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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on FR2109257 dated 09/03/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4, the term “belongs to” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “belongs to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would determine an objective standard for determining when said outer lens ‘belongs to’ a style part without a definite structural or quantitative relationship. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toyooka (US 12189119 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) teaches in Fig. 1: a device (1) for a vehicle (“imaging device 1 may be mounted not only in vehicles but also in security cameras”; col 2 lines 16-17), said device (1) being configured to perform an observation function and comprising a camera (“imaging device 1 includes an imaging unit 2”; col 2 lines 7-8, “imaging unit 2 is a device configured to capture an image”; col 2 lines 19-20), an exit outer lens (“the lens of the imaging unit 2”; col 2 line 30) and a subassembly comprising said camera (imaging unit 2 comprises the camera and therefore acts as a subassembly), wherein said device (1) comprises a masking zone (“louver film 4”; col 4 lines 56) covering a surface (film 4 covers imaging unit 2) of said device (1), said masking zone (4) being positioned facing said camera (2, see Fig. 1) and configured to reduce the transmission of light entering said device through said surface (“louver film 4 is a film including a light transmissive unit 4A and a non-transmissive unit 4B placed alternately”; col 2 lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 2, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka further teaches in Fig. 1: said surface (outer surface of member 2) is covered in whole or in part by said masking zone (4, see Fig. 1 in which 4 is larger than 2 and therefore covers the surface).
Regarding claim 3, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka further teaches in Fig. 1: said surface (outer surface of member 2) belongs to said exit outer lens (“the lens of the imaging unit 2”; col 2 line 30).
Regarding claim 6, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka further teaches in Fig. 1: said masking zone (4) is a textured film comprising features (“louver film 4 is a film including a light transmissive unit 4A and a non-transmissive unit 4B placed alternately”; col 2 lines 32-33, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Toyooka further teaches in Fig. 1: said features (4A, 4B) are occulting or semi-transparent (“louver film 4, minute non-transmissive units 4B, which are referred to as louver, are incorporated in the transmissive unit 4A made of, for example, a polymer resin having high transparency”; col 2 lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 11, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Toyooka further teaches in Fig. 1: said features (4A, 4Bd) are continuous lines or punctiform features (“The non-transmissive units 4B are provided in the transmissive unit 4A at fixed intervals in a direction (the vertical direction in FIGS. 2A and 2B, hereinafter, the direction may be referred to as “array direction”) in the surface direction. In the embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the non-transmissive unit 4B is formed throughout the thickness of the transmissive unit 4A”; col 2 lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 13, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Toyooka further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein said surface comprising said textured film is configured to transmit light variably (“louver film 4 has a property of transmitting light entering from the normal direction of the film and a direction generally parallel to the non-transmissive unit 4B (for example, from ±45 degrees with respect to the normal direction of the film), and blocking light entering from the other direction”; col 2 lines 34-39).
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beev (FR3123413A1). All references to Beev (FR3123413A1) will be made to English Language equivalent Beev (US20240200747A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date (2021-05-31) of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Beev teaches in Fig. 1: a device (“luminous device 1”; [0051]) for a vehicle (”vehicle 2”; [0051]), said device (1) being configured to perform an observation function and comprising a camera (“optical module 10”; [0053]), an exit outer lens (“an outer lens 11”; [0053]) and a subassembly (“a housing 12”; [0053]) comprising said camera (10), wherein said device (10) comprises a masking zone (“textured film 13”; [0061]) covering a surface (“surface 110, 140 is covered in whole or in part by the textured film 13”; [0061]) of said device (1), said masking zone (13) being positioned facing said camera (10) and configured to reduce the transmission of light entering said device through said surface (“textured film 13 comprises patterns 130 configured to reduce the transmission of light Lx entering into said luminous device 1”; [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said surface (110, 140) is covered in whole or in part by said masking zone (13, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said surface (110, 140) belongs to said exit outer lens (see Fig. 1 in which said surface 110 belongs to lens 11).
Regarding claim 5, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said surface (110, 140) belongs to an intermediate element (“intermediate element 14”; [0063]) of said device (1) positioned between said camera (10) and said exit outer lens (11) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said masking zone (13) is a textured film comprising features (“textured film 13 comprises patterns 130 configured to reduce the transmission of light Lx entering into said luminous device 1”; [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said features (130) are surface features or bulk features (“surface patterns 130 are continuous lines as illustrated in FIGS. 4 to 7, in one non-limiting embodiment, the patterns 130 extend along the length L0 of the surface 110, 140.”; [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 7. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said surface features are produced using an IML or IMD process (“surface patterns 130 are produced using an IML process (IML standing for in-mold labelling) or an IMD process (IMD standing for in-mold decorating).”; [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 7. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: when said features are surface features, they are formed by an ink deposit between 1 and 10 microns thick (“surface patterns 130 are produced using an IML process (IML standing for in-mold labelling) or an IMD process (IMD standing for in-mold decorating). In these methods, an ink is deposited on a film in order to produce the patterns 130 and thus add the texture to said film. In one non-limiting embodiment, the ink deposit possesses a thickness comprised between 1 and 10 microns.”; [0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said features (130) are occulting or semi-transparent (“patterns 130 are occulting or semi-transparent with a variable level of transparency”; [0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: said features (130) are continuous lines or punctiform features (“In non-limiting embodiments, said patterns 130 are continuous lines (as illustrated in FIG. 4, FIG. 5, FIG. 6, FIG. 7, FIG. 9, FIG. 10, and FIG. 11), also called texture lines, or punctual patterns (as illustrated in FIG. 8).”; [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: there is a pitch between said features (130) and said pitch has a maximum value of 0.8 mm between the center of two features (“patterns 130 are arranged so that there is a variable pitch p1 therebetween. In one non-limiting example, the pitch p1 varies from 0.5 mm to 5 mm. In one non-limiting example, the pitch p1 has a maximum value of 0.8 mm between the center of two patterns 130”; [0083]).
Regarding claim 13, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein said surface comprising said textured film is configured to transmit light variably (“the patterns 130 transmit the light Lx variably”; [0090]).
Regarding claim 14, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 13. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein said features (130) are arranged so that there is a variable pitch between said features and/or so that the features have a variable material density and/or so that the features have a variable area (“When the patterns 130 are continuous lines or punctual patterns, in one non-limiting embodiment, the surface 110, 140 transmits the light Lx variably as a result of arranging said patterns 130 so that the patterns 130 have a variable material density d1 and/or so that there is a variable pitch p1 between the patterns 130 and/or so that the patterns 130 have a variable area s1”; [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 6. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein said features (130) form a negative image of punctiform features (“patterns 130 form a negative image of punctual patterns 132 (as illustrated in FIG. 18).”; [0067]), said punctiform features being substantially transparent (“The punctual patterns 130 are opaque or semi-transparent and reduce the transmission of the light Lx”; [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 15. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein said surface comprising said textured film is configured to transmit light variably (“the patterns 130 transmit the light Lx variably”; [0090]).
Regarding claim 17, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 16. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein said punctiform features are arranged so that there is a variable pitch between said
punctiform features and/or so that the punctiform features have a variable area (“When the patterns 130 are continuous lines or punctual patterns, in one non-limiting embodiment, the surface 110, 140 transmits the light Lx variably as a result of arranging said patterns 130 so that the patterns 130 have a variable material density d1 and/or so that there is a variable pitch p1 between the patterns 130 and/or so that the patterns 130 have a variable area s1”; [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 16. Beev further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein the negative image comprises different areas with different material densities (“When the patterns 130 are a negative image of punctual patterns 132, in another non-limiting embodiment, the surface 110, 140 transmits the light Lx variably as a result of arranging said punctual patterns 132 so that the punctual patterns 132 have a variable pitch p1′ and/or so that there is a variable area s1′ between the punctual patterns 132, or as a result of arranging various areas sf of said negative image 130 to have different material densities d1′”; [0079]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turnbull (US 20200110327 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka fails to teach that: said surface belongs to an intermediate element of said device positioned between said camera and said exit outer lens.
However, in a related invention in the field of cameras for vehicles, Turnbull teaches in Fig. 8 and 9B: said surface (“films 42”; [0037]) belongs to an intermediate element of said device (“imager module 10”; [0027]) positioned between said camera (“imager 14”; [0027]) and said exit outer lens (“photochromic lens cover 20”; [0027], see Fig. 8).
Furthermore, Turnbull teaches this configuration such that “is also generally contemplated that one or more films 42, 44 may be applied to a glass substrate of a photochromic lens cover 20 (FIG. 9B). Plastic photochromic lens covers may incorporate organic photochromic materials” (Turnbull, [0037]). And, wherein “the use of a photochromic glass as the lens cover 20 disposed proximate the imager lens 16 on the vehicle 12 may allow for concealment whenever ultraviolet light is present”(Turnbull, [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Turnbull to provide a device in which said surface belongs to an intermediate element of said device positioned between said camera and said exit outer lens, for the purpose of concealment of ultraviolet light (Turnbull, [0030]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 11203281 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka fails to teach that: said features are surface features or bulk features.
However, in an alternative invention in the field of devices for visual effects on vehicles, Johnson teaches: said features are surface features or bulk features (“An ultrashort pulse laser as described above can then be utilized to replicate into a mold the surface features necessary to imprint the interference pattern 70 onto the cover assembly 44 directly”; col 9 lines 45-58).
Furthermore, Johnson teaches this configuration such that “During the molding process, the mold with the laser ablated surface profile to form the surface relief pattern 56 into the moldable polymer can be heated. Heating the mold maintains the moldable polymer at sufficiently low viscosity to flow and conform to the nanometer sized surface features of the mold. The mold can be heated via induction. Steam or a heated liquid piped into the mold can alternatively be used” (Johnson, col 8 lines 46-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide a device in which said features are surface features or bulk features, for the purpose of conforming to the nanometer sized surface features (Johnson, col 8 lines 46-52).
Regarding claim 8, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 7. Toyooka fails to teach: said surface features are produced using an IML or IMD process.
However, regarding the limitation “produced using an IML or IMD process”, Applicant is advised that 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. In the instant case Johnson teaches the surface features are made during a molding process such that “During the molding process, the mold with the laser ablated surface profile to form the surface relief pattern 56 into the moldable polymer can be heated. Heating the mold maintains the moldable polymer at sufficiently low viscosity to flow and conform to the nanometer sized surface features of the mold. The mold can be heated via induction. Steam or a heated liquid piped into the mold can alternatively be used” (Johnson, col 8 lines 46-52). Therefore, Johnson teaches the surface features to be made by a molding process and the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide a device in which said surface features are produced using an IML or IMD process, for the purpose precision molding in the nm scale (Johnson, col 8 lines 46-52).
Claim 9 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) and Johnson (US 11203281 B1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Maric (US 12085734 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 7. Toyooka fails to teach: when said features are surface features, they are formed by an ink deposit between 1 and 10 microns thick.
However in a related invention in the field of optical surface features, Maric teaches: when said features are surface features, they are formed by an ink deposit between 1 and 10 microns thick (“the treated surface of barrel 32 (e.g., the surface of coating 32C such as the exposed surfaces of ports 80) may be characterized by surface roughness features having post-etching lateral dimensions D3 and an etch depth of D4. The value of D3 may be, for example, 5-50 nm, 10 nm, at least 5 nm, at least 6 nm, less than 100 nm, less than 50 nm, less than 500 nm, and/or other suitable value. The value of etch depth D4 may be at least 0.1 microns, at least 0.2 microns, 0.1-3 microns, 1 micron, at least 3 microns, at least 0.7 microns, less than 2 microns, less than 2.5 microns, less than 1.5 microns, 0.4-1.6 microns, or other suitable value.”; col 10 lines 13-23, “Coating 32C may include black paint or ink (e.g., polymer containing black colorant such as pigment and/or dye), may include a black anodized layer, may include electroplated material, may include roughened surfaces formed by sand blasting, walnut blasting, chemical etching, machining (e.g., grinding, sanding, etc.), laser exposure, and/or other suitable surface roughening techniques”; col 8 lines 43-49).
Furthermore, Maric teaches this configuration such that “Low-reflectance material (e.g., chemically deposited layers, polymer layers including black colorant, etc.) may be deposited as part of an anodization process and/or may be applied separately” (Maric, col 8 lines 49-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka and Johnson to incorporate the teachings of Maric to provide a device in which said features are surface features, they are formed by an ink deposit between 1 and 10 microns thick, for the purpose of reducing reflectance (Maric, col 8 lines 49-52).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kincade (US 20180022274 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 13. Toyooka fails to teach: wherein said features are arranged so that there is a variable pitch between said features and/or so that the features have a variable material density and/or so that the features have a variable area.
However, in a related invention in the field of an illuminating emblem device that is configured to be coupled to a vehicle and/or device, Kincade teaches in Fig. 3E: wherein said features are arranged so that there is a variable pitch between said features and/or so that the features have a variable material density and/or so that the features have a variable area (“The surface features 324, for example, can be printed on a surface of the light panel 322 and can be varied (e.g., size, shape, color, pitch, diameter, pattern density, etc.) to allow different amounts and/or effects of light to pass through”; [0063]).
Furthermore, Kincade teaches this configuration such that “The surface features 324, for example, can be printed on a surface of the light panel 322 and can be varied (e.g., size, shape, color, pitch, diameter, pattern density, etc.) to allow different amounts and/or effects of light to pass through” (Kincade, [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Kincade to provide a device in which wherein said features are arranged so that there is a variable pitch between said features and/or so that the features have a variable material density and/or so that the features have a variable area, for the purpose of allowing different amounts and/or effects of light to pass through (Kincade, [0063]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Border (US 20160062121 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka fails to teach that: said masking zone is a cold mirror.
However, in a related invention in the field of display systems having adaptation for vehicles, Border teaches in Fig. 141a: said masking zone is a cold mirror (“the partial mirror is a cold mirror”; [0598]).
Furthermore, Border further teaches this configuration such that “a cold mirror that reflects a majority of visible light (e.g. greater than 80% of visible light, 400-700 nm) and transmits a majority of infrared light (e.g. greater than 80% of infrared light 800-1000 nm)” (Border, [0598]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Border to provide a device in which said masking zone is a cold mirror, for the purpose of designing the device to reflect visible light while allowing infrared light to transmit (Border, [0598]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) and Border (US 20160062121 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Inada (US-20200052028-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 19. Toyooka fails to teach: wherein said masking zone comprises a plurality of layers with alternating high and low refractive indices.
However, in a related invention in the field of imaging devices used for autonomous driving, Inada teaches in Fig. 7: wherein said masking zone comprises a plurality of layers with alternating high and low refractive indices (“an antireflection layer 30 may be provided on the surface side of the image pickup element 20 where light is incident, that is, on the outermost surface side (transflective film 14 side) of the optical system 22”; [0160], “the antireflection coating provided on the transparent substrate include three layers, that is, the antireflection coating has a layer configuration in which an intermediate refractive index layer, a high refractive index layer, and a low refractive index layer (outermost layer) are provided in this order”; [0167]).
Furthermore, Inada teaches this configuration such that “the antireflection layer 30 is provided on the outermost surface side of the optical system 22, reflection of light incident into the optical system 22 from a lens surface or the like of the optical system 22 can be suppressed, and the imaging unit 12 can be made to be more inconspicuous from the outside” (Inada, [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka and Border to incorporate the teachings of Inada to provide a device in which said masking zone comprises a plurality of layers with alternating high and low refractive indices, for the purpose of suppressing the reflection of incident light (Inada, [0161]).
Claim 21 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sattler (US 20220333755 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Toyooka fails to teach: said masking zone comprises a single metal layer having a thickness in the order of nanometers.
However, an alternate invention in the field of design elements for motor vehicles, Sattler teaches in Fig. 5: said masking zone comprises a single metal layer having a thickness in the order of nanometers (“In the present invention, according to the present aspect, the mask can be designed as an opening in a light-impermeable layer which is applied behind the completely continuous first semi-transparent metal layer L1. In other words, the layer sequence in this aspect of the present invention is as follows: light-impermeable (optionally absorbent) layer LD/substrate 1/semi-transparent metal layer L1 (L1 and 1 can also be the other way round in some circumstances)/optional colouring layer L2 (this can be applied directly to L1)/light-permeable material 1′ /semi-transparent effect reflective layer L3/optional coating CL. So that a metal layer is semi-transparent, layer thicknesses in the region of a few nm (penetration depth) can be provided”; [0038]).
Furthermore, Sattler further teaches this configuration such that light “incident on the metallic semi-transparent first layer and at least partially passes outwards through the metallic semi-transparent first layer in order to project the at least one graphical symbol represented by the at least one opening. The light can be scattered on passing through the metallic layer” (Sattler, [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Sattler to provide a device in which said masking zone comprises a single metal layer having a thickness in the order of nanometers, for the purpose of providing a semi-transparent layer in order to project the graphical symbol (Sattler, [0063]).
Claim 4 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyooka (US 12189119 B2) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Glickman (US-20210031678-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Toyooka teaches the device as claimed in claim 3. Toyooka fails to teach: said exit outer lens belongs to a style part of said device.
However, an alternate invention in style parts for motor vehicles, Glickman teaches in Fig. 7: said exit outer lens (“The lens 138”; [0027]) belongs to a style part of said device (“The light sources 42 may be activated by the controller 254 to illuminate a message, symbol, design, pattern, word, other indicia, etc. or may be illuminated randomly. The illumination resulting from the emitted light 54 may be viewed through the housing 22 and/or the lens 138.”; [0048]).
Furthermore, Glickman teaches this con figuration such that “The light sources 42 may be activated by the controller 254 to illuminate a message, symbol, design, pattern, word, other indicia, etc.” (Glickman, [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyooka to incorporate the teachings of Glickman to provide a device in which said exit outer lens belongs to a style part of said device, for the purpose of projecting an image or a logo (Glickman, [0048]).
Claim 19 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beev (FR3123413A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Border (US 20160062121 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev fails to teach that: said masking zone is a cold mirror.
However, in a related invention in the field of display systems having adaptation for vehicles, Border teaches in Fig. 141a: said masking zone is a cold mirror (“the partial mirror is a cold mirror”; [0598]).
Furthermore, Border further teaches this configuration such that “a cold mirror that reflects a majority of visible light (e.g. greater than 80% of visible light, 400-700 nm) and transmits a majority of infrared light (e.g. greater than 80% of infrared light 800-1000 nm)” (Border, [0598]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beev to incorporate the teachings of Border to provide a device in which said masking zone is a cold mirror, for the purpose of designing the device to reflect visible light while allowing infrared light to transmit (Border, [0598]).
Claim 20 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beev (FR3123413A1) and Border (US 20160062121 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Inada (US-20200052028-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 19. Beev fails to teach: wherein said masking zone comprises a plurality of layers with alternating high and low refractive indices.
However, in a related invention in the field of imaging devices used for autonomous driving, Inada teaches in Fig. 7: wherein said masking zone comprises a plurality of layers with alternating high and low refractive indices (“an antireflection layer 30 may be provided on the surface side of the image pickup element 20 where light is incident, that is, on the outermost surface side (transflective film 14 side) of the optical system 22”; [0160], “the antireflection coating provided on the transparent substrate include three layers, that is, the antireflection coating has a layer configuration in which an intermediate refractive index layer, a high refractive index layer, and a low refractive index layer (outermost layer) are provided in this order”; [0167]).
Furthermore, Inada teaches this configuration such that “the antireflection layer 30 is provided on the outermost surface side of the optical system 22, reflection of light incident into the optical system 22 from a lens surface or the like of the optical system 22 can be suppressed, and the imaging unit 12 can be made to be more inconspicuous from the outside” (Inada, [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beev and Border to incorporate the teachings of Inada to provide a device in which said masking zone comprises a plurality of layers with alternating high and low refractive indices, for the purpose of suppressing the reflection of incident light (Inada, [0161]).
Claim 21 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beev (FR3123413A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sattler (US 20220333755 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Beev fails to teach: said masking zone comprises a single metal layer having a thickness in the order of nanometers.
However, an alternate invention in the field of design elements for motor vehicles, Sattler teaches in Fig. 5: said masking zone comprises a single metal layer having a thickness in the order of nanometers (“In the present invention, according to the present aspect, the mask can be designed as an opening in a light-impermeable layer which is applied behind the completely continuous first semi-transparent metal layer L1. In other words, the layer sequence in this aspect of the present invention is as follows: light-impermeable (optionally absorbent) layer LD/substrate 1/semi-transparent metal layer L1 (L1 and 1 can also be the other way round in some circumstances)/optional colouring layer L2 (this can be applied directly to L1)/light-permeable material 1′ /semi-transparent effect reflective layer L3/optional coating CL. So that a metal layer is semi-transparent, layer thicknesses in the region of a few nm (penetration depth) can be provided”; [0038]).
Furthermore, Sattler further teaches this configuration such that light “incident on the metallic semi-transparent first layer and at least partially passes outwards through the metallic semi-transparent first layer in order to project the at least one graphical symbol represented by the at least one opening. The light can be scattered on passing through the metallic layer” (Sattler, [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beev to incorporate the teachings of Sattler to provide a device in which said masking zone comprises a single metal layer having a thickness in the order of nanometers, for the purpose of providing a semi-transparent layer in order to project the graphical symbol (Sattler, [0063]).
Claim 4 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beev (FR3123413A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Glickman (US-20210031678-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Beev teaches the device as claimed in claim 3. Beev fails to teach: said exit outer lens belongs to a style part of said device.
However, an alternate invention in style parts for motor vehicles, Glickman teaches in Fig. 7: said exit outer lens (“The lens 138”; [0027]) belongs to a style part of said device (“The light sources 42 may be activated by the controller 254 to illuminate a message, symbol, design, pattern, word, other indicia, etc. or may be illuminated randomly. The illumination resulting from the emitted light 54 may be viewed through the housing 22 and/or the lens 138.”; [0048]).
Furthermore, Glickman teaches this con figuration such that “The light sources 42 may be activated by the controller 254 to illuminate a message, symbol, design, pattern, word, other indicia, etc.” (Glickman, [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beev to incorporate the teachings of Glickman to provide a device in which said exit outer lens belongs to a style part of said device, for the purpose of projecting an image or a logo (Glickman, [0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10946815 B1: cosmetic attachment for vehicle comprising an exit out lens
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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 Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights