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
The amendment filed on 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Stout, Harbers, and Peil, even when combined, do not disclose or contemplate "a support element, ...; and a layer of light transmissive silicone rubber arranged between at least a portion of the injection molded optical element and at least a portion of the support element, ..., wherein a first portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the injection molded optical element, wherein a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to and in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber, wherein the first portion of the support element is free of being adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber and wherein the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber" as recited (emphasis added). The Examiner allegedly acknowledges that Stout does not teach any of these features. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner made no such ‘acknowledgement’, in fact the examiner states quite clearly that Stout teaches “a support element (100), wherein a first portion of the support element (the part in slot 202) is directly adjacent (see Fig. 3) to the injection molded optical element (200), wherein the first portion of the support element is free of being adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Fig. 3)”. Thus, the only thing Stout is missing it the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber adhering the second portion of the support element.
Applicant further argues that Harbers does not teach or contemplate the feature of "a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to and in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber,". The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection was over Stout in view of Harbers and Peil; the “a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to and in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber” limitation is taught by Peil.
Applicant argues that in Peil, every portion of the support element is either fully, i.e., including the edges as in FIGS. 2 and 3B, or partially, i.e., just the surface as in FIG. 3A, coupled to the silicone. In contradistinction, in the instant claims, a first portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the injection molded optical element, a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to and in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber of the support element, the first portion is free of being adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber, and the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Stout, the primary reference, teaches a first portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the injection molded optical element (see Stout Fig. 3), the first portion is free of being adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Stout Fig. 3). Harbers teaches “the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (Harbers paragraph 40)”. Thus, the only limitation Peil needs to supply is “a second portion of the support element (2) is directly adjacent to and in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber of the support element (see Peil Fig. 14)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout (US 2019/0187445 A1) in view of Harbers et al. (US 2015/0078004 A1) and Peil et al. (US 2013/0193592 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Stout teaches “an aircraft light (400), comprising: a support element (100), supporting at least one light source (103), wherein the at least one light source is at least one LED (paragraph 16); an injection molded optical element (200), made of light transmissive silicone rubber (paragraph 20), wherein a first portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the injection molded optical element (see Fig. 3), wherein the first portion of the support element is free of being adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Fig. 3)”
Stout does not specifically teach “a layer of light transmissive silicone rubber arranged between at least a portion of the injection molded optical element and at least a portion of the support element, wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber provides adhesion between the injection molded optical element and the support element, and a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber, wherein the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber ”.
However, Harbers teaches “a layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (177) arranged between (see Fig. 4) at least a portion of the injection molded optical element (analogous to 174) and at least a portion of the support element (164), wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber provides adhesion between the injection molded optical element and the support element (paragraph 40), and a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Fig. 4; note the special definition of “directly adjacent” provided in paragraph 20 of the specification), wherein the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (paragraph 40)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element in order to separate and protect the LEDs and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30) as well as adhering the optical element to the support element (Harbers paragraph 40).
Stout does not teach that the second portion of the support element is in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber.
However, Peil teaches the second portion of the support element (2) is in contact with (paragraph 20; see every Fig. except 7b) the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (12).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the aircraft light of Stout by contacting the support element with the layer of light transmissive silicone as taught by Peil in order to guarantee an efficient protection of the substrate (Peil paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 2: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout further teaches “wherein the injection molded optical element is a pre-formed, originally separate component (paragraph 20)”.
With respect to claim 3: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
The combination of Stout and Harbers teaches “wherein the injection molded optical element is made of the same kind of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Stout paragraph 20) as the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Harbers paragraph 40); wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is in particular cross-linked to the injection molded optical element”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element in order to separate and protect the LED and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 5: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout does not specifically teach “wherein the at least one light source is embedded within the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber”.
However, Harbers teaches “wherein the at least one light source is embedded within the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element, embedding the light sources therein, in order to separate and protect the LEDs and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 6: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout further teaches “wherein the injection molded optical element comprises a recess for accommodating the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber, wherein the recess is in particular open towards the at least one light source (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 7: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 6 (see above)”.
Stout does not specifically teach “wherein the recess has a diameter (d) of between 5 mm and 150 mm; and/or wherein the recess has a depth (h) of between 1 mm and 10 mm”.
However, Harbers teaches “wherein the recess has a diameter (d) of between 5 mm and 150 mm, in particular a diameter (d) of between 10 mm and 80 mm; and/or wherein the recess has a depth (h) of between 1 mm and 10 mm, in particular a depth (h) of between 2 mm and 7 mm (paragraph 37)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by making the depth of the recess conform to Harbers’ in order to allow light mixing and make room for wire bonds (Harbers paragraph 37).
With respect to claim 9: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout further teaches “wherein the injection molded optical element is positioned on the support element employing a kinematic coupling fixture (201), which establishes a fixed position of the injection molded optical element on the support element (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 10: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout teaches “wherein the aircraft light is an exterior aircraft light (paragraph 1), wherein the exterior aircraft light is at least one of a red-flashing anti-collision beacon light, a white anti-collision strobe light, a landing light, a take-off light, a taxi light , a runway turn-off light, a navigation light, a logo light, a wing scan light, an engine scan light, a cargo loading light, or a multi-functional exterior aircraft light, which combines the functionalities of at least two of a red-flashing anti-collision beacon light, a white anti-collision strobe light, a landing light, a take-off light, a taxi light, a runway turn-off light, a navigation light, a logo light, a wing scan light, an engine scan light, and a cargo loading light (paragraph 2); or wherein the aircraft light is an interior aircraft light, such as a general cabin illumination light, a signal light, or a passenger reading light”.
With respect to claim 11: Stout teaches “an aircraft, such as an airplane or a helicopter or a multicopter (paragraph 2)”.
Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “comprising at least one aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element in order to separate and protect the LEDs and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 12: Stout teaches “a method of manufacturing an aircraft light (method of making 400), wherein the method comprises: injection molding (paragraph 20) an injection molded optical element (200) from liquid light transmissive silicone rubber (paragraph 20); providing a support element (100), supporting least one light source (103), wherein the at least one light source at least one LED (paragraph 16); wherein the support portion comprises a first portion (the edge) and a second portion (the interior); placing the injection molded optical element on the support element (see Fig. 3), wherein the first portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the injection molded optical element (see Fig. 3) wherein the first portion of the support element is free of being adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Fig. 3)”
Stout does not teach “providing adhesion between the injection molded optical element and the support element by molding a layer of light transmissive silicone rubber between at least a portion of the injection molded optical element and at least a portion of the support element, a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber, wherein the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber”.
However, Harbers teaches “providing adhesion (paragraph 40) between the injection molded optical element (74) and the support element (64) by molding a layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (77) between at least a portion of the injection molded optical element and at least a portion of the support element (see Fig. 4), a second portion of the support element is directly adjacent to the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Fig. 4; note special definition of “directly adjacent” provided in paragraph 20 of the specification), wherein the second portion of the support element is adhered to the injection molded optical element via the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (paragraph 40)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element in order to separate and protect the LED and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30).
Stout does not teach that the second portion of the support element is in contact with the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber.
However, Peil teaches the second portion of the support element (2) is in contact with (paragraph 20; see every Fig. except 7b) the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (12).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the aircraft light of Stout by contacting the support element with the layer of light transmissive silicone as taught by Peil in order to guarantee an efficient protection of the substrate (Peil paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 14: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “the method according to claim 12 (see above)”.
Stout teaches “wherein the molding of the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber includes at least one of: positioning the injection molded optical element on the support element employing a kinematic coupling fixture (201); passing liquid light transmissive silicone rubber through at least one opening formed in the support element; filling liquid light transmissive silicone rubber into a recess that is formed in the injection molded optical element and that faces the support element; molding the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber via gravity molding”.
With respect to claim 15: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “the aircraft light manufactured in accordance with the method according to claim 12 (see above)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element in order to separate and protect the LED and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 16: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “The aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout further teaches “wherein the injection molded optical element is a pre-formed, originally separate lens (see Fig. 2)”.
Claims 4, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of Harbers and Peil as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enke (US 2012/0320595 A1).
With respect to claim 4: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “the aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout does not specifically teach “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is molded at a lower pressure (plow) than the injection molded optical element, wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is in particular gravity molded”.
However, Enke teaches “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is molded at a lower pressure (plow) than the injection molded optical element (paragraphs 14-17)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by the two step process using an initial low-pressure step as taught by Enke in order to ensure protection of the LEDs and electrical components with an inexpensive process (Enke paragraphs 13, 18).
With respect to claim 17: Stout in view of Harbers, Peil and Enke teaches “the aircraft light according to claim 4 (see above)”.
Stout does not specifically teach “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is in particular gravity molded”.
However, Enke teaches “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is in particular gravity molded” (paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by the two step process using an initial low-pressure step as taught by Enke in order to ensure protection of the LEDs and electrical components with an inexpensive process (Enke paragraphs 13, 18).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of Harbers and Peil as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aanegola et al. (US 2014/0328046 A1).
With respect to claim 8: Stout in view of Harbers teaches “the aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Stout does not specifically teach “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber comprises at least one protrusion, in particular two or more protrusions, extending through the support element and/or around the support element”.
However, Aanegola teaches “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (76) comprises at least one protrusion, in particular two or more protrusions (80, 82), extending through the support element (10) and/or around the support element”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by including the protrusions through the support element as taught by Aanegola in order to seal openings through which the silicone was injected during manufacturing (Aanegola paragraph 112).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of Harbers and Peil applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loh et al. (US 2008/0079017 A1).
With respect to claim 13: Stout in view of Harbers and Peil teaches “the aircraft light according to claim 1 (see above)”.
The combination of Stout and Harbers teaches “wherein the injection molded optical element is made of the same kind of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Stout paragraph 20) as the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (see Harbers paragraph 40)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft light of Stout by adding the silicone adhesive layer taught by Harbers between the support element and the optical element in order to separate and protect the LED and associated wire bonds from the environment (Harbers paragraph 30).
Stout does not specifically teach “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber is cross-linked to the injection molded optical element”.
However, Loh teaches “wherein the layer of light transmissive silicone rubber (42) is cross-linked (paragraph 25) to the injection molded optical element (44)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the aircraft light of Stout by cross-linking the light transmissive silicone rubber as taught by Loh so that that the relative positions of all components within the assembly will not be altered by mishandling, vibrations or shock (Loh paragraph 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan et al. (US 8592857 B2), which teaches an LED package and method of making it.
Mueller et al. (US 2008/0048200 A1), which teaches an LED package and method of making it.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights