DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 09/12/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In ¶ 42 of the specification, it appears that each instance of “processor 202” should be changed to “processor 102” to correspond with FIG. 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the claims contain the following contingent limitations that are not required to occur based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims:
“if yes, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” (claim 1)
“if the quantity of brightness control targets exceeds a preset quantity, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” (claim 5)
“if the quantity of continuously generated brightness control targets exceeds a preset value, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” (claim 7)
“if a generation probability of the brightness control target exceeds a preset value, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” (claim 8)
The contingent limitations listed above are not required by the claims consistent with MPEP 2111.04(II). However, note that claims 9-10 require the functionality to perform the contingent limitation of claim 1, since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim with structure that performs a contingent function still requires structure for performing the function should the contingent condition occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 10 is directed to “A computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer instruction.” However, this computer-readable storage medium is not specified as being limited to non-transitory tangible media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Also, MPEP 2106.03(I) states that “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include… Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as ‘signals per se’), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave.” Accordingly, the computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 10 which encompasses a transitory, propagating signal is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The examiner respectfully suggests amending claim 10 to include “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2026/0027876 A1), hereinafter Chu, in view of Wozniak et al. (US 2020/0186764 A1), hereinafter Wozniak.
Regarding claim 1:
Chu discloses the following limitations:
“A method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit, comprising the following steps: obtaining ambient illuminance in real time.” (Chu ¶ 110: “a light intensity change information is acquired. The light intensity change information includes at least one of a light intensity value change or a light intensity change rate.” Also, Chu ¶ 245: “it is possible to acquire at least one of the light intensity change information or the vehicle position change information in real time in a travelling process of the vehicle.”)
“and searching a mapping control table for transmittance corresponding to the ambient illuminance.” (Chu ¶¶ 113-114 and Table 1 shown below: “in step S520, the transmittance adjustment information is determined according to a predetermined first mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the light transmittance adjustment information, in response to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition. … the first mapping relationship may include a predetermined mapping relationship table between the light intensity change information and the light transmittance adjustment information, as shown in Table 1 below.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
783
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
383
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“wherein the transmittance is used to adjust an input voltage of the visor.” (Chu ¶ 97: “¶ 97: “When a predetermined voltage is applied to the first electrode 12 and the second electrode 22, an electric field is generated between the first electrode 12 and the second electrode 22, and the liquid crystal molecules and the color dye molecules in the liquid crystal layer 3 are deflected, then the liquid crystal molecules are arranged horizontally under the action of the electric field, and the color dye molecules are induced to be arranged horizontally to absorb light, so that the switchable glass is in an opaque state (i.e., completely dark state), or the switchable glass has a transparency between a completely dark and a completely transparent.” Further, Chu ¶¶ 131-132: “it is possible to regulate the amplitude and the switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the light intensity change information, thereby adjusting the magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass and the change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass. … the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass may include a voltage signal or a current signal.”)
“establishing a virtual brightness mapping table based on the mapping control table, wherein the virtual brightness mapping table comprises multiple sets of mapping data corresponding to the mapping control table, and each set of mapping data comprises a brightness level, an adjustment amount, and a final brightness level.” (Chu ¶ 120 and Table 2 reproduced below disclose the use of a table that “includes fields such as serial number, initial state of switchable glass, scenario information, light intensity change information, transmittance adjustment information (including adjusting a magnitude of transmittance and adjusting a change rate of transmittance).” Each of the rows correspond to “each set of mapping data” as claimed.)
PNG
media_image3.png
287
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
792
325
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
792
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“detecting, in real time, an adjustment instruction input by a user, overwriting an adjustment amount corresponding to ambient illuminance at a current moment with the adjustment instruction, performing an addition operation on the brightness level and the adjustment amount to obtain a modified final brightness level, and defining the modified final brightness level as a brightness control target.” (Chu ¶ 122: “It should be noted that Table 1 and Table 2 schematically show some fields, which are merely exemplary. In other embodiments, the fields in the mapping relationship tables between the light intensity change information and the transmittance adjustment information may be modified, added or reduced by the user.”)
“searching the virtual brightness mapping table for a brightness level with the same value based on the brightness control target, and adjusting the input voltage of the visor by using target transmittance corresponding to the brightness level.” (Chu ¶ 134: “it is possible to detect a light intensity value of the vehicle inside the enclosed space by a light intensity detector, and then compare an actual light intensity value detected with a predetermined light intensity value. Upon comparison, it is determined that the actual light intensity value is greater than the predetermined light intensity value, that is, a light intensity rise is acquired. In scenario 1, it is possible to regulate the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the light intensity change information (i.e., the light intensity rise), such as increasing a voltage applied to the switchable glass, so as to reduce the light transmittance of the switchable glass.”)
The following limitations are not explicitly disclosed by Chu, but are taught by Wozniak:
“aggregating the quantity and values of brightness control targets generated under the same ambient illuminance to determine whether the quantity and values of brightness control targets conform to a preset condition.” (Wozniak ¶ 58: “the user analysis tool 88 may be configured to recognize when a user repeatedly adjusts a brightness setting of the display (e.g., reduces the brightness), and adjusts the users-specific brightness parameter to reduce a level of brightness and/or a velocity of change in brightness.” The user repeatedly adjusting a brightness setting reads on the “preset condition” as claimed.)
“and if yes, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance.” (As explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, this is a contingent limitation that is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Regardless, the examiner notes that this limitation is taught by Wozniak ¶ 58, which discloses a step “to recognize when a user repeatedly adjusts a brightness setting of the display (e.g., reduces the brightness), and adjusts the users-specific brightness parameter to reduce a level of brightness and/or a velocity of change in brightness.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Chu by identifying a user repeatedly adjusting the brightness levels and modifying the brightness mapping based on this identification as taught by Wozniak with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Wozniak ¶ 58 teaches that the identification can be used to “infer that the user is experiencing discomfort due to brightness.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that automatically adjusting the transmittance mapping would provide a convenient way to help reduce discomfort for the user.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1,” and Chu also teaches “wherein the brightness level is nonadjustable.” (While Chu ¶¶ 118-120 and Tables 1 and 2 teach to increase or reduce a magnitude of transmittance based on light intensity change information, Chu appears to provide no indication that the brightness level itself is adjusted.)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the limitation which specifies “wherein the preset condition comprises: within a preset time range, if the quantity of brightness control targets exceeds a preset quantity, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” is a contingent limitation that is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 5.” Also, the limitation specifying “wherein the preset time range is 4 days and the preset quantity is set to 3” is not required to apply because it merely serves to further define the contingent limitation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the limitation which specifies “wherein the preset condition comprises: if the quantity of continuously generated brightness control targets exceeds a preset value, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” is a contingent limitation that is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the limitation which specifies “wherein the preset condition comprises: within a preset time range, if a generation probability of the brightness control target exceeds a preset value, modifying, to the target transmittance, transmittance originally corresponding to the ambient illuminance” is a contingent limitation that is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “the method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1,” and Chu also teaches “An apparatus for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit, wherein the apparatus comprises a memory, a processor, and a communication module; the memory is configured to store executable program code; the processor is coupled with the memory; and the processor invokes the executable program code stored in the memory to perform the method.” (Chu ¶ 50: “a switchable glass system for a vehicle is provided, including… a controller electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode of the switchable glass, where the controller is configured to perform the methods described above.” A controller for performing the method implies the use of a computer processor and memory configured for executing the method. Also, Chu ¶ 253: “the information acquired by the light intensity detector 6 and the position sensor 7 may be directly input to the controller 4. Alternatively, the light intensity detector 6 and the position sensor 7 may be connected to the in-vehicle infotainment system 5, that is, the information acquired by the light intensity detector 6 and the position sensor 7 may be directly input to the in-vehicle infotainment system 5, and then the in-vehicle infotainment system 5 may input the information to the controller 4.”)
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “the method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1,” and Chu also teaches “A computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer instruction, and when being invoked, the computer instruction is used to perform the method.” (Chu ¶ 50: “a switchable glass system for a vehicle is provided, including… a controller electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode of the switchable glass, where the controller is configured to perform the methods described above.” A controller for performing the method implies the use of a computer processor and a corresponding computer-readable storage medium with instructions for executing the method.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Wozniak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0212635 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the adjustment amount is cleared to zero after each shutdown of the visor.” However, Li does teach this limitation. (Li ¶ 21: “when the electronic device restarts or the automatic brightness adjustment option restarts, the display screen brightness may be automatically set again, to clear the automatically set or manually adjusted display screen brightness.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Chu and Wozniak by clearing the adjustment amount after the device shuts down as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Li ¶ 27 teaches that this can help with ensuring that the brightness level meets an actual user requirement, which can improve the user experience. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the visor could be used by a different user or in different conditions after a shutdown, and so it may be inappropriate to assume that the old user adjustments would still apply after a system restart.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Wozniak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhai (US 11,195,494 B2).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Chu and Wozniak teaches “The method for automatically adjusting a visor transmittance mapping relationship based on a user habit according to claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein a value of the adjustment instruction is an integer multiple of 1.” However, Zhai does teach this limitation. (Zhai col. 7 ll. 25-38: “In a scene where the direction of brightness adjustment is turning up the brightness, the next brightness level is determined as the required brightness level. The original grayscale parameter of the image is multiplied by each of the preset N adjustment coefficients, and each product obtained is determined as the required grayscale parameter. The next brightness level is one brightness level higher than the current brightness level of the screen. N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Chu and Wozniak by using integers for the adjustment instruction as taught by Zhai with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that integers are simple numbers that would be more quickly and easily understood by the user than non-integers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
No et al. (US 2024/0359538 A1) ¶¶ 62, 86, and 112 disclose a vehicle sunlight shading device and method for which “controller 120 may adjust the transmittance by matching the amount of felt illuminance to the illuminance on the transmittance map by illuminance of the sunlight shading member 110,” where a voltage can be applied to affect transparency of the device, and where a driver can input selection information in an adjustment mode.
Shearman et al. (US 2016/0044276 A1) ¶ 71 discloses a helmet visor system and method for determining a real-time light level and adjusting the opacity of the visor by passing a current through a common electrode plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights