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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed 4/17/2026 has been approved and the double patenting rejection overcome.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. 2025/0075873, effectively filed 9/1/2023 as provisional 63/580,195) in view of Dassanayake (U.S. 12,205,495) in view of 652 (JP2005088652A )
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a lighting device for a vehicle (see fig 1), comprising:
a housing (housing 120) having and inner space and an opening exposing the inner space;
a lens (functional layer 143) portion coupled to the housing and covering the opening of the housing portion;
a light source (light source 110) disposed in the inner space of the housing and configured to emit light toward the lens portion;
a first layer (color layer 142) disposed on the lens and configured to allow the light emitted from the light source to pass through; and
a second layer (pattern layer 145) positioned between the light source and the lens (see fig. 1), spaced apart from the lens (spaced apart by protective layer 141) and configured to allow the light emitted from the light source to pass through (allows light through 145b),
wherein the second layer includes a plurality of pattern portions (openings 145a), each having a geometric pattern (see p. 0053, can be formed of a specific shape, specifically geometric as shown in figure 3)
wherein the plurality of portions are also different from a light transmittance of the first layer such that the geometric pattern of each pattern portion is selectively visible from an outside of the vehicle (portions have different light transmittance than the blocking portions 145b) when the light source is turned on (first layer transmits colored light, pattern portion blocks non pattern light).
Park does not teach that the second layer is disposed in the inner space of the housing and that the plurality of portions respectively have different light transmittances.
Dassanayake teaches that the lens (326a) is directly coupled to the housing (housing 326, see fig. 3a) and the second layer is disposed in the inner space of the housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the housing as taught by Dassanayake to form a photon recycling cavity and increase the optical efficiency of Park and further to enable the lens of Park to form a protective cavity for the second layer, see col. 27 lines 12-52.
JP2005088652A teaches that that the plurality of portions respectively have different light transmittances (see abstract, see fig. 2, different gradients).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used different light transmittances as taught by 652 to enable further design features and more interesting graphics in the structure of Park, see abstract of 652.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “lens” has been interpreted as “a transmissive optical device that focuses or disperses a light beam by means of refraction”.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that the first layer portion has a same color as a vehicle body of the vehicle (see p. 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein: the lens has a first surface facing in a first direction toward the light source (inner surface) and a second surface facing in a second direction opposite to the first direction (outer surface), and the first layer is disposed on the first or second surface of the lens (outer surface).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches that the first layer portion comprises a film attached to the lens portion (film 140).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches that the first layer comprises a coating layer applied to the lens (forms a coating).
Regarding claim 7, 625 teaches that the second geometric pattern includes a gradient pattern (see fig. 2)
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches comprising a third layer coated on and covering the lens (first protective layer 141).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches further comprising a grille disposed on a front portion of a vehicle body, wherein the housing is mounted to the grille (see fig. 3).
Claim 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Dassanayake and 652, further in view of Hwang (U.S. 11,667,235).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches that the pattern portion comprises: a first pattern portion (innermost columns of triangles) having a geometric pattern and a second pattern portion having a second geometric pattern (outermost columns of triangles).
Park does not teach a second pattern portion having a light transmittance lower than that of the first pattern portion.
Hwang teaches that the pattern portion comprises: a first pattern portion (fine pattern 44) configured to allow the light emitted from the light source portion to pass through; and a second pattern (diffusion paint portion 46)portion having a light transmittance lower than that of the first pattern portion (first pattern is transparent).
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 pattern layer as taught by Hwang to provide additional design features and elements, i.e. as a decorative element (see col. 1 lines 35-48 of Hwang).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang teaches that the pattern portion further comprises a third pattern portion (opaque pattern 42) formed with stripes, arranged across the first pattern portion and the second pattern portion, and having a light transmittance lower than that of the first pattern portion (opaque metal).
Regarding claim 9, Park does not teach further comprising a third layer portion coated on the lens portion and covering the lens portion.
Hwang teaches a third layer portion (clear paint portion 30) coated on the lens portion and covering the lens portion (covers rear of lens portion).
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 clear paint portion of Hwang on the rear of the lens of Glickman to protect the lens and provide an additional layer for aesthetic effects such as the black paint portion 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes that Applicant argues that the lens of Park is the innermost structure, layer 130.
The Examiner notes that any of the refractive structures may be considered the lens, there are no structural distinctions set forth in the claim that precludes the use of 143 as the lens. The Examiner has specifically relied on functional layer 143 of Park as the lens, not 130.
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