DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “provided with multiple patterns in various shapes and/or sizes arranged regularly or irregularly”. It is unclear what the patterns are formed by, i.e. protrusions, shape of lens, etc; and how if they optically affect the light.
Additionally “multiple patterns” is overly broad, any pattern may be subjectively separated into sub patterns. The Examiner suggests setting forth the optical structures and reciting any differences in the patterns that indicate multiple patterns.
The Examiner finds that any pattern would read on the limitation as recited.
Furthermore “various shapes and/or sizes” is overly broad, i.e. it is unclear if any of the pattern has to be different shapes or sizes or all of the patterns are the same shape or size.
The Examiner finds that any pattern would read on the limitation as recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter (U.S. 10,946,815).
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 multiple patterns (gratings 42 form patterns) in various shapes and/or sizes arranged regularly or irregularly, the three dimensional plate being positioned inside the housing 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).
Regarding claim 2, Salter teaches that the grille lighting comprises a housing (see fig. 7, housing 18); wherein the lens (lens 38) is attached to the housing and covers an opening defined in the housing; 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 3, Salter teaches further comprising a control unit (controller 226), electrically connected to the grille lighting and the projection unit, configured to receive data for the first optical image to be displayed through the grille lighting, and transmit the data to the projection unit (see col. 12, lines 21-32).
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).
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 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter.
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 above the grille lighting, and configured to emit light toward the front of the body of the vehicle (fog lights).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that asserts that Salter fails to teach a separate plate positioned between a light source and a lens as Salter’s gratings are integral to or formed on the lens itself, or defined as a film applied to the lens, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 specifically sets forth “a three dimensional plate having… film structure… positioned between the light source and a lens”. As argued, Salter’s film explicitly teaches this structure. Applicant’s argument that Salter teaches “it may be attached to the inner side of the lens but remains distinct”, supports the interpretation of a film applied to the lens as reading on the claim.
Applicant does not claim that the “three dimensional plate” is “separate”, Only that it is between the light source and lens. Furthermore the claim explicitly sets forth that the three-dimensional plate may be a film structure.
Salter teaches that the gratings are formed as a layer, specifically formed as a film, see col. 4 lines 24-39 and applied to the lens. Such a structure is a separate structure that is then applied.
Furthermore, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner finds that the separation of the structures is immaterial to the operation of the device and an obvious modification known in the art, as evidenced by Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant states in p. 0038 that “the three dimensional plate may be attached to one side of the lens”.
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.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Salter does not disclose image formation “onto the lens” from the plate, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Salter explicitly teaches the recited limitation, “When the light 68, 72 (FIG. 5B) impinges on the gratings 42, a holographic image 76 can be produced. The holographic image 76 may have a floating appearance, such that the holographic image 76 may appear to float within the badge assembly 70” see col. 4 lines 33-36. The image is created by the gratings and appears within the lens. For the image to appear within the lens it must be displayed onto both surfaces of the lens so that an observer may observe it. I.e. the image is created through the patterns within the film and then emitted through the lens (i.e. onto and through both surfaces).
The image is produced by the film and then emits through the lens. Applicant’s claim does not set forth that the image “is projected onto the lens” or “has a focal plane on a surface of the lens” or “forms an image on the lens”. The limitation “displayed onto the lens” only requires “to show or make visible”.
The Examiner notes that Applicant specifically argues that Salter fails to teach that the image “forms… onto a separate lens surface”. This language is NOT present in the claim. If Applicant wishes for this interpretation then Applicant must include the language in the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s argument Salter does not teach a corresponding second optical image that visually matches the first optical image, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Salter teaches “For example, holographic image 76 may be a logo and the first and second light-transmissive features 174, 178 may be the same or similar logo.” See col. 10 lines 1-3. The Examiner finds that “the same… logo” would support that the image “visually match”.
Applicant specifically argues that “Salter’s controller 226 simply powers or actuates lighting elements and does not transmit image data linking two images”. Such language is not present in the claim, the claim only requires that the optical image “visually matches”.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are generally directed towards language not present in the claim and assert very narrow interpretations that would require the Examiner to improperly import language from the claim. If Applicant wishes for narrower interpretations of the claim language then Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite such interpretations.
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