Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/867,474

EXTERIOR DEVICE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING A LIGHTING MODULE WITH A FLEXIBLE GUIDE SHEET

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Examiner
DUNAY, CHRISTOPHER E
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
VALEO VISION
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 10m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
539 granted / 715 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
749
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 715 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The applicant’s amendment filed 1/26/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In regard to claim 27, it limits that which has already been amended into claim 1, as best understood. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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, 5, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichol et al (US 2021/0181405 A1). In regard to claim 1, Nichol et al disclose an exterior equipment for an automotive vehicle (see Figure 102), the equipment comprising an external surface on which a luminous module is arranged, the luminous module including: an assembly of at least one flexible guide sheet (107), each flexible guide sheet of the assembly being adapted to receive light rays via at least one edge of the flexible guide sheet and to reflect the light rays in a direction substantially normal to a surface of the flexible guide sheet according to at least one pattern etched in the flexible guide sheet; at least one light injection element (101) adapted to receive light and to distribute the light in the assembly of at least one flexible guide sheet; at least one light source adapted to inject light into the at least one light injection element. (Figure 102; see at least [0662] onward) Nichol et al fails to disclose that a surface density of microstructures increases in a progressive manner with distance from an edge of the flexible guide sheet. However, Nichol et al teaches, in the embodiment of Figure 20a, a surface density of microstructures increases in a progressive manner with distance from an edge of the flexible guide sheet. (See Figure 20a) The Examiner further takes notice that increasing microstructure density as a function of distance from the light source is a known practice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 20a to that of Figure 102 in order to ensure evenness of the light output and a balanced image. In regard to claim 4, Nichol et al disclose a control element adapted to control the at least one light source. In regard to claim 5, Nichol et al disclose the luminous module is adapted to display at least one symbol in a given area of the luminous module on the basis of the pattern of each flexible guide sheet of the assembly. In regard to claim 26, Nichol et al disclose each flexible guide sheet includes a film including microstructures. Nichol et al fail to disclose that they are etched by ultraviolet printing. Moreover, the limitations of “etched by ultraviolet printing”, are product-by-process limitations. Patentability for such limitations is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use ultraviolet printing to form the microstructures in order to use a known process. In regard to claim 27, Nichol et al fail to disclose a surface density of microstructures decreases with the distance from the edge of the guide sheet into which the light is injected. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to decrease the density in order to concentrate the light near the light source. In regard to claim 28, Nichol et al disclose each injection element includes a plurality of injection guides, each injection guide being adapted to receive light from one end of the guide and to guide the light to a given longitudinal position on the injection element, the longitudinal positions of the injection guides all being different so as to distribute the light longitudinally in the injection element. Claim(s) 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichol et al (US 2021/0181405 A1) in view of Sawada et al (US 2009/0219734 A1). In regard to claim 6, Nichol et al fails to disclose both first and second patterns. Sawada et al teaches a luminous module that is adapted to display at least a first symbol (12) in a first given area of the luminous module and at least a second symbol (13) in a second given area of the luminous module, on the basis of the pattern of each flexible guide sheet of the assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the first and second symbol of Sawada et al to the film layer of Nichol et al in order to provide for a plurality of signals. In regard to claim 7, the combination of Nichol et al and Sawada et al fail to disclose light sources and a first and second wavelength range. However, providing for a plurality of colored lights is notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow for a plurality of wavelengths in order to provide for a plurality of signal lamps and to further provide for a decorative effect. In regard to claim 10, the combination of Nichol et al and Sawada et al, in combination, teach that the luminous module includes a first injection element and a second injection element, wherein the at least one source is adapted to selectively inject light into the first injection element and into the second injection element, and wherein the first light injection element and the assembly of at least one flexible guide sheet are arranged in such a way as to project light according to a first pattern and wherein the second light injection element and the assembly of at least one flexible guide sheet are arranged in such a way as to project light according to a second pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the first and second symbol of Sawada et al to the film layer of Nichol et al in order to provide for a plurality of signals. In regard to claim 11, Sawada et al further teaches a first light source adapted to inject light into the first light injection element and a second light source adapted to inject light into the second light injection element. In regard to claim 12, the combination of Nichol et al and Sawada et al fail to disclose light sources and a first and second wavelength range. However, providing for a plurality of colored lights is notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow for a plurality of wavelengths in order to provide for a plurality of signal lamps and to further provide for a decorative effect. In regard to claim 14, the combination of Nichol et al and Sawada et al, in combination, teach at least a first and a second flexible guide sheets, the first pattern being etched in the first flexible guide sheet and the second pattern being etched in the second flexible guide sheet, the first injection element being arranged in such a way as to inject light into an edge of the first flexible guide sheet and the second injection element being arranged in such a way as to inject light into an edge of the second flexible guide sheet. In regard to claim 15, the combination of Nichol et al and Sawada et al, in combination, teach the first and second guide sheets are superimposed in the luminous module, in order to project the first and second patterns in a common area of the luminous module. In regard to claim 20, Sawada et al further teaches the control element is adapted to control the at least one source in order to selectively project light according to a first pattern and according to the second pattern. In regard to claim 21, the combination of Nichol et al and Sawada et al fail to disclose the control element is adapted to dynamically control the at least one source in such a way as to produce a light animation comprising at least the first and second patterns. However, animation illumination is notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide dynamic control in order to provide for a decorative effect. In regard to claim 23, Nichol et al fails to disclose each flexible guide sheet of the assembly has a thickness of between 0.2 and 1 mm. However, where thinness is a known advantage, this is merely routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the sheet of a thickness of 0.2 to 1.0 mm in order to minimize profile. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that the embodiment of Figure 102 fails to teach a progressive density of microstructures. However, this is taught by Figure 20a. Further, this is a known feature in the prior art. 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 CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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. /CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 15, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602568
BORN-AGAIN TSK FUZZY CLASSIFIER BASED ON KNOWLEDGE DISTILLATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601468
Flexible Trim Device for Enhancing LED Strip Lights
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601472
Connection element for an LED light module
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601458
LIGHT FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595895
MULTI-REGION OPTICS FOR FLAT ILLUMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+14.8%)
1y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 715 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month