Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/717,688

A LIGHTING UNIT FOR A VEHICLE DISPLAY AND METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
DELAHOUSSAYE, KEITH G
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
339 granted / 424 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
435
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 424 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/26/206 has overcome all rejections to claims 1-17 and the rejection to claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b). However, the rejection to claim 18 remains due to the reflector foil sheet that is a single sheet being omitted from the limitations while be included in claims 1 and 15. Further, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new interpretation of Watanabe as applied claim 18. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 20170276861 A1; relied upon in the Office Action filed on 01/12/2026) and alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Watanabe et al. (US 20170276861 A1; relied upon in the Office Action filed on 01/12/2026) and alternatively in view of Morabito et al. (US 20210033771 A1; relied upon in the Office Action filed on 01/12/2026; “Morabito”). Watanabe discloses a method of optimizing light rays for illuminating a display apparatus (optimizing light rays shown with light beams L1-L7 for the purpose reducing bright portions for backlight 10; shown in Fig 1-3 transposed with Fig 5 and described in at least ¶¶ 0040-0044 as well as optimizing as described below) for use in a motor vehicle (limitations following of for use is discussed below), the method comprising: transmitting light rays (L1 and L2), by way of a light transmitting panel (light guide plate 14, reflective surface reflection sheet 17f and lateral reflection sheets 17a-c, double-sided tape 15a-c; shown in at least Figs 1-2 and 5; hereinafter panel), through to a viewing side of a display apparatus (shown with L6 and L7 in Fig 2 and described in ¶ 0043); and emitting light rays (shown with L2; Fig 5; ¶ 0043), by way of at least one light source (a light source is inherent for the emission of light rays (L2; however for the purpose of completeness and compactness, the Examiner notes six LEDs 16 in Fig 1), across a breadth of the light transmitting panel (shown in Fig 5), wherein reflecting the emitting light rays (L2 being reflected as L6 and 7; Fig 5; ¶ 0043), by way of a reflector foil sheet (by way of 17a-c, f) applied to at least two sides of the light transmitting panel (17a-c are applied via 14a-c via 15a-c) with no air gaps therebetween (due to 15a-c, specifically at the portions of 17a-c that are covered by 15a-c, respectively) and to a light directing side of the light transmitting panel (17f applied to 14f; light directing shown with regard to direction of L7 from dot 18), such that emitting light rays (L2) and reflected light rays (L6 and L7) transmit through the light transmitting panel to the viewing side of the display apparatus (Fig 5), wherein at least one length of the light transmitting panel is partially applied with the reflector foil sheet (with length being the longest side, at least either of sides 14a and 14c or sides 14a and14b has to be the longest side; the reflector foil sheet (17a-c) is respectively applied to 14a-c via 15a-c; further, partial application of 17a to 14a is shown in Fig 5 as compared with Fig 4; the Examiner notes that the same application of 17a-17b to 14a-14b via 14a-15b is described in ¶ 0036) and the at least one length of the light transmitting panel (any of 14a-c) comprises a border portion (portion between respective 14a-c, 15a-c, and 17a-c) defined by surface unapplied with the reflector foil sheet (represented in Fig 5; the Examiner notes that the claim does not limit that the entirety of reflector sheet is gapless in application to the light transmitting panel, border portion aside; further, the claim does not limit to a singular sheet as done in claims 1 and 15). With regard to for use in a vehicle, the limitation is an intended use. The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966; see also MPEP 2111.02 (II). After review of Applicant’s specification and drawings, then comparing with the preamble, there are no limitations in the body of the claim that require a vehicle. Therefore, the limitation of for use in a vehicle has been carefully considered but does not carry patentable weight. Alternatively, for completeness of the record and compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Morabito teaches a lighting unit (at least light guide panel 752, a set of reflectors 756 (described in ¶ 0059), a set of LEDs 758, and printed circuit board 760 (shown in Fig 7B and described in ¶ 0059)) for a display apparatus (monitor assembly in view 700, Fig 7A, ¶ 0058) for use in a vehicle (at least communication use in a vehicle described in at least ¶ 0026). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA use the display apparatus Watanabe in a vehicle as taught (in at least principle) by Morabito for the added utility of communication (Morabito: ¶ 0026). Further, a PHOSITA would have had an expectation of success because Watanabe discloses and Morabito teaches a light guide, LEDs, and reflector for a display apparatus. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 7-17 are allowed. Below is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. After an updated search the closest prior art remains Gu (US 20190146145 A1; relied upon in the Office Action filed on 01/12/2026) and Watanabe. Re Claim 1: The closest prior art of record fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the reflector foil sheet that is a single sheet and of a border portion set forth in the claim. Re Claims 7-14: The claims are allowed due to their dependence on base claim 1. Re Claim 15: The closest prior art of record fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the reflector foil sheet that is a single sheet and of a border portion set forth in the claim. Re Claims 16-17: The claims are allowed due to their dependence on base claim 15. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With specific regard to gapless and the border portion, the Examiner has relied upon the first embodiment. The Examiner notes that neither Gu nor Watanabe disclose, teach, suggest, or suggest the combination of method, structure, and functionality of the single sheet and border portion (see claims 1 and 15 for analogous limitations). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST. 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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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. KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR. Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601940
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING BACK PLATE WITH GROOVE AND ASSEMBLY METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596222
ILLUMINATION DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596278
DUAL-VIEWING MODE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596293
LIGHT ADJUSTMENT DEVICE AND PHOTOGRAPHY AUXILIARY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585133
LIGHT SOURCE APPARATUS INCLUDING SPLITTER AND IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.9%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 424 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month