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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Preisler (US 2015/0307033).
Regarding Claim 1, Preisler discloses a decorative component 12 of a vehicle, the component comprised of a substrate 22 having an outermost exterior finish layer 24 disposed on the substrate; a plurality of light areas 40 disposed along the substrate, wherein the plurality of light areas are exposed through the finish layer and illuminable; a plurality of lights 26 associated with the plurality of light areas; an activatable display defined by the plurality of light areas (logo on surface is the display); wherein the activatable display is controllable (controlled via a switch, or tied to the operation of the vehicle; paragraph 0044) and provides controlled illumination of one or more of the plurality of lights based on a detected vehicle status; wherein the controlled illumination corresponds to the detected vehicle status and varies in accordance with the detected vehicle status.
Regarding Claim 4, the trim part may be an exterior trim part visible from the outside (paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 5, the trim may be a door handle (paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claims 6-11, the lights (LED’s) of Preisler may be a plurality of colors (paragraph 0054), including a common color which is changeable, and the lights may be set to any known visible light spectrum (paragraph 0054) and changed depending upon the need for illumination (paragraph 0054-0058).
Regarding Claim 12, the lights may illuminate text or letter (Figs. 1-2b).
Regarding Claim 13, the plurality of light areas are defined by an absence of the finish layer (paragraph 0052-0053; part is finished then machined to allow the light to pass through the layer 22, 24), wherein the substrate is exposed and light transmissive, and light is emitted through the substrate.
Regarding Claim 14, the plurality of lights are isolated from each other (Figs. 3 and 4) such that light is blocked from a non-corresponding light area.
Regarding Claim 15, layer 24 is a separate layer from the substrate 22 which acts as a lens over the light areas.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Preisler discloses providing a plurality of illuminable light areas 40, 50 on a vehicle trim component, wherein the plurality of light areas are controllable and individually illuminable to provide a vehicle status (via lights 26); detecting a vehicle status related to the vehicle (paragraph 0044; may be switched or tied to vehicle functions); providing a control signal to select lights of the plurality of lights based on the detected vehicle status (paragraph 0044); and illuminating the select lights according to a predefined illumination arrangement corresponding to the detected vehicle status (on/off; color change, etc.).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the lights change based upon a vehicle status (on/off).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lavallee (US 2023/0242049).
Regarding Claim 2, Preisler discloses that the finish on the exterior layer may one of many differing finishes (paragraph 0048), but does not expressly disclose the use of plating. Lavallee discloses a trim component for a vehicle in which the exterior layer may be formed of a resin which is electroplated to achieve different surface finishes and textures (see Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the well-known, commonly used method of electroplating, as taught by Lavallee, to get the surface finish of the trim of Preisler to be bright and shiny as is done with many trim pieces in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Lavallee discloses the substrate is non-conductive and plated with a conductive intermediate layer disposed below the finish layer (see Claim 1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisler as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Glynn (US 2023/0311804).
Regarding Claim 18, Preisler discloses that the light may be changed to any color or combination, but does not appear to disclose an animation sequence for the lights. Glynn discloses a trim component for a vehicle, including lights to illuminate the trim, wherein the lights may have an animation sequence to them (paragraph 0025; page 6, line 2). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art to use the animation sequence of Glynn for the lights of Preisler in order to allow the user to customize the operating experience and to convey specific information, such as the car is started.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to trim components for vehicles and the associated lighting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights