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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 10-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 11,536,429 B1) in view of Dellock et al. (US 2015/0226403 A1), Chien (US 2018/0231199 A1), and Rantala et al. (US 2017/0152419 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Cheng teaches “a wireless lighting device for vehicle accessories (10), the wireless lighting device comprising: a housing (11) having a baseplate (14) and a top cover (18) complementary to the baseplate (see Fig. 1), the housing having at least one light permeable region in the top cover (81) to define an encapsulant and an internal volume therein (column 4 lines 53-56); a backlight module (13) configured to be accommodated within the internal volume of said housing (see Fig. 1), said backlight module comprising a circuit board (31), a plurality of light emitting elements (33), a sensor (17) configured to detect a signal (column 6 lines 46-50), and a control module (16) configured to turn the light emitting elements on and off according to the signal detected (column 6 lines 51-55); a transmitter unit (50) comprising a radio frequency transmitter (52), a devoted transmitter battery (column 8 lines 28-31), and an encapsulant (54) containing and protecting (column 8 lines 39-42) the radio frequency transmitter and the devoted transmitter battery (column 8 lines 28-31), the transmitter unit configured to transmit the signal perceptible by the sensor (column 6 lines 47-50), the signal transmitted in response to a pre-selected motion (column 6 line 60-column 7 line 4); a power module (15) including at least one battery (41) and a conductive strip (42), the conductive strip extending from an end of the circuit board (see Fig. 1) and configured to electrically connect the at least one battery to the circuit board and provide power to the sensor and said backlight module (column 5 lines 43-67), ”.
Cheng does not specifically teach “a phosphorescent dispersion within the at least one light permeable region of the top cover or on an inner wall of the baseplate; a plurality of light emitting elements having only visible light emissions or only visible light in combination with ultraviolet light, the plurality of light emitting elements adapted to provide both illumination visible to a normal human eye and also to excite the phosphorescent dispersion to emit light”.
However, Dellock teaches “a phosphorescent dispersion (60) within the top cover (26) or on an inner wall of the baseplate (32); a plurality of light emitting elements (36) having only visible light emissions or only visible light in combination with ultraviolet light (paragraph 29), the plurality of light emitting elements adapted to provide both illumination visible to a normal human eye and also to excite the phosphorescent dispersion to emit light (paragraph 29)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the phosphor of Dellock in order to enable a unique and attractive viewing experience at a reduced cost (Dellock paragraph 29).
Cheng in view of Dellock does not specifically teach that the phosphorescent dispersion is embedded within the top cover.
However, Rantala teaches that embodiments having phosphors embedded within cover (2) and coated on the cover are art recognized equivalents for the purpose of converting light from the light emitting elements (paragraphs 36, 38).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng by embedding the phosphors in the cover as Rantala teaches due to the art recognized equivalence of embedded phosphors and coated phosphors for the purpose of providing a color conversion effect (Rantala paragraph 38).
Cheng does not specifically teach “a surface of the top cover being polished to a reflective surface”.
However, Chien teaches “a surface of the top cover being polished to a reflective surface (paragraph 587)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the polished reflective cover surface taught by Chien in order to obtain desired aesthetic lighting effects (Chien paragraph 587).
With respect to claim 2: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the top cover is integrally formed as a unitary body (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 3: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the top cover is configured to be irreversibly sealed to the baseplate (column 4 lines 53-56)”.
With respect to claim 4: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the sensor is one of a magnetic sensor (column 6 lines 1-5) or a gravity sensor (column 6 lines 21-22)”.
With respect to claim 6: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the transmitter is configured to be installed on a frame of a vehicle or on a door of a vehicle (column 6 lines 60-64)”.
With respect to claim 10: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the baseplate of said housing of said encapsulated light board defines at least one recess (23, 25)”.
With respect to claim 11: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the baseplate and the top cover of said housing of said encapsulated light board are formed as a tube (see Fig. 12)”.
With respect to claim 12: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the plurality of light emitting elements are LEDs (column 5 lines 28-30)”.
With respect to claim 13: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein said power module provide power for 10 years of vehicle usage without opening said encapsulated light board (column 5 lines 64-67)”.
With respect to claim 15: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng does not specifically teach “wherein the phosphorescent dispersion comprises phosphorescent inorganic particles or organic phosphorescent molecules”.
Dellock teaches “wherein the phosphorescent dispersion comprises phosphorescent inorganic particles (paragraph 24) or organic phosphorescent molecules (paragraph 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the phosphor of Dellock to enable a unique and attractive viewing experience at a reduced cost (Dellock paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 16: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng does not specifically teach “wherein the phosphorescent dispersion is applied with a polymeric binder or adhesive to the top cover”.
Dellock teaches “wherein the phosphorescent dispersion is applied with a polymeric binder (paragraph 24) or adhesive to the top cover (26)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the phosphor of Dellock to enable a unique and attractive viewing experience at a reduced cost (Dellock paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 17: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the light permeable region of the top cover includes a customizable inscription (“LOGO”, see Fig. 3a)”.
With respect to claim 18: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the encapsulated light board is configured to be installed in a vehicle door, a trunk lid, a vehicle liftgate, a vehicle tailgate, a vehicle door sill, a vehicle seat, and a vehicle floor mat (column 4 lines 39-43)”.
With respect to claim 20: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the transmitter is configured to be installed on a trunk lid or vehicle liftgate and comprises a sensor that determines a level of inclination of the trunk lid or vehicle liftgate, and actuates the plurality of light emitting elements of the wireless lighting device based on a threshold of inclination via a transmitted signal (column 6 lines 21-42)”.
With respect to claim 21: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the transmitter unit further comprises a system on chip (SOC) (column 8 lines 55-56)”.
With respect to claim 22: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the SOC is wireless (column 8 lines 55-56)”.
With respect to claim 23: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng teaches “wherein the transmitter unit further comprises a replaceable battery power source (column 8 lines 60-65)”.
Claims 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Briscoe et al. (US 2018/0320839 A1).
With respect to claim 14: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng does not specifically teach “wherein the light board further comprises one or more optical reflector structures”.
However, Briscoe teaches “wherein the light board (12) further comprises one or more optical reflector structures (paragraph 16)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the reflector film taught by Briscoe in order to accommodate illumination of a desired area (Briscoe paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 19: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng does not specifically teach “wherein the at least one battery is rechargeable”.
However, Briscoe teaches “wherein the at least one battery (24) is rechargeable (paragraph 23)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the rechargeable battery of Briscoe in order to provide power (Briscoe paragraph 22) in a way that allows the lighting device to be reused over and over again (Briscoe paragraphs 2-3).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cleland et al. (US 2003/0030299 A1).
With respect to claim 24: Cheng in view of Dellock, Rantala, and Chien teaches “the wireless lighting device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cheng does not specifically teach “wherein the transmitter unit further comprises an internal sensor that measures inclination”.
However, Cleland teaches an internal sensor which measures inclination (paragraph 139) to determine whether a vehicle’s rear door is open (paragraph 140), which is the same information Cheng uses the transmitter unit to obtain (Cheng column 6 lines 64-column 7 line 4).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless lighting device of Cheng with the inclinometer taught by Cleland due to the art recognized suitability of such a sensor to measure the opening/closing of a vehicle’s rear door (Cleland paragraphs 140, 148).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights