabric and a PVC electrostatic film adhered to the mesh fabric. The elastic support frame is a ring frame. Both the mesh fabric and the PVC electrostatic film are disposed within the elastic support frame and connected to it via the connecting edging.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen and Xu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial to add the mesh layer for protection.
Fredericksen and Xu does not explicitly teach a second visor concealed between the front side door and the side region of the vehicle.
However, Glaser teaches in the resting position, the visor part is arranged concealed between the front side door and a side region of a vehicle cockpit below a vehicle window sill. ([Fig. 1]; Shows the additional visor (6) being arranged in an resting position which is concealed between the front side door and a side region of a vehicle cockpit below a vehicle window sill.
[0023]; “Fig. 1 shows a partial, perspective view of an embodiment of the sun visor protection device according to the invention, with the sun visor and the additional visor in their respective non use positions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fredericksen with Xu and Glaser. This modification would have been obvious because both Fredericksen, Xu, and Glaser cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (sun visors for vehicle) and it would have been beneficial add an additional visor to cover any gaps that let sunlight pass through.
Regarding claim 27, Fredericksen in combination with Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 23. Additionally Glaser discloses in the resting position, the visor part is arranged concealed between the front side door and a side region of a vehicle cockpit below a vehicle window sill. ([Fig. 1 & 0023]; “Fig. 1 shows a partial, perspective view of an embodiment of the sun visor protection device according to the invention, with the sun visor and the additional visor in their respective non use positions.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. 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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights