DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-15 have been cancelled, claim 16 has been amended. Currently claims 16-34 are pending.
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.
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 16-18, 21-23, 29-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi et al. (JP 2012064533 A, hereinafter, “Teranishi”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 10/14/2024).
Regarding claim 16, Teranishi teaches an illumination apparatus (vehicular lamp 10, see figures 1a-1b, and figures 2-4 to show common elements and features to all embodiments) for a motor vehicle (vehicle, see abstract), the illumination device (10) comprising:
a housing (lamp body 12, see fig 1a), which is covered by an outer lens (transparent outer cover 14, see fig 1a), wherein the illumination apparatus (10) includes a surface light emission function (DRL: Daytime Running Lamp, see ¶ 26) in order to bring about surface light emission (DRL on a surface of 14) in a specified region (upper region of 14) of the outer lens (14) in a top view of the outer lens from outside (as seen in fig 1a);
a light-emitting device (side-surface light sources 27-28, see fig 1a) for the surface light emission function (DRL), wherein the light- emitting device (27-28) extends at least in sections (see upper and lower right sections of 14, better seen in fig 1a) along a periphery (as clearly seen in fig 1a) of the outer lens (14) and outside of the specified region (upper region of 14) of the outer lens (14),
the outer lens (14) comprises a light-transmissive light-guiding layer (plane-emission light guide plate 16) into which the light-emitting device (27-28), during operation, radiates light (as seen in fig 1a) along a surface extent (long surfaces of 16) of the light-guiding layer (16), and
the light- guiding layer (16) passes on the incoming light (light from 27-28) along the surface extent (long surfaces of 16); and
a light deflection device (scattering material, see ¶ 16), wherein the light deflection device (scattering material) is provided in the specified region (periphery of 14) of the outer lens (14) in order to deflect passed-on light in the light-guiding layer (16) such that the passed-on light exits (forward) via the outer lens (14) and thereby generates the surface light emission (DRL on a surface of 14) in the specified region (upper region of 14) of the outer lens (14).
Teranishi does not explicitly teach the light-emitting device, during operation, radiates light into the light-guiding layer in a direction perpendicular to the surface extent of the light guide layer.
However, in an alternative embodiment of figures 2a-2b,
Teranishi teaches light-emitting device (LED light source 38, see fig 2), during operation, radiates light into the light-guiding layer (34) in a direction perpendicular (from top to bottom, as seen in the orientation of fig 2b) to the surface extent (as 34 extends side to side, as seen in fig 2b) of the light guide layer (34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to position the light emitting device as taught by the alternative embodiment of Teranishi in to the teachings of the current embodiment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to adjust the device for smaller or narrower shapes of motor vehicle lamps.
Regarding claim 17, Teranishi teaches wherein the light deflection device (scattering material) comprises a light coupling-out structure (inorganic fine particles such as alumina or organic fine particles, see ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 18, Teranishi teaches wherein the light coupling-out structure (inorganic fine particles such as alumina or organic fine particles) is provided on a side of a light-guiding layer (16) facing (since the particles are embedded in 16, and also facing 12) the housing (12).
Regarding claim 21, Teranishi teaches wherein the light deflection device (scattering material) comprises a reflection layer (necessarily occurring, as scattering materials, for instance alumina or organic fine particles, reflect light, see ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 22, Teranishi teaches wherein the reflection layer (scattering particles layer) is provided on a side (rear side of 16) of a light-guiding layer (16) facing the housing (as the scattering particles are dispersed in the resin 16, including on the rear facing the housing).
Regarding claim 23, Teranishi teaches wherein the light deflection device (scattering particles) comprises light-scattering particles (see ¶ 20) in the light-guiding layer (16).
Regarding claim 29, Teranishi teaches wherein the outer lens (14) is a plastics component (transparent resin, see ¶ 6, 15) which is produced at least partially by way of a variety of methods including by way of extrusion molding (see ¶ 16).
Teranishi does not explicitly teach teaches the outer lens produced by way of injection molding.
However, one of ordinary skill would have considered using a variety of methods to produce the outer lens, including injection molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to make the outer lens of Teranishi via injection molding, since it has been held by the courts that patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is disclosed, or suggested, by the Prior Art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because injection molding allows for the manufacturing of complex shapes at high speeds of production.
Regarding claim 30, Teranishi teaches wherein: the outer lens (14) comprises a second region (transparent resin portion 15), which does not overlap with the specified region (upper region of 14) when viewing the outer lens (14) from the top, which is light-transmissive, and which does not contain any light deflection devices (as 15 is disclosed as transparent), and one or more light-emitting units (light source 20) which emit light directly through the outer lens (14) are provided in the housing (12) behind the second region (region of 15).
Regarding claim 31, Teranishi teaches wherein: the illumination apparatus (10) is a front headlight (as seen in fig 1), and the one or more light-emitting units (20) emitting light directly through the outer lens (14) are provided at least for generating a low beam (low beam, see ¶ 15) and a main beam.
Regarding claim 32, Teranishi teaches wherein one or more radiation units (light source 20, see fig 1a) for emitting radiation (illumination forward) other than light (light from 27-28) via the outer lens (14) are provided in the housing (12) behind the specified region (behind 14).
Regarding claim 34, Teranishi teaches a motor vehicle (vehicle, see abstract) comprising the illumination apparatus (10) according to claim 16.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Ito Osamu (JP 2005082036 A, hereinafter, “Ito”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 10/14/2024).
Regarding claim 24, Teranishi teaches wherein: the outer lens comprises, in the specified region, a light-transmissive film, and an opaque layer is provided on a side of the film at least in sections, by way of which opaque layer a light-opaque structure is generated in the specified region.
Ito teaches an illumination apparatus (vehicular lamp 1, see figure 1) having a housing (housing 2) which is covered by an outer lens (transparent outer lens 3);
wherein: the outer lens (7, 9) comprises, in the specified region (region covered by 9), a light-transmissive film (7), and an opaque layer (9) is provided on a side (front side of 7) of the film (7) at least in sections (see fig 1), by way of which opaque layer (9) a light-opaque structure (see shape of 9 in fig 2) is generated in the specified region (region covered by 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opaque layer as taught by Ito into the teachings of Teranishi in order provide a front structure of an automobile body in which a transparent cover of a head lamp without causing any level difference or gap between a bumper fascia and the cover can be formed. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve excellent appearance and superior aerodynamics.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Goto Taku (JP 2013193062 A, hereinafter, “Goto”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 27, Teranishi teaches wherein: the outer lens (14) comprises the light-guiding layer (16), but
Teranishi does not teach a light-transmissive outer layer on an outer side of the outer lens facing away from the housing, and the outer layer comprises a protective film, which protects an outer surface of the outer lens.
Goto teaches an illumination apparatus (vehicular lamp 1, see figure 1) having a housing (housing 2) which is covered by an outer lens (transparent outer lens 3);
a light-transmissive outer layer (hard resin coating 11, see fig 1) on an outer side (exterior side of 3) of the outer lens (3) facing away from the housing (2), and the outer layer (11) comprises a protective film (since 11 aims to enhance the weather resistance and abrasion resistance of the surface), which protects an outer surface (exterior surface of 3) of the outer lens (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light-transmissive outer layer as taught by Goto into the teachings of Teranishi in order to enhance the weather resistance and abrasion resistance of the outer lens. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to extend the service life of the device.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Mochizuki Katsuto (JP 2010137758 A, hereinafter, “Mochizuki”. Previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 33, Teranishi teaches wherein one or more radar devices for emitting radiation other than light via the outer lens are provided in the housing behind the specified region.
Mochizuki teaches an illumination apparatus (head light 11, see figures 1-2) having a housing (lamp device body 12) which is covered by an outer lens (lens part 21);
wherein one or more radar devices (millimeter-wave radar 22, see fig 2) for emitting radiation other than light via the outer lens (21) are provided in the housing (12) behind the specified region (middle region of 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the radar as taught by Mochizuki into the teachings of Teranishi in order to detect objects around a vehicle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent accidents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20, 25-26 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 19-20, although Teranishi teaches the illumination apparatus, as described in claim 1 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein the light deflection device comprises a light coupling-out lacquer; and
wherein the light coupling-out lacquer is applied on a side of the light-guiding layer facing away from the housing.
Regarding claims 25-26, although Teranishi teaches the illumination apparatus, as described in claim 1 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein a reflective layer is provided at least in sections on the opaque layer, which reflective layer reflects light passed on in the light-guiding layer; and
wherein: the light-transmissive film is non-light-scattering or light-scattering, or the light-transmissive film is non-light-scattering in some sections and light-scattering in other sections.
Regarding claim 28, although Teranishi teaches the illumination apparatus, as described in claim 1 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein: the light-guiding layer comprises a light-transmissive outer layer on an outer side of the outer lens facing away from the housing, and the outer layer comprises a protective film, which protects an outer surface of the outer lens.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on page 9, Applicant argues that Teranishi, even combined with its alternative embodiment, does not disclose “the light emitting device, during operation, radiates light into and along a surface extent of the light- guiding layer in a direction perpendicular to the surface extent of the light-guiding layer", stating that: the light source 38 of the alternative embodiment of Terainishi radiates light into the surface emitting light guide plate 34 perpendicular to the surface extent of the surface emitting light guide plate 34 at a single point, not along a surface extent of the surface emitting light guide plate 34. And, after being reflected by the inclined portion 34a, the light travels parallel to the surface extent of the surface emitting light guide plate 34, not perpendicular to the surface extent of the surface emitting light guide plate 34.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it appears the Applicant is attempting to claim the light emitting device, during operation, radiates light into and along an entire surface extent of the light-guiding layer; however, this is not explicitly required by the claim. Note, an extent of the light-guiding layer does not necessarily mean the entire extent of the light-guiding layer.
Second, the claim requires the radiated light should enter the light-guiding layer perpendicularly. Teranishi show light emitted by 34 enters the light-guiding layer perpendicularly. Even though, light is internally reflected after entering the light-guiding layer, light does not stay within the light-guiding layer, light will exit the light-guiding layer perpendicularly as intended by the invention. Note, the claim does not require light radiated into the light guide should travel perpendicularly throughout the light-guiding layer and radiated over the entire extent of the light-guiding layer.
Therefore, the prior art of record remains commensurate in scope for teaching the claimed limitations and the Applicants arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues in page 9 that the dependent claims should be allowed to their dependence from claim 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875