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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/14/25 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dealey [US 6152586].
As to claim 1, Dealey discloses an illuminated trim component [see figure 3], comprising: a flexible fiber optic assembly [38a] configured to receive and transmit therethrough a light beam generated by a light engine so as to illuminate the flexible fiber optic assembly [see column 6, lines 47-65]; and a trim component [126] having the flexible fiber optic assembly integrated therein [see figure 3] such that, when illuminated by the light beam, the flexible fiber optic assembly creates a light accent on the trim component [see figure 3].
As to claim 2, Dealey discloses the illuminated trim component of claim 1, further comprising a multi-layer co-extruded profile structure [100, 141, 128, 126, 106 all represent different layers in the extruded structure as shown in figure 3] having the flexible fiber optic assembly integrated therein [see 38a, figure 3] and having a first set of fixation features for aligning and assembling the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure with the flexible fiber optic assembly [portions 124 and 116 in figure 3 above 38a].
As to claim 3, Dealey discloses the illuminated trim component of claim 2, wherein the trim component further comprises a trim housing having a second set of complimentary fixation features for aligning and assembling the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure therein [portions 124 and 116 in figure 3 below 38a].
As to claim 4, Dealey discloses the illuminated trim component of claim 3, wherein the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure is a closed structure having the flexible fiber optic assembly integrated therein [see figure 3, wherein the structure is closed with respect to the cover of 24].
As to claim 5, Dealey discloses the illuminated trim component of claim 3, wherein the multi-layer extruded profile structure is an open structure such that the flexible fiber optic assembly is separate from yet capable of being integrated in the multi-layer extruded profile structure [see 38a, figure 3].
As to claim 15, Dealey discloses a method of manufacturing an illuminated trim component, the method comprising the steps of: providing a trim component [126]; forming a flexible fiber optic assembly [38a] configured to receive and transmit a light beam generated by a light engine therethrough to illuminate the flexible fiber optic assembly [see column 6, lines 47-65]; and forming the illuminated trim component by integrating the flexible fiber optic assembly within the trim component [see 126 and 38a, figure 3] such that, when illuminated by the light beam, the flexible fiber optic assembly creates a light accent on the trim component [see figure 3].
As to claim 16, Dealey discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising co-extruding the flexible fiber optic assembly to form a multi-layer co-extruded profile structure [see 100, 141, 128, 126, 106, figure 3] having the flexible fiber optic assembly integrated therein and defining a first set of fixation features for aligning and assembling the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure [portions 116 and 124 on top of 38a, figure 3].
As to claim 17, Dealey discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the trim component further comprises a trim housing defining a second set of complimentary fixation features, and wherein forming the illuminated trim component further comprises aligning and assembling the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure therein using the first and second sets of complimentary fixation features [portions 116 and 124 on bottom of 38a, figure 3].
As to claim 18, Dealey discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure is a closed structure having the flexible fiber optic assembly integrated therein [see figure 3, showing closed structure with respect to the corner of 24].
As to claim 19, Dealey discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the multi-layer extruded profile structure is an open structure such that the flexible fiber optic assembly is separate from but capable of being integrated in the multi-layer extruded profile structure [open with respect to the portion holding 38a, figure 3].
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 9-14, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dealey.
As to claims 9 and 23, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light engine and the flexible fiber optic assembly are configured to generate a luminance within a range of 800 cd/m² to 2000 cd/m². It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to power the lighting unit in Dealey to meet the claimed luminance, depending on the desired lighting conditions and dimensions desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65].
As to claims 10 and 24, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the luminance generated is approximately 1400 cd/m². It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to power the lighting unit in Dealey to meet the claimed luminance, depending on the desired lighting conditions and dimensions desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65].
As to claims 11 and 25, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light engine and the flexible fiber optic assembly are configured to generate a luminance level greater than approximately 2500 cd/m². It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to power the lighting unit in Dealey to meet the claimed luminance, depending on the desired lighting conditions and dimensions desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65].
As to claims 12 and 26, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light engine and the flexible fiber optic assembly are configured to generate a luminance level three to four times greater than 2500 cd/m². It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to power the lighting unit in Dealey to meet the claimed luminance, depending on the desired lighting conditions and dimensions desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65].
As to claims 13 and 27, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein a luminance level generated by the illuminated trim component is approximately 7000 candela per meter squared (cd/m²). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to power the lighting unit in Dealey to meet the claimed luminance, depending on the desired lighting conditions and dimensions desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65].
As to claims 14 and 28, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fiber optic assembly comprises a fiber optic having a diameter of less than three millimeters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a fiber optic of such dimensions, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), depending on the desired lighting conditions and dimensions desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65].
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dealey in view of Zarian [US 4957347].
As to claims 6 and 20, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the multi-layer co-extruded profile structure comprises a glass fiber structure to at least one of prevent or mitigate elongation. Dealey includes Zarian by reference, and Zarian teaches glass fiber structures are well known in fiber optics [see Zarian, column 4, line 47]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the glass fiber taught in Zarian in order to provide a suitable material as contemplated by the inventors [see column 6, lines 47-65 of Dealey].1
Claims 7-8, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dealey in view of Bayersdorfer [US 6450678].
As to claims 7 and 21, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light engine is a laser light engine configured to generate a laser light beam. Bayersdorfer teaches the use of laser diodes in fiber optics was well known [see column 6, lines 6-14]. It would have been obvious to use the laser diodes as taught in Bayersdorfer with the lighting unit of Dealey, depending on the type of light desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65 of Dealey].
As to claim 8 and 22, Dealey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light engine is a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs). Bayersdorfer teaches the use of LEDs in fiber optics was well known [see column 6, lines 6-14]. It would have been obvious to use the LEDs as taught in Bayersdorfer with the lighting unit of Dealey, depending on the type of light desired by a user [see column 6, lines 47-65 of Dealey].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gomes [see PTO-892], Saul, Lindsay, Heinemann, Kuisma, Dealey, and Bayersdorfer all teach alternative embodiments for fiber optic trim illumination in automobiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights