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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/15/23, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Studeny et al. (2022/0024374 A1) in view of Sherman et al. (US 2011/0176325 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) disclose a multi-layer panel structure for a vehicle, the multi-layer panel structure comprising a first layer (30) of an optically transparent material ([0113]-[0114]) adapted to serve as a light guide (30), said first layer having: an upper surface (see the annotation in figure 3 below); a lower surface (see the annotation in figure 3 below); edges ([0082]); and at least one optical element (32) for outcoupling light at least from an upper surface of said first layer ([0106]); and wherein the first layer (30) is configured to receive light from at least one light source (41) ([0097]) via at least an edge or the upper or lower surface (figure 7c), an upper second layer (20e, 10) disposed on the upper surface of said first layer (30); a lower second layer (50) disposed on the lower surface of said first layer (30), wherein each of said upper (20e, 10) and lower second layers (50) are arranged to cover all of said upper and lower surfaces of said first layer (30) in an uninterrupted, continuous fashion (figure 3).
Studeny et al. do not explicitly disclose the upper and lower second layers are a second material having a refractive index lower than said first layer.
However, Sherman et al. teach an optical device including the upper and lower second layers (substrate) are a second material having a refractive index lower than said first layer (light guide) (light guide having a refractive index 1.4 to 1.7 ([0083]) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate ([0066])). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Studeny et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Sherman et al.) for the purpose of providing light illuminated at higher intensities ([0058]).
[AltContent: arrow] An upper surface
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
254
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A lower surface
PNG
media_image2.png
268
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) disclose the multi-layer panel structure, further comprising a graphic layer (20c) arranged on at least a part of an outer surface of at least one of said upper and lower second layers (20e), said graphic layer being of an optically opaque and/or reflective material ([0104]).
With respect to claims 4 and 19, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except the first layer has a refractive index of 1.2 - 1.9 and the second layer has a refractive index of 1.1 - 1.6.
However, the first layer having a refractive index of 1.2 - 1.9 and the second layer having a refractive index of 1.1 - 1.6 are considered to be obvious to obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, 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 device of Studeny et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission, and it also has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it is noted that the applicant does not disclose criticality in the ranges claimed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP § 2144.05).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) disclose the multi-layer panel structure, wherein said at least one optical element (32) further comprises at least one of a light diffusing, reflecting and/or refracting surface (reflecting L2) of said first layer (30) and a light diffusing, reflecting and/or refracting material (reflecting L2) applied to or integrated in said first layer (30).
With respect to claim 6, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) disclose the multi-layer panel structure, further comprising at least one light source (41) disposed adjacent the first layer (30) and being arranged to couple light into said first layer (figure 7c).
With respect to claim 11, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) disclose a method of fabricating a multi-layer panel structure, said method comprising the steps of: providing a first layer (30) of a first refractive index; providing at least one optical element (32) in said first layer (30), said optical element (32) being adapted to outcouple light at least from an upper surface of said structure (10); and providing a second layer (10, 20e, 50) on an upper surface and a lower surface of said first layer (30).
Studeny et al. do not explicitly disclose the second layer being of a lower refractive index than said first layer.
However, Sherman et al. teach an optical device including second layer (substrate) being of a lower refractive index than said first layer (light guide) (light guide having a refractive index 1.4 to 1.7 ([0083]) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate ([0066])). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Studeny et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Sherman et al.) for the purpose of providing light illuminated at higher intensities ([0058]).
With respect to claim 12, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except the step of providing said first layer includes forming a plastic material, such as PC or PMMA.
However, the first layer includes forming a plastic material, such as PC or PMMA is considered to be obvious to provide a high performance of signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Studeny to include the above feature for the purpose of providing a high performance of signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 18, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) disclose the multi-layer panel structure, wherein said graphic layer (20c) is arranged on an outer surface of said lower second layer (figure 7c).
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Studeny et al. and Sherman et al. (as cited above), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsurada et al. (US-20230062751-A1).
With respect to claim 7, Studeny et al. (figures 3 and 7c) and Sherman et al. disclose a cover for an electromagnetic sensor, the cover comprising a multi-layer structure (figures 3 and 7c).
Studeny and Sherman et al. do not explicitly disclose a frame coupled to an outer rim of the multi-layer structure, said frame being of a light blocking material and adapted to accommodate at least one light source.
However, Katsurada et al. (figure 41) teach an optical device including a frame (514) coupled to an outer rim of the multi-layer structure (512), said frame being of a light blocking material ([0440]) and adapted to accommodate at least one light source (508a, 508b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the above combination by including the above features (accordance with the teaching of Katsurada) for the purpose of improving the design of the appearance of the vehicle ([0117]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3, 8-10, 14-17 and 20-24 are 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the
multi-layer panel structure, wherein said multi-layer panel structure is substantially transparent to radio waves and includes at least one portion of substantially uniform thickness destined to be disposed over a radar transmitter and receiver as recited in claim 3; wherein said frame is arranged to extend under said multi-layer structure, said frame being substantially transparent to radio waves as recited in claim 8; the method, wherein said step of providing said second layer includes coating said first layer with a second layer as recited in claim 14; wherein said steps of providing said first and second layer includes providing said second layer and molding said first layer onto said second layer, said second layer preferably being a foil of one of PTFE and FEP as recited in claim 15; wherein said step of providing said second layer comprises modifying a surface layer of said first layer to a depth corresponding to said second layer as recited in claim 16; wherein said steps of providing said first and second layers comprises 2K-molding of said first and second layers as recited in claim 17 and wherein said step of forming an optically diffusing material in said first layer is by moulding a diffusing material together with said plastic material in a 2K process and forming light diffusing microstructures on a surface of said first layer as recited in claim 21.
Claims 9-10 and 20 depend from claim 8.
Claim 22 depends from claim 14.
Claim 23 depends from claim 16.
Claim 24 depends from claim 17.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song (US-9857526-B2) discloses a backlight unit. Hwang et al. (US-10725224-B2) disclose a display device.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. 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.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874