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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 sets forth “a three dimensional plate having a transparent or translucent lens or film structure provided with a plurality of patterns formed on or in the three-dimensional plate… a first three-dimensional optical image is generated by the three-dimensional plate and displayed onto the lens”. It is unclear what structure the three dimensional plate comprises. The disclosure gives no examples or structure.
The “three dimensional optical image” is further unclear. All optical images displayed on a surface are, inherently, two dimensional. It is unclear if the image displays a three dimensional object, i.e. a cube etc, in which case the “three dimensional” is entirely aesthetic and has no patentable weight, or if the lens is stereoscopic and creates a three-dimensional or holographic illusion, which does not appear to be supported in the disclosure.
The Examiner notes that Salter and Beev below show light guide plates/lenses that have three dimensional protrusions or recesses. Applicant argues that Beev does not teach a three dimensional plate that forms a three dimensional optical image. If the three dimensional light guide plate of Beev does not inherently create a three dimensional optical image, then it is unclear how applicant’s plate creates one, and if Applicant has a specific definition for the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the three dimensional plate must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (U.S. 10,946,815) in light of Beev (U.S. 2024/0117951, filed 2/12/2021 as FR 2101349, all references made to the US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 1, Salter teaches a lighting device for a vehicle (see fig. 1, 2),the lighting device comprising:
a grille lighting (badge assembly, see fig. 1, mounted to grille) mounted to a grille disposed on a front surface of a body of the vehicle;
the grille lighting comprising:
a light source (light source 66);
a three-dimensional plate (gratings 42, applied as film, see col. 4 lines 23-39) having a transparent or translucent or film structure (specifically film) with a plurality of patterns formed on or in the three dimensional plate, the plurality of patterns including at least two patterns that differ from each other in shape and or size and are arranged regularly or irregularly (see col. 4 lines 23-39, multiple different patterns, regular or irregular), the three dimensional plate being positioned between the light source and a lens (see fig. 7), and configured to receive light emitted from the light source such that, when the light source is turned on, a first three-dimensional optical image is generated by the three-dimensional plate and displayed onto the lens (displays image, see col. 4-5, see fig. 7 gratings 42 are arranged before the lens).
and
a projection unit (assembly 46, mounted within through hole 26, see fig. 1, 11) mounted to the front surface, positioned on one side of the grille, and configured to project a corresponding second optical image (projected image 58), that visually matches the first optical image (see col. 11, lines 40-46: “the projected image 58 may be substantially similar to the holographic image 76 displayed on the lens 38”), onto a road surface (see col. 11 line 35-37, projects onto ground), and
a control unit (controller 226), electrically connected to the grille lighting and the projection unit (connected to first and second light sources), configured to receive data for the first optical image to be displayed through the grill lighting, and transmit the data to the projection unit (see col. 11 lines 63- col. 12 lines 31, activates based on signals),
wherein the projection unit is configured to receive the data from the control unit and to project the second optical image based on the received data (see col. 12 lines 1-31, activates light source based on signals).
Salter does not teach that the three dimensional plate is a discrete optical member separate from the lens and spaced apart from an inner surface of the lens by a predetermined distance.
Beev teaches that the plate (light guide 101 and carrier 102) is a discrete optical member separate from the lens (outer lens 13) and spaced apart from an inner surface of the lens by a predetermined distance (see fig. 1) when the light source is turned on, a first three-dimensional optical image is generated by the three-dimensional plate (101, 102 with light blocking structures 107) and displayed onto the lens (13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the pattern plate of Salter to be a separate structure from the lens of Salter, as taught by Beev, to provide an additional color or metallic layer, see p. 0065.
The Examiner also finds that the use of an additional cover lens for protection of the interior lens would be obvious.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the claimed limitation of a structure into separable pieces does not render the claimed invention nonobvious over the prior art if there are any desirable reasons to make the structure separable. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349. I.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to separate the lens of Salter into two structures so that the outer lens may be formed with a color or metallic layer for aesthetic effect (as taught in Beev) or to be made of a harder material that is more durable and weatherproof to protect the inner lens, as is commonly done in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Salter and Beev teaches that the grille lighting comprises a housing (see fig. 7, housing 18); wherein the lens (13 of Beev) is attached to the housing and covers an opening defined in the housing (see fig. 1 of Beev); a light source (light source 66) disposed in the housing and configured to emit light to an inner side of the housing; and
the three-dimensional plate (gratings 42, applied as film, see col. 4 lines 23-39) positioned inside the housing.
Regarding claim 4, Salter teaches that the control unit is electrically connected to the light source and receives operating signals from one or more vehicle electronics to control the light source (controller 226).
Regarding claim 5, Salter teaches further comprising a first lamp positioned at a first position on the front surface and configured to emit light toward a front of the body of the vehicle (headlights see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Salter does not teach that the first position is an upper side of the grille lighting (see fig 1) such that the grille lighting is located below the first lamp.
The arrangement of the grill lighting with respect to the grille and the front lights of the automobile is immaterial to the operation of the device and an obvious arrangement of parts.
Regarding the arrangement of the grille light with respect to the lamps, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).The location of the grille is dependent on the vehicle, aesthetics, and manufacturer. Moving the grille light lower than the lamps is an aesthetic choice depending on the existing grille, and is commonly practiced in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Salter does not teach that the first lamp includes a head light or a daytime running light (headlights, see fig. 1) and the grille lighting is disposed below the first lamp.
The arrangement of the grill lighting with respect to the grille and the front lights of the automobile is immaterial to the operation of the device and an obvious arrangement of parts.
Regarding the arrangement of the grille light with respect to the lamps, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).The location of the grille is dependent on the vehicle, aesthetics, and manufacturer. Moving the grille light lower than the lamps is an aesthetic choice depending on the existing grille, and is commonly practiced in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Salter does not teach further comprising a second lamp positioned at a second position spaced apart from the first position and below the grille lighting, and configured to emit light toward the front of the body of the vehicle.
The arrangement of the grill lighting with respect to the grille and the front lights of the automobile is immaterial to the operation of the device and an obvious arrangement of parts.
Regarding the arrangement of the grille light with respect to the lamps, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).The location of the grille is dependent on the vehicle, aesthetics, and manufacturer. Moving the grille light lower than the lamps is an aesthetic choice depending on the existing grille, and is commonly practiced in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Salter teaches that the second position is a lower side of the grille lighting.
The arrangement of the grill lighting with respect to the grille and the front lights of the automobile is immaterial to the operation of the device and an obvious arrangement of parts.
Regarding the arrangement of the grille light with respect to the lamps, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).The location of the grille is dependent on the vehicle, aesthetics, and manufacturer. Moving the grille light lower than the lamps is an aesthetic choice depending on the existing grille, and is commonly practiced in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Salter does not teach that the second lamp includes a head light or a daytime running light.
The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to use a second lamp on a lower side of the grille lighting that is a DRL.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a DRL in Salter to increase visibility of the vehicle for other drivers, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Salter teaches that the first lamp and the second lamp are positioned on both sides of the front surface in a width direction (conventional automotive light).
Claim 1, 2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (U.S. 10,946,815) in light of Park (U.S. 2025/0075873, with effective filing date 9/1/2023)
Regarding claim 1, Salter teaches a lighting device for a vehicle (see fig. 1, 2),the lighting device comprising:
a grille lighting (badge assembly, see fig. 1, mounted to grille) mounted to a grille disposed on a front surface of a body of the vehicle;
the grille lighting comprising:
a light source (light source 66);
a three-dimensional plate (gratings 42, applied as film, see col. 4 lines 23-39) having a transparent or translucent or film structure (specifically film) with a plurality of patterns formed on or in the three dimensional plate, the plurality of patterns including at least two patterns that differ from each other in shape and or size and are arranged regularly or irregularly (see col. 4 lines 23-39, multiple different patterns, regular or irregular), the three dimensional plate being positioned between the light source and a lens (see fig. 7), and configured to receive light emitted from the light source such that, when the light source is turned on, a first three-dimensional optical image is generated by the three-dimensional plate and displayed onto the lens (displays image, see col. 4-5, see fig. 7 gratings 42 are arranged before the lens).
and
a projection unit (assembly 46, mounted within through hole 26, see fig. 1, 11) mounted to the front surface, positioned on one side of the grille, and configured to project a corresponding second optical image (projected image 58), that visually matches the first optical image (see col. 11, lines 40-46: “the projected image 58 may be substantially similar to the holographic image 76 displayed on the lens 38”), onto a road surface (see col. 11 line 35-37, projects onto ground), and
a control unit (controller 226), electrically connected to the grille lighting and the projection unit (connected to first and second light sources), configured to receive data for the first optical image to be displayed through the grill lighting, and transmit the data to the projection unit (see col. 11 lines 63- col. 12 lines 31, activates based on signals),
wherein the projection unit is configured to receive the data from the control unit and to project the second optical image based on the received data (see col. 12 lines 1-31, activates light source based on signals).
Salter does not teach that the three dimensional plate is a discrete optical member separate from the lens and spaced apart from an inner surface of the lens by a predetermined distance.
Park teaches that the plate (pattern layer 145) is a discrete optical member separate from the lens (outermost protective layer 141) and spaced apart from an inner surface of the lens by a predetermined distance (see fig. 1, spaced apart by layers 142, 143, 144, 141) when the light source is turned on, a first three-dimensional optical image is generated by the three-dimensional plate and displayed onto the lens (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the pattern plate of Salter to be a separate structure from the lens of Salter, as taught by Park to provide an outer protective layer to protect the pattern layer, see p. 0046)
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that the grille lighting comprises a housing (housing 120); wherein the lens (141) is attached to the housing and covers an opening defined in the housing (see fig. 1); a light source (light source 110) disposed in the housing and configured to emit light to an inner side of the housing; and
the three-dimensional plate (gratings 42, applied as film, see col. 4 lines 23-39 of Salter) positioned inside the housing.
Claims 4-11 are taught by Salter as indicated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Salter does not disclose the claimed single structure in which a three dimensional plate is positioned between the light source and the lens and configured to generate the first three-dimensional optical image…” the Examiner notes that the limitation is rejected in view of Salter when combined with Beev.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Beev’s light guides 101 and carrier 102 form part of a screen 10 for transmitting light rays… they are not disclosed as a patterned three-dimensional plate that generates a first three-dimensional optical image displayed onto a lens”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Beev’s light guides 101 and carrier 102 are formed with opaque masks 107 between light guides 101 of the carrier. The light guides 101 of Beev form a three dimensional pattern onto the plate, i.e. it is a three dimensional plate. The pattern shown in Beev appears to be three dimensional, however the Examiner notes that, in light of the arguments, it is unclear what “three dimensional image” is intended to mean. The disclosure does not give context as to what “three dimensional plate” or “three dimensional image” encompass, as noted in the claim objection above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Beev cannot be used to provide an additional color or metallic layer as “Beev’s [coating] is applied to outer exit lens 13 or the exit face for appearance/body integration, not to relocate Salter’s image-forming gratings 42 away from lens 38…” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Beev’s coating is applied to outer exit lens 13, the Examiner finds that the use of the exit lens 13 after the pattern layer of Salter would be an obvious use of the exit lens 13 as it provides an additional layer of customization and formation of the light output. Beev specifically teaches using exit lens 13 after a three dimensional light guide plate, such as the one used in Salter.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner further includes the alternative Park reference which teaches an outer lens to be used as a protective layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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 on (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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights