DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 10/11/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 05/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because of the following. Fig. 4 does not show indicator 34 as referenced in ¶0045 of the filed specification. Please update to help illustrate the relation between sensor 32 and indicator 34. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
Claims 1, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Funatsu JP 2018177054 A, hereinafter referred to as Funatsu, where Funatsu describes a vehicle sun visor that can be deployed to reduce the amount of sunlight on a driver while at the same time allows the driver to see a mounted display screen with a light control film for controlling the light transmission through the visor to facilitate viewing the surroundings (e.g. fig. 3). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests “A visor assembly [See visor 22 in for e.g. figs. 3a-3b], comprising: a mounting assembly including a base portion and an arm extending from the base portion; a body portion rotatably attached to the arm of the mounting assembly [Figs. 3a-3b and 5 depict the foregoing parts that enable visor 22 to be correctly positioned by the driver/passenger. Also please refer to 0046-0047], wherein the body portion includes a first side located opposite a second side [Visor 22 has two sides]; a display located adjacent to one of the first side or the second side of the body portion [Fig. 3 shows transmissive image display panel 31 provided on transparent member 29 (on one side of visor 22) that can be tilted to a predetermined angle (0047)]; a sensor assembly [See for e.g. 0047 and 0059 of Funatsu with respect to position sensor 27a] configured to determine a position of the body portion relative to the mounting assembly [Same citations as above. Position sensor 27a acquires information on the tilt angles of visor 22]; and a controller in communication with the display and the sensor assembly [See fig. 5 of Funatsu, where mobile body light control system 41 includes ECU 50 that is in communication with image display panel 31 and position sensor 27a.], wherein the controller is configured to: determine a message to display on the display [0065 shows display control unit 49 of ECU 50 drives image display panel 31 on visor 22 to display desired image information to the passenger, which can include for e.g. information from the car navigation system, image information from a backup monitor, and vehicle information (e.g. driving speed)]; determine a position of the body portion relative to the mounting assembly with the sensor assembly [See for e.g. 0047, 0059, and 0076, where position sensor 27a acquires information on the tilt angles of visor 22]; and display the message on the display in a predetermined orientation based on the position of the body portion relative to the mounting assembly.” [Image information can be displayed on image display panel 31 of visor 22 after being configured to have an orientation determined by inclination/tilt angles θa and θb sensed by position sensor 27a (e.g. 0047, 0059, 0065, and 0066-0067). Incident position calculation unit 47 of sunlight L drives position sensor 27a to acquire tilt angles of visor 22. Image information is then displayed in certain portions of said display panel depending on the incident position of sunlight and tilt angles]
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 1. As to the vehicle itself, see for e.g. fig. 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 1. As to the vehicle itself, see for e.g. fig. 1.
Regarding claim 18, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Funatsu further teaches and/or suggests “including determining an operational state of the vehicle and activating the display based on the operational state of the vehicle.” [See 0065 with respect to image display panel of visor 22 which can display vehicle information such as driving speed, engine speed, etc. (i.e. operational state of the vehicle). Thus, given the BRI of the limitation, Funatsu’s display can be made active based on said vehicle information]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funatsu, in view of Kothari US 9,712,741 B2, hereinafter referred to as Kothari.
Regarding claim 2, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of clam 2. Kothari on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “including an input located on the body portion including a switch configured to activate the display [A switching mechanism may be used to switch on the display on the sun visor (col. 18 lines 27-36 of Kothari). This is also shown as switch 802 in fig. 8] and a dial configured to vary a brightness of the display.” [Col. 3 lines 49-61 show brightness may be adjusted in a user action area of the display. This is also shown in fig. 2A (210)] Given the teachings of Kothari, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle sun visor of Funatsu, to add the control features of Kothari’s smart vehicle sun visor (fig. 1) as above that enables a user to see the area around a vehicle which is blocked when the sun visor is deployed with polarization or glare reduction (e.g. col. 2 lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 3, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of clam 3. Kothari on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the controller is located within the body portion.” [See for e.g. col. 53 lines 58-62 regarding a computer processor in the sun visor video device] The motivation for combining Funatsu and Kothari has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 7, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of clam 7. Kothari on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the controller is configured to receive wireless signals from a mobile device to determine the message.” [See col. 48 lines 46-52 for support where content from smart devices (e.g. smartphones) can be sent to the display screen of the sun visor device for viewing] The motivation for combining Funatsu and Kothari has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 8, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of clam 8. Kothari on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the controller is configured to receive input signals from an infotainment system on a vehicle to determine the message.” [Same as claim 7, where content from smart devices can be sent to the display screen of the sun visor device for displaying said content. Although Kothari does not explicitly use the term “infotainment system”, said smart devices can function as one given its BRI, since smart devices can be a source of various content which in turn can be displayed on the display screen of a sun visor (col. 48 lines 46-52). Also note for e.g. fig. 21, where the sun visor includes other features/systems integrated in it, such as radio, music, games, etc. (col. 37 lines 61-67)] The motivation for combining Funatsu and Kothari has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 9, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of clam 9. Kothari on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the display is a touchscreen display.” [See for e.g. abstract and col. 51 lines 26-32 regarding the sun visor device’s LCD touch screen] The motivation for combining Funatsu and Kothari has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of clam 19. Kothari on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “including determining a battery voltage level of a vehicle battery and directing the display into an off mode when the battery voltage level is below a predetermined threshold battery voltage level.” [Although the foregoing feature is not explicit, fig. 10 depicts the power connections from the sun visor to the vehicle’s power system. See col. 21 lines 40-67 and col. 22 regarding power usage. If, for e.g., the vehicle’s battery is about to fully drain out, which is indicated to the user, Kothari’s system allows for switching to a rechargeable battery. Although it is not turned off, it would be within the level of skill in the art to disable the sun visor device, or in Kothari’s case, switch to a backup power source to continue operations]
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funatsu, in view of Lundy et al. US 2025/0162387 A1, and in further view of Icove et al. US 2014/0236514 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lundy and Icove, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Funatsu teaches position sensor 27a for sensing the tilt angles of visor 22, which can be replaced with various known detectors, such as displacement sensors and angle sensors (0047), Funatsu does not ‘explicitly’ use a “hall sensor” as claimed. Given Funatsu allows for using other known detectors, replacing it with a hall sensor, or any other suitable sensor, would be within the level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, the work of Lundy from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the sensor assembly includes a hall sensor located on one of the body portion and the arm [See 0037-0038 with respect to a position sensor on PCB 62 that can be a hall-effect sensor to determine the position of visor 10] and an indicator located on the other of the body portion and the mounting assembly.” [Although Lundy does not ‘explicitly’ refer to an “indicator”, having one would also be considered within the level of skill in the art. Since Lundy’s hall-effect sensor can be used to determine the position/orientation of the magnetic field of receptacle 68 relative to PCB 62 (0038), this appears to suggest the position/orientation of the visor must be indicated given the BRI of “indicator”. Nonetheless, the work of Icove below is relied on to more clearly address said indicator.] Given the teachings of Lundy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle sun visor of Funatsu, to add Lundy’s automotive visor (fig. 1) as above with an electrochromic element that allows a user to see through a portion of the visor, either fully or with various levels of dimming, which can provide an active adjustment of a deployed visor, depending on the conditions and need, without the user having to repeatably stow and deploy the visor (e.g. 0003). As noted above, Lundy’s visor uses a hall-effect sensor that can determine the position/orientation of the magnetic field of receptacle 68 relative to PCB 62 (0038). Being able to determine the position of the visor suggests this must be indicated. Nonetheless, to more clearly address this feature, the work of Icove from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the “indicator”. [Icove teaches a Hall-effect sensor magnetic field sensor LED, which in this case can be construed as an “indicator” given its BRI. Also see figs. 8 and 9B] Although Icove’s teachings do not relate to a vehicle sun visor, as in Funatsu above, Icove does more clearly show an indicator used with the Hall-effect sensor. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle sun visor of Funatsu and the automotive visor of Lundy that uses a hall-effect sensor (0038), to add Icove’s LED (i.e. indicator) as above that can be illuminated when the Hall-effect sensor in a handheld device is actuated in order to facilitate detecting security threats (e.g. abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Funatsu, Lundy, and Icove teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Lundy teaches a hall sensor for a sun visor, Funatsu and Lundy do not address the features of claim 5. As such, the work of Icove from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the hall sensor is fixed relative to the body portion and the indicator is fixed relative to the arm” [Although Icove’s Hall-effect sensor circuit with LED (e.g. fig. 11C) differs in arrangement than that claimed, locating an LED in a desired position for the purposes indicating the actuation of the Hall-effect sensor is deemed within the level of skill in the art. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately locate the LED as required, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950).] The motivation for combining Funatsu, Lundy, and Icove has been discussed in connection with claim 5, above.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the assembly of claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funatsu, in view of Czarnecki US 2021/0101540 A1, hereinafter referred to as Czarnecki.
Regarding claim 20, Funatsu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Funatsu does not address the features of claim 20. Czarnecki on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “including determining if a person is within a predetermined distance of the vehicle by identifying a person with a camera system on the vehicle, wherein the message is displayed on the display when the person is within the predetermined distance of the vehicle.” [Given the BRI of the limitation, see for e.g. 0043 with respect to a vehicle camera detecting an obstacle within a predetermined distance from said vehicle, and which can further generate a visual alert or advisory for the operator on the multi-camera display] Although Czarnecki does not mention a sun visor, as in Funatsu above, Czarnecki’s vehicle multi-camera vision system allows for detecting obstacles around the vehicle which can provide alerts to the operator. As such, Czarnecki’s teachings are deemed relevant. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle sun visor of Funatsu, to add Czarnecki’s vehicle multi-camera vision system which can improve operator efficiency and situational awareness (e.g. ¶0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
6. The visor assembly of claim 5, wherein the indicator is cylindrical and includes a projection extending radially outward therefrom and at least a portion of the indicator is comprised of steel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights