DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112 rejections remain as the scope of the claims remain unclear as to what the metes and bonds of the claim terms are and applicant’s arguments do no render any further clarity.
Applicant primarily argues the colorful of Kwon uses LED light sources for illumination while the present application utilizes a non-luminous colorful film. While this may be true there is no limitation in the claims as to where the light is sourced or how the color is presented. It is noted that reflected light would still be present in film of modified Kwon.
Applicant argues that the colored film or Kwon is not the colorful film of the present invention. It is noted that no limitations are set forth in the claims or the Spec. to how to deem the film to be colorful. Thus, the fact that color is presented through the film is enough to make it colorful. The colored portion is taught to have a color outside of the night luminated red [0003].
Applicant argues further about the colorful film limitations that are outside the scope of the claims such as the forming of a halo around the film’s effect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has limitations drawn to vibrant light and shadow interplay which do not have support in the Instant Specification. There is no description of the light present other than the term colorful.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, “multi-level colorful effect”, “colorful film” and “colorful patterns” leave the claim indefinite. The Instant Specification gives no guidance to the materials or observed properties that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art determine the metes and bounds of the terms. For example, is a film colorful if there is a color present or do multiple colors need be present or if the film is reflective or does it need to be prismatic or iridescent to meet the limitation. Additionally, the terms are subjective, See MPEP 2173.05 (b) IV.
Dependent claims 2-11, are rejected for these same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 200090277059 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Kwon teaches a bi-color illuminated automotive emblem (i.e., an automobile sign plate with multi-level colorful effect) [Abstract, 0006]. The emblem comprises a substrate (42), a colored layer (16, 40) (i.e., a colorful film), raised portions (12, 18, 26) (i.e., refractive portions) on the colored layer, and an edge strip (14) surrounding the substrate and raised above (i.e., exceeds a surface) the colored layer [0039-0041, 0046, Figs. 1-3, 7]. The edge strip has a metallic look and thus is considered to have a mirror surface [0039-0040]. The refraction portions generate colorful patterns including light and shadow depending on the angle of viewing [0039-0041, 0046, Figs. 1-3, 7]..
Kwon discloses the claimed invention except for the edge strip having a chamfer portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chamfered the edge portion, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, a chamfer portion on the edge would be able to better reflect the light back towards the emblem and highlight the emblem and thus improve and make the emblem more eye catching.
The recitation of " for generating colorful patterns and shadow interplay “is considered an intended use of the refraction portions. Kwon teaches a substantially identical emblem as that which is claimed and therefore is considered capable of performing the claimed intended use, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2111.01 and 2112.01.
In regards to claims 2 and 9, Kwon further teaches a shielding groove is formed between the edge strip and the laying gap between the colored layer and the substrate [Figs. 1-3, 7].
In regards to claim 3, Kwon further teaches the raised portions are linear or curved [Figs. 1, 3].
In regards to claim 5, Kwon further teaches a protective film is applied over colored layer for a more realistic look [0050].
In regards to claim 6, Kwon teaches the claimed invention except for the height of the shielding groove formed by the edge strip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to made the height to be 0.05-1 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In regards to claim 7, Kwon teaches the claimed invention except for the angle of the chamfer portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to made the angle to be between 30-50 degrees since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In regards to claim 8, Kwon further teaches a mounting portion is arranged on a back side of the substrate [0045, 0060, Fig. 7].
In regards to claim 10, Kwon further teaches the refraction portions are capable of being directly placed on the substrate [0028, 0030, 0039, Figs. 1, 3].
In regards to claim 11, Kwon further teaches the refraction portions are capable of being stacked in multiple layers [0028, 0030, 0039, Figs. 1, 3].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 200090277059 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US 20210379926 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Kwon does not expressly teach that re3fraction portions are refraction grooves.
Cha teaches an emblem for a vehicle [Abstract, 0003].
Cha further teaches the emblem has a color layer with fine patterns on the surface [0016, 0049]. The color and fine pattern diversify the image of the emblem [0016, 0049]. Such a pattern would include grooves as a result of the pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the fine patterns of Cha to the colored layer of Kwon. One would have been motivated to do so due to the patterns ability to diversify the design of the emblem.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Ford Global Tech LLC (DE 202017106128 U1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784