DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the claim objections raised in the Office Action filed on 02/25/2026
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, file 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Zheng have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically, Zheng does not disclose that the glass bodies are comprised of glass. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Zheng view of Brick et al. (US 20130114292 A1). In particular, Brick teaches equivalency of PMMA and glass; see rejection below. The Examiner regrets any inconvenience caused to Applicant by this consecutive final rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the particles on pages 7-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although ¶ 0020 of Zheng does not describe the dimensions and exact spacing of every particle, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized Zheng as at least suggesting a light extraction structure (light-diffusing particles 6) arranged in the second glass body (Fig 2) and having a light extraction surface (it necessarily occurs that particles have surfaces, specifically including the light extraction structure (6)), the light extraction structure (6) being completely encapsulated in the second light guide body (6), spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces (Fig 2) due to the spacing of the specific particles shown in Fig 2. At least the specific particles shown in Fig 2 reasonable disclose or alternatively, reasonably suggest specific particles spaced apart from third and fourth surfaces. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained and an alternate rejection is given.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Brick.
Re Claim 1:
Zheng discloses a lightguide assembly (shown in at least Fig 2 and described in at least ¶ 0020 as well as below) comprising:
a first light guide body (lower light guide plate 2) having a first surface (surface facing toward plurality of concave or convex microstructures 5) and a second surface (surface facing toward upper light guide plate 1) which are oppositely arranged (configured arrangement shown in Fig 2);
a second light guide body (1) having a third surface (surface facing toward 2) facing the second surface (Fig 2) and a fourth surface (surface facing away from 2) arranged oppositely (Fig 2); and
a light extraction structure (light-diffusing particles 6) arranged in the second glass body (Fig 2) and having a light extraction surface (it necessarily occurs that particles have surfaces, specifically including the light extraction structure (6)), the light extraction structure (6) being completely encapsulated in the second light guide body (6), spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces (Fig 2);
wherein incident light introduced into the second light guide body (shown with a solid line on the left side in Fig 2) is extracted at the light extraction structure and is led out from the fourth surface (shown with an arrow in Fig 2).
Zheng does not disclose that the light guide assembly comprised by the first and second light guide bodies are comprised of glass; instead, Zheng discloses the light guide assembly comprised by the first and second light guide bodies are comprised of PMMA (described in ¶ 0021).
However, prior art recognized equivalence for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.06. In the instance of claim 1, Brick teaches a glass assembly (surface light guide 1, Fig 1, ¶ 0060) comprised of a first and second light guide bodies (and two of layers 11-13) may be comprised of either glass or PMMA (¶ 0073) for the purpose of propagating light (Fig 1) through a light guide assembly with high transparency (¶ 0073). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to recognize Zheng as at least suggesting an equivalent light guide assembly to the claimed glass assembly for the purpose of propagating light (Fig 2) through a glass assembly having high transparency (high light transmittance). The Examiner notes that with equivalence at least suggested, the light guide bodies of Zheng will be mapped as glass.
With further regard to the particles (6), Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is the Examiner’s position that the limitations regarding the particles are anticipated. However, in the event that another analysis may be had, the Examiner has provided an obviousness rationale below.
Drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Zheng as at least suggesting a light extraction structure (light-diffusing particles 6) arranged in the second glass body (Fig 2) and having a light extraction surface (it necessarily occurs that particles have surfaces, specifically including the light extraction structure (6)), the light extraction structure (6) being completely encapsulated in the second light guide body (6), spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces (Fig 2) due to the spacing of the specific particles shown in Fig 2.
Re Claim 2:
Zheng further discloses the claimed light extraction structure (6) is formed in the second glass body (shown in Fig 2).
With further regard to the light extraction structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Zheng’s light extraction structure (6) as an equivalent structure to the claimed light extraction structure is formed in the second glass body by laser engraving for the purpose of extracting light and leading said light to the fourth surface.
Re Claim 3:
Zheng further discloses wherein the light extraction surface (surface of each 6) of the light extraction structure (each 6) is arranged toward the second glass body (surface of each 6 is arranged toward the middle of second glass body (2)).
Re Claim 4:
Zheng further discloses a process for forming a light extraction structure (evident by the structure of 6 shown in Fig 2).
With further regard to the light extraction structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Zheng as at least suggesting an equivalent process to form the light extraction structure (6) to the claimed process of the light extraction structure is formed in the second glass body before or after hot bending process for the purpose of forming a light extraction structure.
Re Claim 6:
Zheng further discloses wherein the glass assembly comprises a light source (light source 3) arranged adjacent to the edge of the first glass body and the second glass body (arranged on the left side of both, 2 and 1; Fig 2).
Re Claim 7:
Zheng further discloses wherein the glass assembly comprises a light guide component (PMMA component structure of 1 described in ¶ 0021) configured to conduct the incident light at least toward the light extraction structure in the second glass body (shown in Fig 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-11 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.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 5:
The closest prior art of record (Zheng) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the intermediate layer having a gray scale as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 8:
The closest prior art of record (Zheng) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the light source as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 9-10:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 8.
Re Claim 11:
The closest prior art of record (Zheng) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the window assembly as set forth in the claim. The Examiner notes that window assemblies were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; however, it would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the glass assembly of Zheng into a well-known window assembly for at least the reason of lacking an expectation of success. A PHOSITA would recognize reflection film 4 in Fig 2 of being incompatible with a window assembly.
Re Claim 12:
The claim contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on intervening claim 11.
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 KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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 at (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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights