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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 3/20/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-49 have been cancelled, and claims 50-69 have been newly added. Currently claims 50-69 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “receive light” should be changed to – receive the light --, as light was already introduced in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 50-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 50, the phrase “(b) along an arc of up to 60 degrees so that the light overlaps with the reflected light from other light reflecting portions” is confusing:
First, “the light” was introduced as the light emitted by the light source (see line 2) and directed along the optical axis;
Second, in “the reflected light from other light reflecting portions”, the other reflective portions imply a comparison with a different light reflected from a different reflective portion, but this is not clearly stated.
As, it appears the phrase attempts to compare at least two light rays that have been reflected by the plurality of reflective portions, the phrase above has been interpreted to mean:
-- (b) along an arc of up to 60 degrees so that a reflected light from one of the light reflecting portions overlaps with another reflected light from another light reflecting portion --.
Claims 51-57 are rejected as they depend from claim 50.
In claim 58, the phrase “(ii) in an arc of up to 60 degrees, so that the light, overlaps with other light reflected from other light reflecting portions” is confusing:
First, “the light” was introduced as the light emitted by the light source (see line 2) and directed along the optical axis;
Second, in “other light reflected from other light reflecting portions”, the other reflective portions imply a comparison with a different light reflected from a different reflective portion, but this is not clearly stated.
As, it appears the phrase attempts to compare at least two light rays that have been reflected by the plurality of reflective portions, the phrase above has been interpreted to mean:
-- (ii) in an arc of up to 60 degrees, so that a light reflected from a light reflective portion, overlaps with another light reflected from another light reflecting portion --.
Claims 59-67 are rejected as they depend from claim 58.
In claim 68, the phrase “so that the light overlaps with light reflected by other means for reflecting” is confusing:
First, “the light” was introduced as the light emitted by the light source (see line 2) and directed along the optical axis;
Second, in “light reflected by other means for reflecting”, the other means for reflecting light imply a comparison with a different light reflected by a different means for reflecting light, but this is not clearly stated
As, it appears the phrase attempts to compare at least two light rays that have been reflected by the plurality of reflective portions, the phrase above has been interpreted to mean:
-- so that a light reflected by the means for reflecting light overlaps with another light reflected by another means for reflecting --.
Claim 69 are rejected as they depend from claim 68.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 50 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12067862 to Murphy in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”).
Regarding claim 50, Murphy teaches a device (illuminated indicator, see claim 1, line 1) comprising:
one or more light emitting devices (light emitting devices, see claim 1, line 3) to emit light in a direction (direction, see claim 1, line 4) along an optical axis (optical axis, see claim 1, line 7); and
a light pipe (light pipe, see claim 1, line 5) having a plurality of light reflecting portions (light reflecting portions, see claim 1, line 12) to (i) receive light in the direction along the optical axis (see claim 1, lines 13-15) and (ii) reflect the light along (a) a path transverse to the optical axis (see claim 1, lines 16-17) and (b) along an arc (arc, see claim 1, line 18) so that the light overlaps with the reflected light from other light reflecting portions (see claim 1, line 21-23).
Murphy does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from annotated figure 5 below).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Murphy to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Annotated figure 5 of Wada, has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
398
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 50, 54, 56, 58-62 and 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”).
Regarding claim 50, Mezouari teaches a device (light guide 1 with light source 26, see figures 1-3) comprising:
one or more light emitting devices (26, discrete light sources such as LEDs, see fig 2) to emit light in a direction (upwards, as seen in fig 2) along an optical axis (first axis 10, see fig 1); and
a light pipe (1, see fig 1) having a plurality of light reflecting portions (side waIls 40,42 and plain portions 40 of diffusing means 36, see fig 3) to
(i) receive light (light from 26, as seen in fig 2) in the direction along the optical axis (10) and
(ii) reflect the light (reflect light from 26) along
(a) a path transverse (perpendicularly to 10, as seen in fig 2) to the optical axis (10) and
(b) along an arc up to 60 degrees (see arc A, as annotated in figure below) so that the light (light from 26 and reflected by 40 or 42, see annotated figure below) overlaps with the reflected light (light from 26 and reflected by 44, see annotated figure below) from other light reflecting portions (light reflected by 44 or 42, as light from 44 is emitted orthogonal to the axis and radially, and light from 40 or 42 is emitted orthogonally and radially at an angle, as seen in annotated figure below).
Annotated figure 3 of Mezouari has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
745
1211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Mezouari discloses the device is aimed to illuminate automobile dashboard’s which come in a variety of sizes and shapes, Mezouari does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to modify the arc as taught by Mezouari to span an arc of up to 60 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to illuminate gauges that are shorter in arc span, such as gas gauges or battery power indicators.
Moreover, Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from figure 5 above).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Mezouari‘s to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 54, Mezouari teaches wherein the plurality of light reflecting portions (portions of 36) define an opening (see opening enclosed by 36) within the light pipe (1).
Regarding claim 56, Mezouari teaches wherein the arc (A) of the light reflected (light reflected by portions 40 or 42 with 44, and better seen in annotated figure above) by individual light reflecting portions (40, 42 and 44) overlaps with the arc (A) of two or more adjacent light reflecting portions (light reflected by other portions 40 or 42 with 44, and better seen in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 58, Mezouari teaches method (method for using light guide 1 with light source 26, see figures 1-3), comprising:
emitting light from one or more light emitting devices (light source 26, discrete light sources such as LEDs, see fig 2) in a direction (upwards, as seen in fig 2) along an optical axis (first axis 10, see fig 1);
receiving the light (light from 26, as seen in fig 2) at an input portion (light accepting end 12, see fig 2) of a light pipe (light guide 1, see fig 1); and
reflecting the light (light reflected by 36, as seen in fig 2) with use of a plurality of light reflecting portions (side waIls 40,42 and plain portions 40 of diffusing means 36, see fig 3) of the light pipe (1) along
(i) a path divergent (see divergent path perpendicularly to 10, as seen in fig 2) from the optical axis (10) and
(ii) in an arc (see arc A, as annotated in figure above), so that the light (light reflected by 40 or 42, as seen in fig 2), overlaps with other light reflected (light reflected by 40) from other light reflecting portions (40).
However, Mezouari discloses the device is aimed to illuminate automobile dashboard’s which come in a variety of sizes and shapes, Mezouari does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to modify the arc as taught by Mezouari to span an arc of up to 60 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to illuminate gauges that are shorter in arc span, such as gas gauges or battery power indicators.
Moreover, Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from figure 5 above).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Mezouari‘s to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 59, Mezouari teaches wherein the path (see divergent path perpendicularly to 10, as seen in fig 2) is radially outward and transverse (see fig 2 and annotated figure above) to the optical axis (10).
Regarding claim 60, Mezouari teaches further comprising outputting the light reflected (light reflected by 36) by the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44) from an output portion (light emitting portion 6, see fig 1) of the light pipe (1).
Regarding claim 61, Mezouari teaches wherein reflecting the light (light reflected by 36) includes homogenizing (as possible to encourage an even intensity of light emission, as disclosed in ¶ 2 of page 9) the light for emission from the output portion (6) of the light pipe (1).
Regarding claim 62, Mezouari teaches wherein outputting the light (upwards, see light rays exiting from 6, as seen in fig 2) includes outputting the light from the output portion (6) in a direction along, but not colinear with (evident from fig 2), the optical axis (10).
Regarding claim 67, Mezouari teaches wherein reflecting the light (light from 26) includes reflecting the light (via 36) from each of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40,42 and 44) to travel along an arc (A) that overlaps with the arc (A) of two adjacent ones (adjacent arrangements of 40, 42, 44) of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40,42 and 44).
Regarding claim 68, Mezouari teaches device (light guide 1 with light source 26, see figures 1-3) comprising:
means for emitting light (light emitted by light source 26, i.e. discrete light sources such as LEDs, see fig 2) in a direction (upwards, as seen in fig 2) along an optical axis (first axis 10, see fig 1); and
means for reflecting light (side waIls 40,42 and plain portions 40 of diffusing means 36, see fig 3) emitted in the direction along the optical axis (10) to travel along a path (orthogonal to 10, as seen in fig 2) that is divergent from the optical axis (10), transverse to the optical axis (10), and spans an arc (see arc A, as annotated in figure above) so that the light (light reflected by 40 or 42) overlaps with light reflected (light reflected by 44) by other means for reflecting (44).
However, Mezouari discloses the device is aimed to illuminate automobile dashboard’s which come in a variety of sizes and shapes, Mezouari does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to modify the arc as taught by Mezouari to span an arc of up to 60 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to illuminate gauges that are shorter in arc span, such as gas gauges or battery power indicators.
Moreover, Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from figure 5 above).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Mezouari‘s to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 69, Mezouari teaches wherein the light reflected (light reflected by 44) by the means for reflecting (40, 42 and 44 of 36) overlaps with light reflected (light reflected by 40 and 42) by two other means for reflecting (40, 42 and 44 of 36) immediately adjacent (as seen in annotated figure above) to the means for reflecting (40, 42 and 44 of 36).
Claims 51, 53, 55 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”), as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Dorrie Christian (US 20020075668 A1, hereinafter, “Dorrie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 7/8/2025).
Regarding claim 51, Mezouari as modified by Wada teaches all the limitations of claim 50, and further comprising an output portion (light emitting portion 6, see fig 1).
Mezouari does not explicitly teach the output portion forms a closed loop shape.
Dorrie teaches a light pipe (light guide 20, see figure 4) having an output portion (annular light-exiting face, see fig 4 and ¶ 20);
the output portion (annular light-exiting face of 20) forms a closed loop shape (as seen in fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the closed loop shape as taught by Dorrie into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to provide a more spread light reflection. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device in circularly shaped gauges, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Regarding claim 53, Mezouari teaches wherein the optical axis (10) passes through an interior (area enclosed by 6) of the output portion (6).
Regarding claim 55, Mezouari teaches wherein at least one light reflecting portions has a continuously curved shape.
Dorrie teaches a light pipe (light guide 20, see figure 4) having a plurality of reflective portions (deflecting faces 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41);
wherein at least one light reflecting portions (40) has a continuously curved shape (see shape of 40, as clearly seen in fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light reflecting portion as taught by Dorrie into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to provide a more spread light reflection. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid brighter strikes of light within the light pipe
Regarding claim 57, Mezouari teaches wherein a direction (see direction of light rays emitted by 6) of the output portion (6) is parallel to, but not colinear with (as clearly seen in fig 2), the optical axis (10).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”) and Dorrie Christian (US 20020075668 A1, hereinafter, “Dorrie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 7/8/2025), as applied to claims 50-51 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 20060108210 A1, hereinafter, “Katayama”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 7/8/2025).
Regarding claim 52, Mezouari as modified by Wada and Dorrie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a button located inside of the output portion.
Katayama teaches a light pipe (light-guide portion 41, see figures 6-7) having an output portion (light-emitting portion 41b, see fig 6);
further comprising a button (button main body portion 43, see fig 7) located inside of the output portion (41b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the button as taught by Katayama into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to provide illuminate the area surrounding buttons. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device to circularly shaped buttons, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Claims 63 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”), as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 20060108210 A1, hereinafter, “Katayama”).
Regarding claim 63, Mezouari as modified by Wada teaches all the limitations of claim 58, but does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving, by the light pipe, a force that causes the light pipe and an associated housing to move.
Katayama teaches a light pipe (light-guide portion 41, see figures 6-7) illuminated by a light source (light sources 47);
further comprising receiving, by the light pipe (41), a force (downward force by the user) that causes the light pipe (41) and an associated housing (button main body portion 43, see fig 6) to move (by force exerted onto 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the force on the associated housing as taught by Katayama into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to illuminate an area for device activation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device to circularly shaped button, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Regarding claim 66, Mezouari does not teach further comprising receiving, by the light pipe, a force that causes a switch to be actuated.
Katayama teaches a light pipe (light-guide portion 41, see figures 6-7) illuminated by a light source (light sources 47);
further comprising receiving, by the light pipe (41), a force (downward force by the user) that causes a switch (push down switch 46, see fig 6) to be actuated (as seen in fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the force for switch activation as taught by Katayama into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to illuminate an area for switch activation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device to circularly shaped button, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 64-65 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 64, under the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 58 (see rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and although Mezouari and Wada teach the device, as described in claim 58 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein receiving the force includes moving the light pipe, the associated housing and the one or more light emitting devices in response to the force.
Regarding claim 65, under the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 58 (see rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and although Mezouari and Wada teach the device, as described in claim 58 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein receiving the force includes moving the light pipe, the associated housing and a switch attached to the associated housing in response to the force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 20090116239 A1) discloses a device having a light guide illuminated by a plurality of light sources at the periphery of an input portion of the light guide. Light from the light sources travel upwards along an optical axis of the device and is reflected sideways to be emitted upwards and sideways to achieve even illumination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875