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 .
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) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtawa et al. (CN 209688741 U) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2014224712 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ohtawa et al. teaches a vehicle interior illumination lamp comprising: a design panel (optical device 7; figure 7) including a light transmission portion (55) in at least a part of a front surface side of the design panel (7), the light transmission portion being configured to transmit light (light guide 52);
a light source (53; figure 7) configured to emit light toward the front surface side of the design panel;
a reflector (56) arranged at a position facing the light transmission portion of the design panel (see figure 7) and configured to reflect light from the light source (53) and
a light guide prism (light guide 54 and pattern 56; figure 7) that is disposed adjacent to the light source (light source module 11) is located and that is incident light from the light source (53), an emission prism (52) that is disposed adjacent to the light guide prism (54) and emits light derived from the light guide prism toward the light transmission unit of the design panel (see figure 7).
Ohtawa et al. does not explicitly teach a light introduction portion arranged on the reflector at a side where the light source is positioned and a crescent-shaped main body include a plurality of second lens cuts along a side surface of the crescent shaped prism main body in a longitudinal direction of the crescent-shaped prism main body.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
381
202
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi teaches a light introduction portion (51) arranged on the reflector at a side where the light source (43) is positioned and a crescent-shaped main body (63; see figure 3) include a plurality of second lens cuts (prisms 60) along a side surface of the crescent shaped prism main body (63) in a longitudinal direction of the crescent-shaped prism main body (63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohtawa et al. to include a light introduction portion and a crescent shaped main body as taught by Kobayashi to provide a display device capable of displaying gradation of smooth brightness change in a light emitting region (see Abstract of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 2, Ohtawa et al. further teaches the vehicle interior illumination lamp, wherein the emission prism (light guide body 52; see figure 7) includes a plurality of first lens cuts arranged on a back surface of the emission prism (light guide body 52; see figures 4 and 7) at a side of the reflector and configured to refract light.
PNG
media_image4.png
369
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ohtawa et al. further teaches the vehicle interior illumination lamp wherein the light transmission portion (55 and 57 ) includes a pair of light transmission portions arranged on both sides of the front surface side (figures 7), a portion of the design panel (figure 7) other than the pair of light transmission portions is a non-light transmission portion that does not transmit light (steps 56 which reflect light; see figure 7), and emission surfaces (57) of the emission prism (54) are arranged so as to face the pair of light transmission portions (see figure 7), respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Ohtawa et al. modified by Kobayashi teaches the vehicle interior illumination lamp according to claim 1, but Ohtawa et al. is silent about wherein the light introduction portion is provided at a distal end of the crescent-shaped prism main body and has a portion closer to the light source than the crescent-shaped prism main body.
Kobayashi further teaches wherein the light introduction portion (51; figure 2) is provided at a distal end of the crescent-shaped prism main body (63) and has a portion closer to the light source (43) than the crescent-shaped prism main body (63; see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohtawa et al. to include a light introduction portion and a crescent shaped main body as taught by Kobayashi to provide a display device capable of displaying gradation of smooth brightness change in a light emitting region (see Abstract of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 6, Ohtawa et al. modified Kobayashi teaches the vehicle interior illumination lamp according to claim 1, but Ohtawa et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the emission prism has a trapezoidal shape in a plan view.
Kobayashi teaches wherein an emission prism has a trapezoidal shape (see figure 2) in plan view.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited trapezoidal shape through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the shape is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another shape. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtawa et al. (CN 209688741 U) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2014224712 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2022/0397252 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ohtawa et al. modified by Kobayashi teaches vehicle interior illumination lamp according to claim 1, but Ohtawa et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the emission prism includes a plurality of first lens cuts arranged on a back surface of the emission prism at a side of the reflector and configured to refract light, a plurality of first lens cuts include a plurality of first grooves, the plurality of second lens cuts include a plurality of second grooves, and sizes of the plurality of first grooves are smaller than sizes of the plurality of second grooves.
Kikuchi et al. further teaches wherein the emission prism includes a plurality of first lens cuts (51) arranged on a back surface of the emission prism at a side of the reflector (3) and configured to refract light, a plurality of first lens cuts (51) include a plurality of first grooves (see figure 4), the plurality of second lens cuts (40) include a plurality of second grooves (40a), and sizes of the plurality of first grooves are smaller than sizes of the plurality of second grooves (see figure 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
418
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohtawa et al. to include emission prism including a plurality of first cuts as taught by Kikuchi et al. so that the lamp is capable of reducing brightness and unevenness during lighting (see paragraph [0005] and [0015] of Kikuchi et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s arguments. A new reference, Kobayashi, has been found to teach the claim limitations. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875