DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-3, 6-8, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (U.S. 2006/0221274) in view of Montgomery (U.S. 2010/0238367) and Miller (U.S. 2021/0396373).
Regarding claim 1, Lv teaches lighting device, the lighting device (see fig. 2) comprising:
at least one light source (light source 20);
a light guide (lower panel 14, operates as light guide) with an input surface and at least one output surface that includes an output surface arranged adjacent to a liquid crystal layer (liquid crystal layer not shown, but between 14 and 12, see p. 0024, 0026), the lighting device being configured such that the light generated by the at least one light source enters the light guide at least partially through the input surface and exits at least partially from the output surface (emitting surface 143, see fig. 3) arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer (outputs into liquid crystal layer and then 12);
an LC display (100) having a first plate and a second plate (12, 14) that oppose one another with the liquid crystal layer arranged between the first plate and the second plate, the two plates of the LC display each being at least partially transparent (transparent panels 12, 14 transmit light);
wherein the first plate of the LC display is formed by the light guide (14),
wherein the lighting device is configured such that the light emerging from the output surface of the light guide, that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer, passes at least partially through the liquid crystal layer of the LC display and subsequently through the second plate (see fig. 2), and
wherein the light guide has a structuring (scattering dots 144, see p. 0027) arranged on a surface thereof, the surface being opposite the output surface of the light guide that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer, so that the light moving through the light guide is at least partially deflected by the structuring and emerges from the light guide through the output surface arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer (see p. 0027).
Lv does not teach that the lighting device is used for a vehicle and that the second plate and the light guide have a curved shape.
Montgomery teaches an LC display lighting device used for a vehicle (see p. 0205, display console in car) wherein the second plate and the light guide have a curved shape (see figure 7a, see p. 0014 flexible LC display, see p. 0125 flexible light guide)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the structure flexible layers of Montgomery to form the LC display of Lv as the use of such flexible layer results in more possible applications, being able to contour to additional places of installation.
Lv and Montgomery do not specifically teach wherein the LC display is controlled to fulfill a signal function of a tail light, a tail brake light, a tail-flashing light, a position daytime running light, or a position flashing light of the vehicle.
Mill teaches wherein the LC display is controlled to fulfill a signal function of a tail light, a tail brake light, a tail-flashing light, a position daytime running light, or a position flashing light of the vehicle (see p. 0002, turn signal, fog lamp, pedestrian notification lamps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the liquid crystal structure of Lv and Montgomery to be applied on the insider of a vehicle lamp as taught by Miller to enable additional functionality to the lamp assemblies of a vehicle in a known manner, see p. 0002.
The Examiner additionally notes that the recitation of the intended use of the LC display as recited has been interpreted as intended use. Such limitations cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the prior art because they are seen as intended use/result. Only structural and some functional limitations are given patentable weight, the limitation as written does not clearly set forth a function or structure, only the intended location and usage of the structure taught by the prior art.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 2, Lv teaches that the lighting device is configured such that the LC display is controlled in order to selectively allow parts of the light emerging from the output surface of the light guide, that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal laver, to pass through the LC display and to not allow other parts of the light emerging from the output surface of the light guide, that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer, to pass through the LC display (use of LCD, blocks or filters lights of different wavelengths to form image).
Regarding claim 3, Lv teaches that the input surface of the light guide is formed as an end face (see fig. 2), wherein a length and width of the light guide in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular thereto is significantly greater than a thickness of the light guide in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions, and wherein the output surface, arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer, is arranged in a plane spanned by the first and second directions and the input surface is arranged in a plane spanned by the second and third directions.
Regarding claim 6, Lv teaches that the lighting device has a reflective layer (reflector 30) which is arranged on the surface of the light guide that is opposite the output surface that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal laver.
Regarding claim 7, Lv teaches that the lighting device has a reflector disposed outside the light guide, wherein the lighting device is configured such that light emerges from the surface of the light guide that is opposite the output surface that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer, is reflected by the reflector in a direction towards the light guide, again enters the light guide through the surface of the light guide that is opposite the output surface that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal layer, and emerges from the light guide through the output surface that is arranged adjacent to the liquid crystal laver so that the light passes through the liquid crystal layer of the LC display and subsequently through the LC display plate (see p. 0027, propagates through bottom surface and is reflected back into the panel).
Regarding claim 8, Lv teaches that the at least one light source is formed as a light-emitting diode, and wherein multiple light emitting diodes are provided (see p. 0028).
Regarding claim 12, Lv teaches that the LC display has a plurality of segments which are controlled independently of one another (pixels for LC display, displays images, see p. 0010; pixels can be grouped into any size/shape of segments depending on the resolution of the device).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lv and Montgomery teaches that the independently controllable segments of the LC display differ from one another in terms of size of the segments and/or shape of the segments (Lv teaches that the LC display displays images, see abstract, liquid crystal orientation enables different segments/sizes to be displayed, Montgomery further teaches using the display as an eink or mobile display, i.e. displaying images using the twist in the liquid crystal).
Regarding claim 15, Montgomery teaches that the second plate and light guide are flexible (flexible panel and backlight, see p. 0050).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv in view of Montgomery and Miler, further in view of Maeda (U.S. 6,628,357).
Regarding claim 9, Lv does not teach that the LC display is a passive LC display.
Maeda teaches that the LC display is a passive lc display (see col. 4 lines 14-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a passive LC display as taught by Maeda as the LC display of Lv as passive LC displays are well known for being cheaper to produce and have a higher transparency and are well within the conventional skill of the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv in view of Montgomery and Miller, further in view of Shen (U.S. 12,117,702, filed 7/23/2021 as PCT EP 2021/070664, all references made to US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 10, Lv does not teach that the LC display is a guest-host display or a smart glass display.
Shen teaches that the LC display is a smart glass display (see col. 5 lines 5-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a smartglass display as taught by Shen to enable the structure of Lv and Montgomery to become fully opaque when needed and to provide additional control of the LC layer.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv in view of Montgomery and Miller, further in view of Zhong (U.S. 9,459,487).
Regarding claim 11, Lv does not teach that the LC display is an LC display doped with color pigments.
Zhong teaches that the LC display is doped with color pigments (see abstract, doped with dichroic dye).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used doped LC layers to provide color to the LC panels of Lv, thereby enabling the panel of Lv to be used for a signalling device or having a specific color, i.e. increasing the applications of the device of Lv.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv in view of Montgomery and Miller, further in view of Kim (U.S. 2007/0091232).
Regarding claim 14, Lv does not specifically teach that the LC display plate is formed of glass or of an at least partially transparent plastic.
Kim teaches that the second plate is formed of glass or of an at least partially transparent plastic (transparent plastic, see p. 0011, flexible LCD comprising first and second plastic substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used glass as an LC display plate as a flexible plastic as taught by Kim in the structure of LV as the flexible plastic is established as a suitable material for the use of a flexible LCD (see p. 0038) and is thin, lightweight, flexible, impact resistant, and inexpensive (see p. 0038).
The Examiner additionally notes that Kim is particularly compelling as it further teaches a first plate that is formed as a light guide (see substrate 100) with a structuring arranged on a surface thereof (convex lenses).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights