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 .
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.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (KR 20240000919 A, herein referred to as: Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a lighting device for a vehicle (Figs. 1-6), comprising: a housing (20) accommodating a light source (40); and a lens portion (60) covering the housing from an outside of the vehicle to be combined with the housing (as shown in Figs. 4-5), and forming a lamp chamber (the chamber in which 40 is disposed) surrounded by a sealing portion (at the perimeter of 60: “…the front of the lamp housing 20 is covered with a lens 60 and then sealed using methods such as adhesion, heat fusion, ultrasonic fusion, etc…”), wherein the light source (40) is disposed in the lamp chamber (as shown in Figs. 1-6), a monitoring device (54) is disposed at an outside of the lamp chamber (as shown in Figs. 1-6) and at a position of a back surface of the lens portion (as shown in Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the monitoring device (54) is disposed at a monitoring device chamber (the chamber in which 54 is disposed, as shown in Figs. 1-6) surrounded by the sealing portion (as shown in Figs. 1-6 and as noted in the corresponding description).
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the monitoring device (54) is supported at an extending portion (a base wall of 20, or the extended lower portion of 54 connected to said base wall shown in Figs. 3 and 5) extended from the housing (extending from sidewall portion 30 of said housing 20 forming said light chamber, as shown in Fig. 5; or extended from the base wall and spacing 54 therefrom, as shown in Fig. 5).
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olivetti (DE 3942249 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Olivetti discloses a lighting device for a vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: a housing (2) accommodating a light source (14); and a lens portion (3) covering the housing from an outside of the vehicle to be combined with the housing (as shown in Fig. 1), and forming a lamp chamber (the chamber in which 14 is disposed) surrounded by a sealing portion (7), wherein the light source (14) is disposed in the lamp chamber (as shown in Fig. 1), a monitoring device (25) is disposed at an outside of the lamp chamber (as shown in Fig. 1) and at a position of a back surface of the lens portion (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Olivetti discloses (Fig. 1) the monitoring device (25) is disposed at a monitoring device chamber (the chamber in which 25 is disposed, as shown in Fig. 1) surrounded by the sealing portion (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Olivetti discloses (Fig. 1) the monitoring device (25) is supported at an extending portion (22) extended from the housing (2, as shown in 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.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of Katsurada et al. (US 2022/0268923 A1, herein referred to as: Katsurada).
Regarding claim 3, Choi does not explicitly teach that the monitoring device is disposed at a position other than that surrounded by the sealing portion.
Katsurada teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the monitoring device (5) is disposed at a position other than that surrounded by the sealing portion (as shown in Figs. 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Choi and incorporated the teachings of the monitoring device is disposed at a position other than that surrounded by the sealing portion, such as taught or suggested by Katsurada, in order to improve the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing the monitoring device at a position away from the heat produced by the lamp housing, and/or preventing interference with the monitoring device by further isolating the monitoring device form the lighting deice).
Regarding claims 5-8, Choi does not explicitly teach that the lens portion has a transparent first portion and an opaque second portion, the monitoring device is disposed at a position of a back surface of the second portion in the lens portion.
Katsurada teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the lens portion (112) has a transparent first portion (112 in front of 3) and an opaque second portion (106), the monitoring device (5) is disposed at a position of a back surface of the second portion (106) in the lens portion (as shown in Figs. 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Choi and incorporated the teachings of the lens portion has a transparent first portion and an opaque second portion, the monitoring device is disposed at a position of a back surface of the second portion in the lens portion, such as taught or suggested by Katsurada, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the appearance of the device (i.e., by providing a design feature to conceal the monitoring device from view).
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivetti, in view of Katsurada.
Regarding claim 3, Olivetti does not explicitly teach that the monitoring device is disposed at a position other than that surrounded by the sealing portion.
Katsurada teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the monitoring device (5) is disposed at a position other than that surrounded by the sealing portion (as shown in Figs. 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Olivetti and incorporated the teachings of the monitoring device is disposed at a position other than that surrounded by the sealing portion, such as taught or suggested by Katsurada, in order to improve the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing the monitoring device at a position away from the heat produced by the lamp housing, and/or preventing interference with the monitoring device by further isolating the monitoring device form the lighting deice).
Regarding claims 5-8, Olivetti does not explicitly teach that the lens portion has a transparent first portion and an opaque second portion, the monitoring device is disposed at a position of a back surface of the second portion in the lens portion.
Katsurada teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the lens portion (112) has a transparent first portion (112 in front of 3) and an opaque second portion (106), the monitoring device (5) is disposed at a position of a back surface of the second portion (106) in the lens portion (as shown in Figs. 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Olivetti and incorporated the teachings of the lens portion has a transparent first portion and an opaque second portion, the monitoring device is disposed at a position of a back surface of the second portion in the lens portion, such as taught or suggested by Katsurada, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the appearance of the device (i.e., by providing a design feature to conceal the monitoring device from view).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US 2022/0266740 A1 to Inoue et al., pertinent to the features of claim 3, JP 2010137758 A to Mochizuki, pertinent to the features of claims 5-8, and JP 2010135087 A to Machida, pertinent to the features of claims 1, 2, and 4-8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Jong-Suk (James) 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875