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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At present, the prior art to Futterer (U.S. Publication 2014/0376207 A1) and Mugge (DE 102021113410 A1) remains commensurate to the scope of the claims as cited by the Applicant and as broadly interpreted by the Examiner [MPEP 2111], which is elucidated and expounded upon below.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning the limitation, “a holographic optical element formed in the waveguide portion and configured to reconstruct a hologram by means of the light,” it remains clear that the holographic volume grating 14 is necessary and configured to “construct” (i.e., “reconstruct” – note claim objection below) a hologram by means of light. In this case, the lightguide with the holographic volume grating 14 is a necessary component to form the hologram in the spatial light modulator; thus, the holographic optical element (14) is configured to construct a hologram by means of the light as it is configured to form an interference pattern of the hologram. In addition, the holographic optical element could be interpreted to include both the holographic volume grating (14) and the spatial light modulator (7) of Futterer, as noted in the prior art rejection below.
All arguments hinge on the above and have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: “to reconstruct a hologram by means of light” is suggested to read as “to construct a hologram by means of light,” whereby a hologram is not being reconstructed as it does not appear to have been constructed beforehand within the lighting device. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9, 16-21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futterer (U.S. Publication 2014/0376207 A1).
With regards to Claim 1, Futterer discloses a lighting device [Figures 1-2] including:
A light source (4) configured to transmit light along a beam path [e.g., (3)],
An optical element (8, 9) arranged along the beam path and configured to reduce a divergence of the light, and
An optical block (10) arranged downstream of the optical element in the beam path and including:
A coupling portion with a coupling face arranged to couple light into the optical block [note Figure 1: entrance point], and
A waveguide portion (13) extending away from the coupling portion and configured to guide the light by multiple reflections between a top side and an underside of the waveguide portion,
A holographic optical element (14/16, 7) formed in the waveguide portion and configured to reconstruct a hologram by means of the light [note Figures 1-2].
With regards to Claim 2, Futterer discloses the thickness of the optical block being greater in a region of the coupling portion than in a region of the waveguide portion [note Figures 1-2: broad and relative with respect to ‘portions’].
With regards to Claim 3, Futterer discloses the coupling portion including a reflection face arranged opposite the coupling face and configured to deflect the beam path of the light toward the waveguide portion in the optical block [note Figures 1-2].
With regards to Claim 4, Futterer discloses the reflection face being arranged to the beam path of the light in such a way that the light is deflected by total-internal reflection [note Figures 1-2].
With regards to Claim 5, Futterer discloses the light source (4) being arranged offset in relation to the optical block in a longitudinal direction of the waveguide portion [note Figures 1-2].
With regards to Claim 6, Futterer discloses the light source (4) being arranged such that the light reaches the optical block without deflection of the beam path [note Figure 2].
With regards to Claim 7, Futterer discloses a beam cross section of the beam path at the coupling face being in a range of 100% to 500% of a thickness of the optical block in the region of the waveguide portion [note Figure 1].
With regards to Claim 8, Futterer discloses a longitudinal extent of the waveguide portion is at least five times as long as a longitudinal extent of the coupling portion [note Figures 1-2: broad and relative with respect to ‘portions’].
With regards to Claim 9, Futterer discloses a longitudinal extent of the waveguide portion corresponds to a total of at least five reflections of the light between the top side and underside of the waveguide portion [note Figure 1].
With regards to Claim 16, Futterer discloses the optical element (8, 9) being configured to deflect the beam path coming from the light source toward the coupling face [e.g., Figure 1: (9)].
With regards to Claim 17, Futterer discloses the optical element (8, 9) being embodied as a concavely arched mirror or as a converging lens [e.g., (8)].
With regards to Claim 18, Futterer discloses the coupling face being oriented at right angles to a central ray of the beam path of the light [note Figure 1].
With regards to Claim 19, Futterer discloses the holographic optical element being formed on the top side and/or the underside of the waveguide portion [note Figure 2].
With regards to Claim 20, Futterer discloses the holographic optical element (14/16, 7) being configured such that a decoupling efficiency of the light adopts greater values for positions arranged further away from the coupling portion [note Figures 1-2].
With regards to Claim 21, Futterer discloses the holographic optical element (14/16, 7) being configured such that a dependence of a decoupling efficiency on a position along the waveguide portion compensates for a reduction in the amount of light due to the light being decoupled from the waveguide portion upstream [note Figures 1-2].
With regards to Claim 25, Futterer discloses the holographic element (14/16, 7) formed in the waveguide portion includes a previously recorded holographic optical element configured to reconstruct at least one of a pictorial motif or a three-dimensional hologram in a viewing region above a surface of the waveguide (13) [note Figures 1-2; Abstract].
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer (U.S. Publication 2014/0376207 A1).
With regards to Claim 10, Futterer discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach a longitudinal extent of the holographic optical element being in the range of 20% to 80% of a longitudinal extent of the waveguide portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have ensured the longitudinal extent of the holographic optical element to be in the range of 20% to 80% of a longitudinal extent of the waveguide portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, ensuring the longitudinal extent of the holographic optical element to be in the range of 20% to 80% of a longitudinal extent of the waveguide portion would ensure appropriate illumination/imaging as desired based on application.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer (U.S. Publication 2014/0376207 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mugge (DE 102021113410 A1).
With regards to Claim 11, Futterer discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach a fastening element configured to secure the optical block to a cheek of a flap of a motor vehicle.
Mugge teaches a fastening element (3) configured to secure an optical block [e.g., (9/9”)] to a cheek of a flap of a motor vehicle [e.g., (15) and Paragraph 15].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting device of Futterer to have incorporated the fastening element to secure the optical block to a cheek of a flap of a motor vehicle, as taught in principle by Mugge, in order to provide various lighting/imaging within different places of the vehicle interior as desired.
With regards to Claim 12, Futterer in view of Mugge discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Mugge teaches the fastening element (3) securing the optical block (9/9”) at an engagement face of a coupling portion of the optical block [note Figures 1-5].
With regards to Claim 13, Futterer in view of Mugge discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Mugge teaches an optical element [e.g., (5’)] on the optical block being arranged below the fastening element [note Figures 1-5].
With regards to Claim 14, Futterer in view of Mugge discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Mugge teaches the fastening element [e.g., (3)] including a cutout in which a light source [e.g., (8)] is arranged [note Figures 1-5].
With regards to Claim 15, Futterer in view of Mugge discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Mugge teaches the fastening element [e.g., (3)] extends flush away from the top side of the optical block [note Figures 1-5].
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer (U.S. Publication 2014/0376207 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mugge (DE 102021113410 A1).
With regard to Claims 22-24, Futterer discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above, but does not specifically teach a motor vehicle including a flap and the lighting device on a cheek of the flap, wherein the lighting device is integrated in a perpendicular body pillar or a skirt of an interior door.
Mugge teaches a motor vehicle including a flap [e.g., (15) and Paragraph 15] and a lighting device (1) having a fastening element (3) on a cheek of the flap [note Figures 1-5], wherein the lighting device is integrated in a perpendicular body pillar or a skirt of an interior door.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting device of Futterer to have incorporated the lighting device on a cheek of a flap of a motor vehicle, wherein the lighting device is integrated in a perpendicular body pillar or a skirt of an interior door, as taught in principle by Mugge, in order to provide various lighting/imaging within different places of the vehicle interior as desired.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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.
Friday, January 9, 2026
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875