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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 August 2025 (RCE) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 August 2025 (RCE), with respect to Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 19, 21-26, 31 and 33 have been fully considered and is/are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn and based on the amended claim language are considered allowed, as follows.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 27 has/have been fully considered but they are not persuasive based on amendment of the claim language in which the prior art may be applied.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 28-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art found during a further search necessitated by amendment of the claim language.
Status
Based on the RCE filed 25 August 2025, Claim(s) 3-4, 9-18, 20 and 32 has/have been canceled, Claim(s) 6-8 remain withdrawn and no new Claims were added.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 27 and 31 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 14, should read “first and second layers of the flag ”;
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitation(s) in Claim 27, so line 12 should read, “an entire outer surface of the flag.”;
Claim 31, in line 7, should read “by the flag layers”;
Claim 31, in line 11, should read “from [to] the light source”;
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitation(s) in Claim31, so line 12 should read, “a curved surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bort (US 9,396,673 B2, see reference in its entirety) in view of Wilder (US 8,291,631 B2; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 27, Bort disclose(s): An illuminated flag (see Annotated Fig. 3 below & Fig. 13 and column 1, lines 9-16) comprising:
a) a first layer of the flag (see Annotated Fig. 3 below);
b) a second layer of the flag (see Annotated Fig. 3 below);
c) a spacer (Fig. 3: 2) separating the first and second flag layers to form an optical cavity inside the flag between the first and second flag layers (see Annotated Fig. 3 below & Fig. 13, column 1, lines 9-16 and Claim #5; it is understood the top sections as stated in Claim #5 are of clear plastic of which is considered a spacer which forms an optical cavity between the first and second flag layers as seen in the Annotated Fig. 3 below and in Fig. 13);
d) a plurality of cavity shaping elements (Fig. 13: 54), wherein each cavity shaping element is fastened only to the inside of the flag layers (Fig. 13: 60), wherein each cavity shaping element is a optically transparent and spreads the first and second flag layers apart (Fig. 13 and column 3, lines 65-66: clear spacers 54 are considered optically transparent cavity shaping elements which spread the flag layers apart) ; and
e) a light source within the optical cavity to illuminate the first and second layers of the flag from within the optical cavity (see Annotated Fig. 3 below & column 1, lines 9-16); wherein light is transmitted through the flag to illuminate the entire outer surface of the flag (column 3, lines 59-62).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bort does not specifically disclose: wherein the cavity shaping element is a strip and possesses a bias.
However, Wilder disclose(s) a device (Fig. 1) including: wherein the cavity shaping element is a strip and possesses a bias (Fig. 1: leaf spring 4 is considered a strip that possesses a bias).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bort, with the teachings of Wilder, for the purpose of allowing for a three dimensional display (column 2, lines 19-22).
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims (US 1,509,379, see reference in its entirety) in view of Hoffman (US 6621973, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 28, Sims disclose(s): An illuminated flag (Fig. 1: A) comprising:
a) a first layer of the flag (Fig. 4: 11 & 15);
b) a second layer of the flag (Fig. 4: 11 & 15);
c) an optically transparent element (Fig. 2: 23) separating the first and second flag layers to form an optical cavity between the first and second flag layers (optical cavity between 15 as seen in Fig. 4);
d) a light source (Fig. 2: 22) emanating light within the optical cavity to illuminate the first and second layers of the flag from within the optical cavity (Fig. 4); and
e) wherein the first and second layers are fastened directly to each other to surround the light source and the optically transparent element (Fig. 4).
Sims do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein an optically transparent element is a tube; a patterned filter within the optical cavity having a plurality of light blocking elements; wherein the light is blocked by the light blocking elements more for portions of the first and second layers closest to the light source dimming them to be more equal in intensity to portions of the first and second layers furthest from the light source.
However, Hoffman teach(es): an illuminated device (Fig. 1) including: wherein an optically transparent element is a tube (22); a patterned filter (30) within the optical cavity having a plurality of light blocking elements (36); wherein the light is blocked by the light blocking elements more for portions of the first and second layers closest to the light source dimming them to be more equal in intensity to portions of the first and second layers furthest from the light source (column 4, lines 42-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sims, with the teachings of Hoffman, for the purpose of achieve desired lighting appearance (column 4, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Sims and Hoffman disclose(s) the device of Claim 28.
The combination do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the patterned filter is arced to lay along a surface of the optically transparent tube.
However, Hoffman further teach(es) wherein the patterned filter is arced to lay along a surface of the optically transparent tube (Fig. 1).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Sims and Hoffman disclose(s) the device of Claim 28.
The combination do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the patterned filter is a plurality of opaque dots.
However, Hoffman further teach(es) wherein the patterned filter is a plurality of opaque dots (column 5, lines 43-45).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 19, 21-26, 31 and 33 is/are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance for Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 19 and 21-26: the prior art does not disclose or suggest with regards to independent Claim(s) 1: An illuminated flag comprising: a light source within an optically transparent tube to illuminate first and second layers of a flag from within an optical cavity, specifically a patterned density filter that is curved to fit within the interior of the optically transparent tube, wherein the patterned density filter is between the light source and the first and second layers of the flag, wherein the patterned density filter blocks more light from the light source to those parts of the inner flag surface closer to the light source than further from the light source to give more uniform illumination across the first and second flag layers, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance for Claim(s) 31 and 33: the prior art does not disclose or suggest with regards to independent Claim(s) 31: An illuminated flag comprising: a light source within an optically transparent tube to illuminate an inner flag surface; wherein the optically transparent tube is completely surrounded by the flag layers; wherein light from the light source passes through the optically transparent tube to illuminate the entire inner surface of the flag and, specifically a patterned density filter between the light source and flag layers, wherein the flag layers have walls closest and furthest from the light source; wherein the patterned density filter is curved to lay along a curved surface of the optically transparent tube, wherein the light is blocked more for the closest walls by the patterned density filter thereby dimming them to be more equal in intensity to the furthest walls, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to illuminating devices: Smith et al. (US 5640792); You et al. (US 7303310 B2); Price (US 1712355).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
10 December 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855