DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/08/2026.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG (US 2007/0253211), and in view of RAPISARDA (US 9,978,806).
Regarding claim 1, CHANG discloses an illuminator comprising
a light source (12, Fig,5); and
an exterior cover (3, Fig.5) that covers at least a part of a light emission space by light source,
wherein the exterior cover includes a first light radiation wall and a second light radiation wall that allow light emitted from the plurality of light sources to pass therethrough to radiate the light to the outside (as seen in Fig.5, since the exterior cover 3 has a triangular shape, the “first light radiation wall” was considered to be one side of the exterior cover 3, and the “second light radiation wall” was considered to be the opposite side of the exterior cover 3),
the first light radiation wall and the second light radiation wall are colorless transparent (as seen in para[0016], the exterior cover 3 is transparent) and are continuous with each other with a linear ridge therebetween (as seen in Fig.5, since the exterior cover 3 has a triangular shape, a linear ridge [or an apex] is between the first and second light radiation wall of the exterior cover 3).
CHANG fails to disclose a plurality of light sources, and at least one light source of the plurality of light sources emits light of variable colors.
However, RAPISARDA discloses a plurality of light sources (Fig.2), and at least one light source (1, Fig.1) of the plurality of light sources emits light of variable colors (RGB LEB).
Therefore, in view of RAPISARDA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source emitting light of variable colors as taught by RAPISARDA to the light source of CHANG in order to provide different colored light.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 2023/0103181), and in view of WINKLER (US 2019/0381905) and BREMER (US 2021/0348736).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses an illuminator comprising
a light source (150, 152, Fig.3); and
an exterior cover (190, Fig.2; para[0096]) that covers at least a part of a light emission space by light source,
wherein the exterior cover includes a light radiation wall (190, Fig.2) that allow light emitted from the light source to pass therethrough to radiate the light to the outside,
the light radiation wall is colorless transparent (as seen in para[0096], the light radiation wall 190 is transparent material).
KIM fails to disclose a plurality of light sources; wherein the exterior cover includes a first light radiation wall and a second light radiation wall that allow light emitted from the plurality of light sources to pass therethrough to radiate the light to the outside, the first light radiation wall and the second light radiation wall are colorless transparent or milky flat plates and are continuous with each other with a linear ridge therebetween, and at least one light source of the plurality of light sources emits light of variable colors.
However, WINKLER discloses a plurality of light sources (110, 111, Fig.6), and at least one light source of the plurality of light sources emits light of variable colors (as seen in para[0063], the light sources 110, 111 are RGB LEDs emitting any color).
However, BREMER discloses an exterior cover (34, Fig.3) includes a first light radiation wall (50, Fig.3) and a second light radiation wall (52, Fig.3) allowing light emitted from a plurality of light sources (26, Fig.3) to pass therethrough to radiate the light to the outside, and the first light radiation wall and the second light radiation wall are continuous with each other with a linear ridge therebetween (as seen in Fig.3, since the exterior cover 34 has a triangular shape, a linear ridge [or an apex] is between the first and second radiation wall of the exterior cover 34).
Therefore, in view of WINKLER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of light sources emitting light of variable colors as taught by WINKLER to the light source of KIM in order to provide light having different colors for a desired application.
Therefore, in view of BREMER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an exterior cover including a first and second light radiation wall as taught by BREMER to the exterior cover of KIM modified by WINKLER in order to direct light to different areas to provide illumination.
Regarding claim 2, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above for claim 1 fails to explicitly discloses wherein at least one light source of the plurality of light sources other than the at least one light source that emits the light of variable colors emits monochromatic illumination light.
Regarding “at least one light source of the plurality of light sources other than the at least one light source that emits the light of variable colors emits monochromatic illumination light”, as seen in para[0063] of WINKLER, the light sources 110, 111 are RGB LEDs emitting any color. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the RGB LEDs can be controlled to illuminate a desired color such that one light source can emit variable colors and another light source can emit monochromatic light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source emitting monochromatic illumination light to the light sources of KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER in order to provide light having different colors for a desired application.
Regarding claim 3, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above for claim 1 further disclose a substrate (113, Fig.6 of WINKLER) on which the plurality of light sources (110, 111, Fig.6 of WINKLER) are mounted, wherein a first direction is a direction toward the ridge from a first substrate surface of the substrate on which the plurality of light sources are arranged.
KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER fails to disclose an inclination angle of an outer surface of each of the first light radiation wall and the second light radiation wall relative to a hypothetical plane orthogonal to the first direction is an acute angle.
However, BREMER further discloses a direction toward the ridge from a plurality of light sources (26, Fig.3) are arranged is defined as a first direction (as seen in Fig.3, in this view, the “first direction” was considered to be a horizontal direction from the light source 26 to the exterior cover 34), and an inclination angle of an outer surface of each of the first light radiation wall (50, Fig,3) and the second light radiation wall (52, Fig.3) relative to a hypothetical plane (as seen in Fig.3, in this view, the “hypothetical plane” was considered to be a vertical plane [orthogonal to the horizontal direction]) orthogonal to the first direction is an acute angle (as seen in Fig.3, in this view, the outer surface of the first and second light radiation wall 50, 52 was considered to have an acute angle with respect to the hypothetical plane [vertical plane]).
Therefore, in view of BREMER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an acute angle as taught by BREMER to the first and second light radiation walls of KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER in order to provide a slope for the first and second light radiation walls to direct light to different areas to provide illumination.
Regarding claim 6, KIM further discloses wherein the exterior cover (190, Fig.2) is attached to an illuminator attaching hole that constitutes a part of a charging inlet (100, Fig.2), and the light radiated from the exterior cover is directed toward a charging opening (130, Fig.1) in the charging inlet.
KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above claim 1 further discloses the first light radiation wall and the second light radiation wall are exposed outward from the illuminator attaching hole.
KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER fails to explicitly disclose the light radiated from the first light radiation wall is directed toward a charging opening in the charging inlet.
Regarding “the light radiated from the first light radiation wall is directed toward a charging opening in the charging inlet”, since KIM discloses light directed toward the charging opening, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the light source and the exterior cover can be arranged such that the light of the exterior cover [i.e. the first light radiation wall] can be directed towards the charging opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light radiated from the first light radiation wall directed toward a charging opening to the illuminator of KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER in order to direct light from the exterior cover to the charging opening.
Regarding claim 7, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above for claim 6 further discloses wherein the at least one light source that emits the light of variable colors emits the light based on a radiation pattern corresponding to an operation status at the time of charging using the charging inlet (as seen in para[0082]-para[0084] of WINKLER, the light source 110, 111 emits light based on an operation status during charging).
Regarding claim 8, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above for claim 1 discloses wherein the illuminator is attached to a charging inlet (130, Fig.1) of a vehicle (as seen in Fig.1 of KIM, the illuminator 150, 152 is generally attached to the charging inlet 130 by the door 142 and the hinge 160), and a first one of the first light radiation wall and second light radiation wall is facing the charging inlet (as seen in Fig.1 of KIM, since the charging inlet 130 is illuminated, the combination as discussed above for claim 1 was considered to suggest the first light radiation wall facing the charging inlet), and a second one of the first light radiation wall and second light radiation wall is facing away from the charging inlet (as a result of the combination as discussed above for claim 1, the second light radiation wall was considered to be generally facing away from the charging inlet 130).
Regarding claim 9, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above for claim 8 further discloses wherein the plurality of light sources are each arranged on a same plane which is perpendicular to a second plane in which the charging inlet is configured to receive a charger there through (as seen in Fig.1 of KIM, the light source 150, 152 was considered to be generally perpendicular to a second plane 130 in which the charging inlet 130 receives a charger).
Regarding claim 10, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER as discussed above for claim 8 further discloses wherein the illuminator is cantilevered from and thereby overhangs the charging inlet (as seen in Fig.1 of KIM, the illuminator was considered to be cantilevered and overhang the charging inlet 130).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 2023/0103181) modified by WINKLER (US 2019/0381905) and BREMER (US 20210348736), and in view of LIM (US 2019/0186710).
Regarding claim 4, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER fails to disclose wherein a first inclination angle is the inclination angle of the outer surface of the first light radiation wall relative to the hypothetical plane, and the inclination angle of the outer surface of the second light radiation wall relative to the hypothetical plane is a second inclination angle, values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle are the same.
However, LIM discloses an inclination angle of the outer surface of a first light radiation wall (as seen in Fig.46, since the exterior cover 2 has a triangular shape, the “first light radiation wall” was considered to be one side of the exterior cover 2) relative to a hypothetical plane (as seen in Fig.46, in this view, the “hypothetical plane” was considered to be a vertical plane [orthogonal to the horizontal direction]) is a first inclination angle, an inclination angle of the outer surface of a second light radiation wall (as seen in Fig.46, since the exterior cover 2 has a triangular shape, the “second light radiation wall” was considered to be the opposite side of the exterior cover 2) relative to the hypothetical plane is a second inclination angle, and values of the first and second inclination angle are the same (as seen in Fig.46, the first and second light radiation walls of the exterior cover 2 were considered to be same such that the inclination angles were considered to be the same).
Therefore, in view of LIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate values of the first and second inclination angle are the same as taught by LIM to the inclination angle of the first and second light radiation walls of KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER in order to provide an alternative exterior cover.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 2023/0103181) modified by WINKLER (US 2019/0381905) and BREMER (US 20210348736), and in view of CHANG (US 2007/0253211).
Regarding claim 5, KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER fails to disclose an annular packing, wherein the exterior cover includes an annular frame to which the packing is attached; and a plurality of side walls for integrating the frame with at least one of the first light radiation wall and the second light radiation wall.
However, CHANG discloses an annular packing (2, Fig.5), an exterior cover (3, Fig.5) includes an annular frame (as seen in Figs.5-6, the “annular frame” was considered to be the annular portion of the exterior cover 3 receiving the hooks 25) to which the packing is attached (as seen in Figs.5-6, the exterior cover 3 and the annular packing 2 are attached), a plurality of side walls for integrating the frame with a first and second light radiation wall (as seen in Fig.5, since the exterior cover 3 has a triangular shape, the “first and second light radiation wall” was considered to be the sloped sides of the exterior cover 3; the “plurality of side walls” were considered to be general side walls of the exterior cover 3 integrating the frame and the first and second radiation walls).
Therefore, in view of CHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an annular packing as taught by CHANG to the exterior cover of KIM modified by WINKLER and BREMER in order to attach the exterior cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued “At pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action, the rejection cited to Rapisarda for alleged "plural" light sources one of which would be an "RGB LE[D]" of "variable color", but then the rejection's alleged reasoning for that combination is merely: to provide different colored light.
But first, there is not a clear reason from the references, much less from the rejection, why "different colored light" would have been desired and obvious to combine to Chang. Instead, it is the Applicant's specification which provides the motivation and reasoning for those features, not the references.
And further, the rejection does not advance any reason why being able to "provide different colored light" in that combination of Chang and Rapisarda would have obviously resulted in having a "plurality of light sources", which is a feature to which the Chang reference is admittedly deficient”.
In response to applicant’s argument, while CHANG discloses a single light source, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate multiple light sources for a variety of reasons. For example: 1) provide different colors or color temperature, 2) increase the luminance, and/or 3) direct light from each light source to different areas. RAPISARDA and WINKLER were used to explicitly show an example of the prior art teaching multiple light sources to emit light of variable colors. The mere inclusion of a plurality of light sources for emitting variable colors is not inventive or novel. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/J.M.E/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights