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 Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 3 and 6 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-21 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 3, and 6 being independent.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20120138371, see previously attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a glass assembly (light guide reflector 100 which comprises a base plate 110 made of glass; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0001], [0025]-[0043], [0073]), wherein the glass assembly comprises a glass body having a first surface and a second surface which are oppositely arranged (base plate 110 is made of glass and has opposed first and second surfaces; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0026]-[0027], [0030]-[0037], [0039]-[0042]), wherein at least a portion of incident light entering the glass body is totally reflected between the first surface and the second surface (light emitted by light source 20 enters the glass body 120 and undergoes total internal reflection between the first and second surfaces; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0026]-[0027], [0030]-[0037], [0039]-[0042]); a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface for guiding the incident light out of the second surface (a layer of diffusion material 120 is arranged in a pattern on a surface of the glass body 110 to scatter/diffuse light incident on the diffusion material out of the glass body; see Figs. 1-5, 8-10; para. [0030]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0044]-[0046], [0048], [0055]-[0058]), and an anti-reflection layer attached to the second surface to reduce reflection of the light incident on the second surface from outside of the glass body (an absorption layer 160 made of an anti-reflection film or a light absorbing coating material is formed on the back (second) surface of the glass body 110; see Figs. 1-3, 13; para. [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0049], [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the second surface comprises a total reflection area and a light guiding area (both the first and second major surfaces of the glass body 110 are used for total internal reflection within the glass body and thus include a total reflection area, and light incident on the light guiding layer 120 on the first surface is diffused and scattered in all directions to be guided towards the back (second) surface and be emitted at light guiding areas on that surface; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0030]-[0032], [0039]-[0043]), and the anti-reflection layer covers the total reflection area on the second surface (the anti-reflection layer 160 is formed on the back (second) surface of the glass body 110; see Figs. 1-3, 13; para. [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0049], [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the light guiding layer is a diffusion layer arranged on the first surface (the light guiding layer 120 is a layer of diffusion material arranged in a pattern on the first surface; see Figs. 1-5, 8-10; para. [0030]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0044]-[0046], [0048], [0055]-[0058]), and the anti-reflection layer is attached to and covers the second surface (the anti-reflection layer 160 is attached to the back/second surface of the glass body 110 to cover the second surface; see Figs. 1-3, 13; para. [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0049], [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the anti-reflection layer is a single-layer film or formed by laminating multiple layers of films (the anti-reflection layer 160 is formed as a single layer; see Figs. 1-3, 13; para. [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0049], [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the light guiding layer is discontinuously arranged on the first surface or the second surface (the light guiding layer 120 is a layer of diffusion material arranged in a pattern on the first surface; see Figs. 4-5; para. [0030]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the glass assembly comprises a first light source which emits the incident light totally reflected between the first surface and the second surface to realize illumination (light source 20; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0026]-[0027], [0039]-[0043], [0045]-[0046]), and the light incident on the second surface from the outside of the glass body is emitted by a second light source (light emitted from a separate light source outside the glass assembly 100 can be incident on the anti-reflective layer 160 on the second surface; see Figs. 1-3; para. para. [0036]-[0037], [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses wherein the glass body is monolithic glass or laminated glass (base plate 110 is made of glass; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0030]-[0031], [0053]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20120138371, see previously attached machine translation) in view of Bosgaerd et al. (US 2020/0079687, hereinafter “Bosgaerd”). The teachings of Lee have been discussed above.
Lee teaches wherein the light guiding layer is a layer provided on the first surface or the second surface and having a pattern (a layer of diffusion material 120 is arranged in a pattern on a surface of the glass body 110 to scatter/diffuse light incident on the diffusion material out of the glass body; see Figs. 1-5, 8-10; para. [0030]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0044]-[0046], [0048], [0055]-[0058]).
However, the teachings of Lee fail to specifically disclose the light guiding layer is an enamel printing layer or an ink printing layer.
Bosgaerd teaches a glass assembly (glass substrate; see para. [0001], [0033]-[0036]), wherein the glass assembly comprises a glass body having a first surface and a second surface which are oppositely arranged (glass substrate having top and bottom surfaces; see para. [0033]-[0036], [0041]); and a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface, wherein the light guiding layer is an enamel printing layer or an ink printing layer provided on the first surface or the second surface (a soft gel or sol-gel coating is provided on a surface of the glass substrate via ink jet printing; see para. [0041], [0100]).
Therefore, in view of Bosgaerd, 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 glass assembly of Lee by providing the light guiding layer as an enamel printing layer or an ink printing layer, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this case, modifying the known glass assembly of Lee by providing the light guiding layer as an enamel printing layer or an ink printing layer, as taught by Bosgaerd, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to ensure the light guiding layer is formed of an art-recognized equivalent material and is thus suitable for its intended purpose of functioning as a light guiding layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20120138371, see previously attached machine translation). The teachings of Lee have been discussed above.
Lee teaches wherein the anti-reflection layer is attached to the second surface (the anti-reflection layer 160 is formed on the back (second) surface of the glass body 110; see Figs. 1-3, 13; para. [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0049], [0069]-[0070]).
However, the teachings of Lee fail to specifically disclose the anti-reflection layer is attached by wet coating, physical vapor deposition, or chemical vapor deposition.
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 glass assembly of Lee by attaching the anti-reflection layer by utilizing a wet coating, physical vapor deposition, or chemical vapor deposition process, since it has been held by the courts that patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is disclosed, or suggested, by the Prior Art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113. In this case, modifying the known glass assembly of Lee by attaching the anti-reflection layer by utilizing a wet coating, physical vapor deposition, or chemical vapor deposition process would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to ensure the anti-reflection layer is attached to the second layer to perform its designed function.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20120138371, see previously attached machine translation) in view of Berard et al. (US 10,252,494, hereinafter “Berard”). The teachings of Lee have been discussed above.
However, regarding claim 16, the teachings of Lee fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the glass body is ultra-transparent float glass or non-ultra-transparent float glass.
Berard teaches a glass assembly (luminous glazing unit 100; see Fig. 1; col. 20, lines 50-67; col. 21, lines 1-45), wherein the glass assembly comprises a glass body having a first surface and a second surface which are oppositely arranged (the glass assembly 100 comprises a first glass substrate 1, referred to as a guiding glass pane, having a second main face 12 defining a first surface and a first main face 11 defining a second surface; see Fig. 1; col. 20, lines 50-67; col. 21, lines 1-14), wherein at least a portion of incident light entering the glass body is totally reflected between the first surface and the second surface (the glass body 1 is a guiding glass pane designed so that light injected into the glass body by light source 4 is totally internally reflected within the glass body to be guided through the glass body; see Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 14-22; col. 20, lines 50-67; col. 21, lines 1-14); wherein the glass body is ultra-transparent float glass or non-ultra-transparent float glass (the glass body 1 is made of float glass having a transparency of 94% or more, and can include Diamont which is ultra-transparent; see col. 15, lines 23-50).
Therefore, in view of Berard, 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 glass assembly of Lee by forming the glass body of ultra-transparent float glass or non-ultra-transparent float glass. One would have been motivated to modify the known glass assembly of Lee by ultra-transparent float glass or non-ultra-transparent float glass, as taught by Berard, in order to maximize the transparency of the glass body and thus increase the overall brightness of light emitted by the glass assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the anti-reflection layer is attached to the glass body (the anti-reflection layer 160 is attached to the back/second surface of the glass body 110 to cover the second surface; see Figs. 1-3, 13; para. [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0049], [0069]-[0070]).
However, the teachings of Lee fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the glass body is an ultra-transparent float glass with a transparent conductive oxide coating, and the anti-reflection layer is attached to the transparent conductive oxide coating.
Berard teaches wherein the glass body is an ultra-transparent float glass (the glass body 1 is made of float glass having a transparency of 94% or more, and can include Diamont which is ultra-transparent; see col. 15, lines 23-50) with a transparent conductive oxide coating (the second surface 11 of the glass body 1 has a transparent protective coating 3 which can be made of silica (aka SiO2 or silicon dioxide), or an oxide of preferably one of the elements Ti, Zr, Al, W, Sb, Hf, Ta, V, Mg, Mn, Co, Ni, Sn, Zn, Ce, and is therefore a transparent conductive oxide; see Fig. 1; Abstract; col. 4, lines 25-32; col. 5, lines 45-55; col. 21, lines 15-35).
Therefore, in view of Berard, 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 glass assembly of Lee by forming the glass body of an ultra-transparent float glass with a transparent conductive oxide coating on the second surface, such that the anti-reflection layer is attached to the transparent conductive oxide coating. One would have been motivated to modify the known glass assembly of Lee by forming the glass body of an ultra-transparent float glass with a transparent conductive oxide coating on the second surface, as taught by Berard, such that the anti-reflection layer is attached to the transparent conductive oxide coating, in order to maximize the transparency of the glass body and thus increase the overall brightness of light emitted by the glass assembly.
However, regarding claims 18 and 20, the teachings of Lee fail to disclose or fairly suggest a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle window glass, wherein the vehicle window glass is made of a glass assembly according to claim 1, and wherein the first surface of the glass body faces an outside of the vehicle and the second surface of the glass body faces an inside of the vehicle.
Berard teaches a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle window glass, wherein the vehicle window glass is made of a glass assembly (the glass assembly 100 is intended for a transport vehicle, such as an illuminating side window, an illuminating glazed roof, an illuminating window, or a rear window, in particular for private transportation such as motor vehicles or trucks, or for public transportation; see col. 16, lines 12-26; col. 17, lines 5-67), and wherein the first surface of the glass body faces an outside of the vehicle and the second surface of the glass body faces an inside of the vehicle (the first surface 12 is referred to as an outer face, and the second surface 11 is referred to as an inner face, and faces towards a second glass substrate 1′ that includes an opposite face 12′ which is directly visible and even accessible/touchable, which suggests it is on the driver’s side; see Fig. 1; col. 21, lines 3-44; col. 22, lines 42-45).
Therefore, in view of Berard, 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 glass assembly of Lee by providing the glass assembly as a vehicle window glass of a vehicle. One would have been motivated to modify the known glass assembly of Lee by providing the glass assembly as a vehicle window glass of a vehicle, as taught by Berard, in order to enable the glass assembly to be visible inside a vehicle during operation to provide a nighttime lighting function or display function for displaying various forms of information (see Berard, col. 17, lines 1-4 for the motivation).
Regarding claim 19, Berard teaches wherein the vehicle window glass is a front windshield, rear windshield, skylight glass, door glass, or corner window glass (the glass assembly 100 is intended for a transport vehicle, such as an illuminating side window, an illuminating glazed roof, an illuminating window, or a rear window, in particular for private transportation such as motor vehicles or trucks, or for public transportation; see col. 16, lines 12-26; col. 17, lines 5-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-8 are allowed.
Claims 4-5 and 21 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the claim is allowable because it has been rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of the base Claim 1 and intervening Claim 2, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 24 on pgs. 12-13 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/4/2025.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is considered to recite allowable subject matter for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 25 on pgs. 13-14 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/4/2025.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is considered to recite allowable subject matter for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 26 on pgs. 14-15 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/4/2025.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is allowable because it has been rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of the base Claim 1 and any intervening claims, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 27 on pg. 15 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/4/2025.
Claims 7-8 are allowable due to their dependence on allowable Claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “The glass assembly according to claim 1, wherein the light guiding layer is arranged on the second surface for guiding the incident light out of the second surface” (emphasis added).
The closest Prior Art, Lee (KR 20120138371), lacks the teaching of the light guiding layer being arranged on the same second surface as the anti-reflection layer to guide the incident light out of the second surface, as required by Claim 21.
Accordingly, although glass assemblies are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to Lee (KR 20120138371) that “Claim 1 expressly requires a light guiding layer arranged on one of the surfaces (first or second surface) to guide incident light out the second surface of the glass body” and that “Lee provides no disclosure of any such light-extraction or out-coupling layer. ON the contrary, Lee’s configuration ensures that light does not escape through the back surface” because “Lee then places absorption layer 160 on the back (second surface of the base plate specifically to intercept light reaching that surface”, and thus “Lee’s device is not configured to guide light out of the back surface at all. The reflective front layer and absorptive back layer together form a closed system where light is either reflected internally or absorbed -- not intentionally output through the back” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 6-7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Lee fails to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, “a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface for guiding the incident light out of the second surface” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 6-7), the Applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, the recitation “for guiding the incident light out of the second surface” in lines 5-6 of Claim 1 is a functional limitation. Therefore, in order to anticipate the limitation “a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface for guiding the incident light out of the second surface”, the Prior Art is required to teach a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface of the glass body which is capable of guiding the incident light out of the second surface.
Lee describes a glass assembly in the form of a light guide reflector 100 which comprises a base plate 110 made of glass which has opposed first and second surfaces on opposite sides, which are connected by two surfaces which serve as incident surfaces for at least one light source 20 that can be provided on left and/or right sides of the base plate; see Figs. 1-5; para. [0001], [0025]-[0043], [0073]). Lee explains that a layer of diffusion material 120 is arranged in a pattern on a top/first surface of the glass base plate 110 with a reflective film 140 formed over the diffusion material, to ensure light incident on the diffusion material is reflected back into the glass body via scattering/diffuse reflection and cannot exit from the top surface (see Figs. 1-5; para. [0030]-[0035], [0039]-[0042]). Lee additionally explains that because the intensity of the light becomes weaker the farther away it is from the light source 20, the diffusion material 120 is arranged in a dot pattern with a density per unit area increasing with increasing distance from the light source to ensure even intensity across the entire device (see Figs. 1-5; para. [0044]-[0046]). Therefore, light is not emitted from the top/first surface of Lee’s base plate 110, and Lee’s diffusion material 120 forms a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface for guiding the incident light away from the first surface.
Lee also describes that an absorption layer 160 comprising an anti-reflection film or a light absorbing coating material is formed on the back/second surface of the base plate 110 (see Figs. 1-3; para. [0021], [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0042]). As explained in par. [0036], the absorption/anti-reflection layer 160 refers to a film formed so that light is transmitted or absorbed rather than reflected at the interface between two media with different refractive indices, and that such anti-reflection films can be used to increase the intensity of transmitted light by reducing surface reflection of lenses/prisms, etc. while eliminating scattered light created by reflection. In other words, the absorption/anti-reflection layer 160 is explicitly described as being intended to transmit light and to increase the intensity of the light being transmitted. As further explained in para. [0037] and [0042], the absorption/anti-reflection layer 160 prevents the totally reflected light propagating within the base plate 110 from being totally reflected again by the diffusion material 120, by causing the light returned to the diffusion material to disappear by absorbing the reflected light when the light incident from a separate light source is totally reflected.
Since the diffusion material 120 and the reflective film 140 disposed on top of the diffusion material cause light propagating within the base plate 110 to be directed away from the top/first surface, and light enters the base plate 110 via at least one light source 20 being positioned at one or both of the surfaces connecting the first and second surfaces, this means the only other surface of the base plate described by Lee through which light can exit the base plate is the back surface containing the absorption/anti-reflective layer 160. Accordingly, the absorption/anti-reflective layer 160 causes light being directed away from the top/first surface by the diffusion material 120 to be transmitted through the second surface with increased intensity by reducing surface reflections and causing light from a separate light source being returned/reflected to the diffusion material to disappear by being absorbed.
Therefore, Lee discloses “a light guiding layer arranged on the first surface or the second surface for guiding the incident light out of the second surface” as recited in Claim 1.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Lee’s teachings actually exclude or discourage the claimed configuration” because “Lee is designed such that the back surface (second surface) is not used as an emission surface for the guided light” and therefore “This design “motivates away” from using the back surface as an output window for guided light” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 8-9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Lee teaches away from the claimed invention, it is noted that the Applicant is using “teaching away” in a much broader sense that it is legally accepted. For a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. See In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), and In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In this case, the question of whether a reference teaches away from a proposed modification or combination is only applicable to an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Since Claim 1 has not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and has instead only been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant’s argument is not germane to the rejection of Claim 1 and is therefore moot.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Lee is silent as to “an anti-reflection layer attached to the second surface to reduce reflection of the light incident on the second surface from outside of the glass body” as recited in claim 1” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Lee fails to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, “an anti-reflection layer attached to the second surface to reduce reflection of the light incident on the second surface from outside the glass body” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 9), the Applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, since the recitation “to reduce reflection of the light incident on the second surface from outside of the glass body” in lines 7-8 of Claim 1 is functional language, the only thing necessary to be taught by the Prior Art in order to anticipate the limitation “an anti-reflection layer attached to the second surface to reduce reflection of the light incident on the second surface from outside the glass body” is an anti-reflection layer attached to the second surface of the glass body, which is therefore capable of performing the claimed function. Lee teaches an absorption layer 160 comprising an anti-reflection film or a light absorbing coating material is formed on the back/second surface of the base plate 110 (see Figs. 1-3; para. [0021], [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0042]). As explained in par. [0036], the absorption/anti-reflection layer 160 refers to a film formed so that light is transmitted or absorbed rather than reflected at the interface between two media with different refractive indices, and that such anti-reflection films can be used to increase the intensity of transmitted light by reducing surface reflection of lenses/prisms, etc. while eliminating scattered light created by reflection. As further explained in para. [0037] and [0042], the absorption/anti-reflection layer 160 prevents the totally reflected light propagating within the base plate 110 from being totally reflected again by the diffusion material 120, by causing the light returned to the diffusion material to disappear by absorbing the reflected light when the light incident from a separate light source (i.e., another light source distinct from light sources 20 which is external to the device) is totally reflected.
Accordingly, the apparatus of Lee discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, and therefore Lee discloses “an anti-reflection layer attached to the second surface to reduce reflection of the light incident on the second surface from outside of the glass body” as recited in Claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875