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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed 29 May 2024 has been entered. Currently Claims 1-3, and 5-18 are pending.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (U.S. Patent no. 10,429,032).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, a lamp cover 50 comprising: a main body portion including a first surface 54, 56, 57, a second surface provided on an opposite side from the first surface, and a bent shape portion (the bend between the reflection portion 54 and emission portion 51), wherein the main body portion includes an incident portion (seen to be the reflection portion 54) provided at the first surface and on which light emitted from a light source is incident, and an emission portion 51 provided on an opposite side from the incident portion with the bent shape portion interposed therebetween, and configured to emit light incident from the incident portion 54.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, wherein the emission portion 51 is provided at the second surface.
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses the lamp cover according to wherein the emission portion 51 is provided at a position intersecting the incident portion 54.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, the lamp cover according to claim 1 wherein at least one inclined surface 54 (Figure 14 surface 56) is formed at the first surface or at the second surface in a first region in which the incident portion is provided, the inclined surface directing the light incident from the incident portion toward the emission portion 51.
Regarding Claim 6, Choi discloses in Figure 14, the lamp cover 50 according to Claim 5 wherein the inclined surface 56 is recessed from the first surface 54, 56 or the second surface 51.
Regarding Claim 7, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, the lamp cover 50 according to The lamp cover according to Claim 5, wherein a plurality of the inclined surfaces 57 are provided along a direction toward the emission portion 51.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, the lamp cover according Claim 1wherein the bent shape portion is bent with the first surface 54,56,57 being on an inner side of the bent shape portion.
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, the lamp of Claim 5 wherein the bent shape portion is bent with the first surface 54, 56, 57 being on an inner side of the bent shape portion, and the inclined surface 56 is formed at the first surface.
Regarding Claim 12, Choi discloses in Figures 11-16, a lighting device comprising: the lamp cover 50 according to claim 1, a light source 62 configured to emit light.
Regarding Claim 13, Choi discloses the lighting device according to claim 12, further comprising: a reflecting portion 41 configured to reflect the light emitted by the light source 62 and to cause the reflected light to be incident on the incident portion.
Regarding Claim 17, Choi discloses the lighting device according to Claim 13 wherein the reflecting portion 41 includes at least one second recessed shape having an inner circumferential surface (the reflector 41 forms a circumferential recess as shown in Figure 12.
Regarding Claim 18, Choi discloses in Figures 1-4, a storage compartment 1 comprising: the lighting device according to claim 12; and a box body including a side wall portion 12 facing the emission portion.
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.
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.
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 applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. Patent No. 10,429,032) in view of Zhu (U.S. PG Publication No. 2011/0090672).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi does not disclose at least one first recessed shape having an inner circumferential surface is formed at the first surface or at the second surface in a second region in which the emission portion is provided wherein the first recessed shape is formed at the first surface in the second region.
Zhu discloses in Figure 2 and 4, scattering dots formed by circumferential recesses (scattering dots 320 and recess 322) on an inner surface of the light guide 302 for directing and scattering the light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate circumferential recesses or a recess on the light guide cover 50 to direct and scatter the light as required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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:
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest alone or in combination, .the reflecting portion 41 includes a first reflecting portion provided at a position through which an optical axis of the light source passes, and a second reflecting portion provided intersecting the first reflecting portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights