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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II Invention, including claims 13-19 and 22-23, in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 13-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jens et al. (DE 102004062919).
Regarding claim 13, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses a reflector device comprising:
a reflector element (3) having a reflection surface configured to reflect light waves incident on the reflection surface, the reflection surface having a predefined shape that is form-giving for the reflection, the reflector element having a rear side situated opposite the reflection surface, wherein the reflector element is a retroreflective film (he retroreflective elements 3 can be arranged in a line, in a circle or distributed in individual, for example circular, areas; see at least paragraph 0011);
a shell element (2, 4) having a base element defining a depression configured to receive the reflector element, wherein the reflector element is mounted in the depression such that the reflection surface faces away from the depression (The reflector is provided on a carrier 2, which together with the light lens 1 forms a housing in which retroreflective elements 3 are housed; see at least paragraph 0011; figures 1-2); and
a covering element (10, 11) having a transparent portion through which the reflection surface of the reflector element is visible (This plastic is colorless or red and is also advantageously made of PMMA. This plastic fills the spaces between the retroreflective elements 3, which are thus embedded in the cover layer 10. Since the retroreflective elements 3 are made of red-colored plastic, the light lens 1 can be made of colorless plastic This plastic is colorless or red and is also advantageously made of PMMA. This plastic fills the spaces between the retroreflective elements 3, which are thus embedded in the cover layer 10. Since the retroreflective elements 3 are made of red-colored plastic, the light lens 1 can be made of colorless plastic; see at least paragraph 0016), and wherein the covering element is arranged against the shell element such that the covering element surrounds the base element to form a container for the reflector element (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014),
wherein the covering element and the shell element are produced by back-molding the reflector element so that there is no gap within the reflector device (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014), and
wherein a shape of the depression of the shell element corresponds to the predefined shape of the reflector element so that there is no gap between the reflector element and the base element (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014).
The limitation, “wherein a shape of the depression of the shell element corresponds to the predefined shape of the reflector element so that there is no gap between the reflector element and the base element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 14, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the reflection surface of the reflector element is configured to deflect the incident light waves back in a direction of incidence of the incident light waves (a light ray 5 incident through the light disk 1 is shown, which is reflected at the lateral surface 4 of one retroreflective element 3 to the lateral surface 4 of the adjacent retroreflective element 3. From it, this beam 5 is reflected back towards the light disk 1, through which it exits; see at least paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 15, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the predefined shape of the reflector element forms at least one of a symbol, a symbol sequence, a letter, or a letter sequence (the symbol as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein a shape of the shell element corresponds to the predefined shape of the reflector element (The reflector is provided on a carrier 2, which together with the light lens 1 forms a housing in which retroreflective elements 3 are housed; see at least paragraph 0011; figures 1-2).
The limitation, “wherein a shape of the shell element corresponds to the predefined shape of the reflector element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 17, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein a shape of the covering element corresponds to a shape of the shell element (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014).
The limitation, “wherein a shape of the covering element corresponds to a shape of the shell element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 18, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein a shape of the covering element and a shape of the shell element correspond to the predefined shape of the reflector element (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014 and The reflector is provided on a carrier 2, which together with the light lens 1 forms a housing in which retroreflective elements 3 are housed; see at least paragraph 0011; figures 1-2).
The limitation, “wherein a shape of the covering element and a shape of the shell element correspond to the predefined shape of the reflector element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 19, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the covering element comprises a plastic that includes a UV-light-repellent component (PMMA is highly UV-resistant and acts as a barrier to UV light; The plastic that forms the top layer 10 is injected into the remaining cavity. This plastic is colorless or red and is also advantageously made of PMMA; see at least paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 22, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses a motor vehicle comprising:
a reflector device comprising:
a reflector element (3) having a reflection surface configured to reflect light waves incident on the reflection surface, the reflection surface having a predefined shape that is form-giving for the reflection, the reflector element having a rear side situated opposite the reflection surface, wherein the reflector element is a retroreflective film (he retroreflective elements 3 can be arranged in a line, in a circle or distributed in individual, for example circular, areas; see at least paragraph 0011);
a shell element (2, 4) having a base element defining a depression configured to receive the reflector element, wherein the reflector element is mounted in the depression such that the reflection surface faces away from the depression (The reflector is provided on a carrier 2, which together with the light lens 1 forms a housing in which retroreflective elements 3 are housed; see at least paragraph 0011; figures 1-2); and
a covering element (10, 11) having a transparent portion through which the reflection surface of the reflector element is visible (This plastic is colorless or red and is also advantageously made of PMMA. This plastic fills the spaces between the retroreflective elements 3, which are thus embedded in the cover layer 10. Since the retroreflective elements 3 are made of red-colored plastic, the light lens 1 can be made of colorless plastic This plastic is colorless or red and is also advantageously made of PMMA. This plastic fills the spaces between the retroreflective elements 3, which are thus embedded in the cover layer 10. Since the retroreflective elements 3 are made of red-colored plastic, the light lens 1 can be made of colorless plastic; see at least paragraph 0016), and wherein the covering element is arranged against the shell element such that the covering element surrounds the base element to form a container for the reflector element (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014),
wherein the covering element and the shell element are produced by back-molding the reflector element so that there is no gap within the reflector device (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014), and
wherein a shape of the depression of the shell element corresponds to the predefined shape of the reflector element so that there is no gap between the reflector element and the base element (a top layer 10 is sprayed onto the retroreflective elements 3, which fills the spaces between adjacent retroreflective elements 3 and has an outer surface 11 which may be provided with optics 12; see at least paragraph 0014).
The limitation, “wherein a shape of the depression of the shell element corresponds to the predefined shape of the reflector element so that there is no gap between the reflector element and the base element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 23, Jens et al. (figures 1-2) discloses the reflector device is arranged on an exterior of the motor vehicle.
The limitations " the reflector device is arranged on an exterior of the motor vehicle " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights