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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valois (US 2023/0012810 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Valois teaches a vehicle lamp (see paragraph [0001] where invention relates to the field of lighting and light signaling, especially for automotive vehicles) that includes a light source (see figure 1-3; light source 8; paragraph [0033]) and a rod-shaped light guide body (light guide 2; figures 1-3) and that is configured to cause light emitted from the light source (8; figure 1-3) to enter the light guide body (2) from an incident part (entrance face 6; see figure 3 and paragraph [0033]) provided on a base end side of the light guide body (2), guide the light toward a tip side of the light guide body (2; see figure 1-3 where light is guided through guide body 2), and emit the light reflected by a plurality of reflection cuts (12; see figure 1; paragraph [0033]) provided on a back surface side of the light guide body (2; see at figure 1 and 2) from a front surface side of the light guide body (2) to the outside of the light guide body (2; see figure 2 and 3), thereby causing a light emitting part (14) provided on the front surface side of the light guide body (2) to emit light, the vehicle lamp further including:
a curved part (6.1; figure 2 and 3)in which a part of the light guide body (2) is curved between the incident part (6) and the light emitting part (14; see figure 2); and
an upright wall (6.2) standing up from a front surface side of the curved part by cutting out a part of the curved part (6.1) on the front surface side in an axial direction, wherein the upright wall (lateral portions 6.2; see paragraph [0039]) forms a reflective surface that reflects light guided in the curved part (see paragraph [0039] where lateral portions are configured to reflect light).
Regarding claim 2, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 1, wherein two of the upright walls (6.2; figure 2) facing each other are provided in a central portion of the curved part (6.1) on a front surface side (see figure 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 2, wherein the upright walls (6.2; figure 2 and 3) are provided on both side surfaces of a convex portion (see figure 2 and 3) which is formed by cutting out both sides of the central portion of the curved part (6.1; see figure 2 and 3) on the front surface side in the axial direction (see figure 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 2, wherein the upright walls (6.2; paragraph [0039]) are provided on both side surfaces of a concave portion (see figure 3) which is formed by cutting out the central portion of the curved part (see figure 2; central portion 12) on the front surface side in the axial direction (see figure 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of reflection cuts (12; see figure 2), provided on the back surface side of the light guide body (light guide 2), are formed by cutting out in a vertical direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the light guide body (2) and are aligned in the axial direction (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 7, wherein a pair of reflective surfaces (lateral portions 6.2) are provided on both sides of the back surface side of the light guide body (2) while having the plurality of reflection cuts (see figure 2) sandwiched between the pair of reflective surfaces (6.2), the pair of reflective surfaces (6.2) being constituted by concave curved surfaces, which are curved in an arc shape, in a cross section in the vertical direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the light guide body (2).
Regarding claim 9, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 1, wherein a curvature of the curved part (6.1; see figure 2) is equal to or greater than R18.5 on a central axis of the curved part (6.1).
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) 5, 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valois (US 2023/0012810 A1) in view of Potter et al. (US 2016/0109084 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts are provided on a front surface side of the curved part.
Potter et al. teaches a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts (12c; figure 1E; paragraph [0074] are provided on a front surface side of the curved part (see figure 1E where 12c is provided on curved part 12b)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved part of Valois to include a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts as taught by Potter et al. to promote uniformity by introducing an amount of scattering into the projected beams or rays (see paragraph [0074] of Potter et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 5, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts are constituted by a plurality of knurlings extending in the axial direction of the curved part and arranged in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the curved part.
Potter et al. teaches wherein the plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts (scallops 12c; see figure 1E and paragraph [0074]) are constituted by a plurality of knurlings (see scallops 12c; see paragraph [0074]) extending in the axial direction of the curved part (12b) and arranged in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction (see figure 1E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved part of Valois to include a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts as taught by Potter et al. to promote uniformity by introducing an amount of scattering into the projected beams or rays (see paragraph [0074] of Potter et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 2, but is silent about wherein a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts are provided on a front surface side of the curved part. Potter et al. teaches a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts (12c; figure 1E; paragraph [0074] are provided on a front surface side of the curved part (see figure 1E where 12c is provided on curved part 12b)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved part of Valois to include a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts as taught by Potter et al. to promote uniformity by introducing an amount of scattering into the projected beams or rays (see paragraph [0074] of Potter et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 10, but is silent about wherein the plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts are constituted by a plurality of knurlings extending in the axial direction of the curved part and arranged in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the curved part.
Potter et al. teaches wherein the plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts (scallops 12c; see figure 1E and paragraph [0074]) are constituted by a plurality of knurlings (see scallops 12c; see paragraph [0074]) extending in the axial direction of the curved part (12b) and arranged in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction (see figure 1E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved part of Valois to include a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts as taught by Potter et al. to promote uniformity by introducing an amount of scattering into the projected beams or rays (see paragraph [0074] of Potter et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts are provided on a front surface side of the curved part.
Potter et al. teaches a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts (12c; figure 1E; paragraph [0074] are provided on a front surface side of the curved part (see figure 1E where 12c is provided on curved part 12b)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved part of Valois to include a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts as taught by Potter et al. to promote uniformity by introducing an amount of scattering into the projected beams or rays (see paragraph [0074] of Potter et al.).
Regarding claim 14, Valois teaches the vehicle lamp according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts are constituted by a plurality of knurlings extending in the axial direction of the curved part and arranged in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the curved part.
Potter et al. teaches wherein the plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts (scallops 12c; see figure 1E and paragraph [0074]) are constituted by a plurality of knurlings (see scallops 12c; see paragraph [0074]) extending in the axial direction of the curved part (12b) and arranged in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction (see figure 1E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved part of Valois to include a plurality of diffusion/reflection cuts as taught by Potter et al. to promote uniformity by introducing an amount of scattering into the projected beams or rays (see paragraph [0074] of Potter 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 the amendment of independent claim 1.
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 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