DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Certain Figures, especially Figs. 6A-C, 7A-C, and 11, have poor line quality, thus not meeting the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). See example below. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Section identifier “A”-“A” in Fig. 9 should be changed to Roman or Arabic numerals per 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). “A-A” should be changed to “X-X”, as Fig. 10 contains the section view.
Fig. 10 is listed as a section view, but does not contain any cross-hatching, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). The cross-hatching should correspond to the material of each element “cut” by the plane of view, per the guidelines in MPEP 608.02 IX.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the implied phrase “Disclosed is…” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner suggests the following changes:
A slide-type sun visor structure includes a sun visor stored in a side surface of a vehicle when not used and pulled out toward a windshield when used, and a slide assembly fixed to the side surface of the vehicle and having formed therein a storage box in which the sun visor is stored, wherein the storage box has formed therein a groove in a length direction, and wherein the sun visor rotates while moving along the groove in the slide assembly and then moves to a position corresponding to the windshield.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0049, line 1, it is likely that “nit” should be changed to --unit--.
Paragraph 0065, line 7, “limited switch” should likely be changed to --limit switch--.
Paragraph 0066, line 1, “limited switch” should likely be changed to --limit switch--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “a storage box” is already positively introduced in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that the term “limited switch” in lines 2 and 3 be changed to --limit switch-- in order to utilize standard terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 4, the term “axially rotates” is confusing. Rotation and axial movement are different concepts. It is likely that that the claim should read “rotates and translates” or similar.
With regard to claim 5, the phrase “the upper plate and the lower plate each have a spring placed at a lower portion thereof” is confusing. Looking at Fig. 10, the spring 223 appears to be at the upper end of the upper plate and at the lower end of the lower plate.
With regard to claim 6, the phrase “the spring provided is a plurality of springs” is redundant, because claim 5 already states that “each” of the plates has a spring. Also, the positioning of the springs is already stated in claim 5. Thus, claim 6 is essentially redundant.
With regard to claim 9, this claim appears to rely on process claims, although it is an apparatus claim. Examiner suggests the following changes:
9. (Currently Amended) The slide-type sun visor structure of claim 1, wherein the slide assembly is provided as a manual slide assembly in which the sun visor is configured to be pulled out by a driver
With regard to claim 10, the word “automatic” is confusing, as it is unclear what amount of automation is required to meet this limitation. It is suggested that the phrase “provided as an automatic slide assembly” be deleted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 11-13 are allowed.
Claims 4-6, 9, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is that of Hyundai (KR 20240015404 A)
Hyundai teaches a slide-type sun visor structure, comprising:
a sun visor (14) stored in a side surface of a vehicle when not used (see Fig. 2) and pulled out toward a windshield when used (see Fig. 3); and
a slide assembly (11) fixed to the side surface of the vehicle (Fig. 3), wherein the sun visor rotates and then moves to a position corresponding to the windshield (see Figs. 7a-7c).
Hyundai fails to teach a storage box in which the sun visor is stored, where the storage box has a groove in the length direction, and that the sun visor moves along the groove. The feature of a sun visor within a storage box, where the storage box is provided with a groove was not found in the examiner’s search of the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of the state of the art with regard to sliding automotive sun visors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights