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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20200268127 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang discloses a mirror assembly (Fig. 10 and 11) comprising: mirrored glass (mirror surface 52); a frosted edge disposed along at least one side of the mirrored glass (light transmissive covers 62a and 62b of light columns 66, paragraphs [0090] and [0098]); a diffuser disposed behind the frosted edge (Yang discloses light column 66 may include features to facilitate diffusion, paragraphs [0086] and [0089]), the diffuser including an additive suspended in a substrate (paragraphs [0091] and [0102]); and a light source (element 60) configured to generate light, wherein the additive is configured to refract, reflect, or absorb light (Yang discloses scattering particles embedded within columns 66, paragraph [0091]) generated by the light source and the light generated by the light source travels through the frosted edge (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 4, Yang further discloses a frame disposed along and abutting an outer edge of the frosted edge (Figs. 11 and 14a, ridge 77, paragraph [0084]); and a bracket (Figs. 11 and 14a, element 41a) coupled to a back of the mirrored glass, wherein the diffuser is disposed between the frame and the bracket (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 5, Yang further discloses the frame as including a locking protrusion configured to control a position of the frame, the mirrored glass, and the frosted edge relative to the diffuser (Figs. 11 and 14a, ridge 77, paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2, 3, 9-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20200268127 A1) in view of Berard et al. (US 20180074251 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations except for the additive as refractive particles configured to refract light generated by the light source and the refracted light as travelling through the frosted edge.
Berard teaches refractive particles (Figs. 1 and 1a, element 51, paragraph [0038]) configured to refract light generated by the light source (Fig. 1, element 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the diffusers of Yang to include refractive particles configured to refract light generated by the light source. Inclusion of refractive particles as the additive as taught by Berard would result in the refracted light travelling through the frosted edge. One would have been motivated to include refractive particles as proposed to benefit from the enhanced scattering of hollow microspheres. Berard discloses the scattering particles are refractive hollow glass microspheres (Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]) which are preferred to preserve transparency (paragraph [0011]) and create the largest possible refractive index difference (paragraphs [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 2 would have rendered obvious the additive is refractive particles comprising micro-glass beads of hollow glass microspheres (Berard: Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]).
Regarding independent claim 9, Yang discloses a mirror assembly (Fig. 10 and 11) comprising: mirrored glass (mirror surface 52); at least one frosted edge disposed along a side of the mirrored glass (light transmissive covers 62a and 62b of light columns 66, paragraphs [0090] and [0098]); a diffuser disposed behind the at least one frosted edge (Yang discloses light column 66 may include features to facilitate diffusion, paragraphs [0086] and [0089]); and a light source (element 60) configured to generate light.
Yang fails to disclose the diffuser including a plurality of refractive particles suspended in a substrate configured to refract light generated by the light source and the refracted light as travelling through the at least one frosted edge.
Berard teaches refractive particles (Figs. 1 and 1a, element 51, paragraph [0038]) configured to refract light generated by the light source (Fig. 1, element 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the diffusers of Yang to include refractive particles configured to refract light generated by the light source. Inclusion of refractive particles as the additive as taught by Berard would result in the refracted light travelling through the frosted edge. One would have been motivated to include refractive particles as proposed to benefit from the enhanced scattering of hollow microspheres. Berard discloses the scattering particles are refractive hollow glass microspheres (Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]) which are preferred to preserve transparency (paragraph [0011]) and create the largest possible refractive index difference (paragraphs [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 3 would have rendered obvious the refractive particles are hollow glass microspheres (Berard: Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 9 would have rendered obvious the mirror assembly further comprising: a frame disposed along an outer edge of the at least one frosted edge (Yang: Figs. 11 and 14a, ridge 77, paragraph [0084]); and a bracket (Yang: Figs. 11 and 14a, element 41a) behind the mirrored glass, wherein the diffuser is disposed between the frame and the bracket (Yang: Fig. 11, paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 12, Yang as modified by Berard above discloses the frame as including a locking protrusion configured to control a position of the frame and the mirrored glass relative to the diffuser (Yang: Figs. 11 and 14a, element 77; paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 14, the mirror assembly of Yang and Berard as described for claim 11 would have rendered obvious the light source is coupled to the bracket. Yang further discloses the light source (Yang: Fig. 19, element 60) can be positioned within a portion and/or supported by the central support (Yang: paragraph [0079]) containing the bracket (Yang: Figs. 11 and 14a, element 41a, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, the mirror assembly of Yang and Berard as described for claim 9 would have rendered obvious the at least one frosted edge is disposed along an entire perimeter of the mirrored glass.
Yang further discloses a configuration of the diffuser (Fig. 11, element 66) consisting of a frosted edge (Fig. 11, element 62) where the diffuser and frosted edge extend around the entire periphery of the mirrored surface (Yang: paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 16 the mirror assembly of Yang and Berard as described for claim 9 would have rendered obvious the at least one frosted edge includes two frosted edges disposed on opposite side of the mirrored glass (Yang: Fig. 11, paragraph [0098]).
Regarding independent claim 17, Yang discloses a mirror assembly (Fig. 10 and 11) comprising: mirrored glass (mirror surface 52); a frosted edge disposed along at least one side of the mirrored glass (light transmissive covers 62a and 62b of light columns 66, paragraphs [0090] and [0098]); a frame disposed along an outer edge of the frosted edge (Figs. 11 and 14a, ridge 77, paragraph [0084]); a bracket coupled to a back of the mirrored glass (Figs. 11 and 14a, element 41a); a diffuser (Fig. 11, element 66, paragraphs [0083], [0086]) molded between the mirrored glass, the frame, and the bracket; and a light source (Fig. 19, element 60) configured to generate light coupled to the bracket. Yang further discloses the light source can be positioned within a portion and/or supported by the central support (paragraph [0079]) containing the bracket (Figs. 11 and 14a, element 41a, paragraph [0052]).
Yang further discloses the diffuser (light column 66) may include features to facilitate diffusion (paragraph [0089]) and contain scattering particles embedded within (paragraph [0091]).
Yang does not explicitly disclose the diffuser as configured to refract light generated by the light source and the refracted light as travelling through the frosted edge.
Berard teaches refractive hollow glass microspheres (Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]) configured to refract light generated by the light source (Fig. 1, element 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the diffusers of Yang to include the refractive hollow glass microspheres akin to the scattering layer taught by Berard. Inclusion of refractive particles as the additive as taught by Berard would result in the refracted light travelling through the frosted edge. One would have been motivated to include refractive particles as proposed to benefit from the enhanced scattering of hollow microspheres. Berard discloses the scattering particles are refractive hollow glass microspheres (Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]) which are preferred to preserve transparency (paragraph [0011]) and create the largest possible refractive index difference (paragraphs [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 17 would have rendered obvious the diffuser as comprised of a resinous material (Yang further discloses that the diffuser, may include acrylic, Fig. 11, element 66, paragraph [0087]) and includes a plurality of refractive particles suspended therein (Berard discloses refractive hollow glass microspheres: Fig. 1a, element 51, paragraphs [0010], [0011], and [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 17 would have rendered obvious the frame as including a locking protrusion configured to control a position of the frame and the mirrored glass relative to the diffuser (Yang: Figs. 11 and 14a, ridge 77, paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20200268127 A1) in view of Ly (US 20080019121 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses a locking protrusion (Figs. 11 and 14a, ridge 77, paragraphs [0083]-[0084]) and all other claim limitations except for the locking protrusion as including a white reflective surface configured to reflect light toward the frosted edge.
Ly teaches one or more surfaces of the diffuser coupled to a reflective white coating (Fig. 4, element 405, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the locking protrusion of Yang by coloring it white as taught by Ly. One would have been motivated to include a reflective white surface as proposed to improve reflectivity of the surface.
Regarding claim 7, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Ly as previously described above would have rendered obvious the white reflective surface as directly applied or coupled to the second surface of the diffuser.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20200268127 A1) in view of Tang (US 11927337 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations except for the diffuser as having a first surface abutting the frosted edge and a second surface opposite the first surface, and wherein light travels through the second surface and is configured to illuminate a surface behind the mirror assembly.
Tang discloses a diffuser (Figs. 4 and 5, element 2, Col 5/19-24) wherein the light from the light source (element 32) is transmitted through the second edge facing behind the mirror assembly (Col 6/1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the diffusers of Yang to include the second edge as taught by Tang. One would have been motivated to include diffusers with a second edge to produce a more luminous and aesthetic effect.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20200268127 A1) in view of Berard et al. (US 20180074251 A1) and Ly (US 20080019121 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 9 discloses all of the claim limitations except for the locking protrusion as triangular and including a white reflective surface configured to reflect light toward at least one frosted edge.
Ly teaches one or more surfaces of the diffuser coupled to a reflective white coating (Fig. 4, element 405, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to modify the locking protrusion of Yang with a reflective white surface taught by Ly to be triangular in shape, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features (see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20, the mirror assembly of Yang in view of Berard as previously described for claim 17 discloses all of the claim limitations except for the locking protrusion as triangular and including a white reflective surface configured to reflect light toward the frosted edge.
Ly teaches one or more surfaces of the diffuser coupled to a reflective white coating (Fig. 4, element 405, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to modify the locking protrusion of Yang with a reflective white surface taught by Ly to be triangular in shape, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features (see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS F RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-0652. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900 - 1700.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/Francis F Rivera/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights