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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 July 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 6-8 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. In claim 6, the phrase “for each longitudinal position” is unclear because the claim does not specify whether the longitudinal position refers to the luminous elements, reflective elements, movable shutter elements, or a common positional relationship among such components, and it is therefore unclear whether a separate set of N reflective elements and N luminous elements is required at each position. The phrase “each luminous element being capable of emitting light rays to only one of the N reflective elements” is also ambiguous as to whether a fixed one-to-one structural correspondence is required. Claim 7 inherits the ambiguity of claim 6 and further recites that the inclinations and/or positions are different “for at least two reflective elements,” even though the claim defines the inclinations and positions as attributes of the luminous elements, thereby rendering unclear what structure actually differs. Accordingly, the scope of claims 6 and 7 is not reasonably certain. The Examiner turned to the specification for clarification. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, claim 6 is understood as at least two reflective elements have a corresponding luminous element. Further claim 7 is understood as the luminous elements are provided on a surface wherein there are luminous elements in at least two directions.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by clarifying in claim 6 that, for each one of the sets of longitudinal positions, there is a corresponding set of N reflective elements and N luminous elements, with each luminous element arranged to emit only toward a respective reflective element at that position. Applicant may further clarify in claim 7 that the recited differing inclinations and/or positions are those of luminous elements corresponding to different reflective elements, rather than of the reflective elements themselves, if that is the intended meaning and if supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. The phrase “a frame and a reflective element fastened to at least one light source is capable of emitting light rays toward the frame” is unclear because it does not reasonably specify whether the reflective element is fastened to the frame or to the light source, and further does not clearly identify which recited component is capable of emitting light rays toward the frame. Accordingly, the scope of claim 8 is not reasonably certain. The Examiner turned to the specification for clarification. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the claim is understood as the frame carries a reflective element and the light source emits toward that reflective element.
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 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buergers (DE 10 2020 121 803; hereinafter ‘Buergers’) in view of Klop (US 8,662,569; hereinafter ‘Klop’).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Buergers discloses a device for an automotive vehicle, comprising:
at least two movable shutter elements (3; as seen in at least fig. 2), each movable shutter element (156’) including a first face (3a or 3b, as seen in at least fig. 2) and a second face (3b or 3a; as seen in at least fig.2);
the at least two movable shutter elements movable to a closed position of the device and to at least one open position of the device (as disclosed in the machine translation at notation A);
at least one light source (7; as seen in at least fig. 2) arranged to emit light rays toward at least one movable shutter element, the first face of which is arranged to face a second face of another movable shutter element, in the at least one open position (as seen in at least fig. 2 and the associated text);
in which the at least one movable shutter element (3) toward which the light rays from the at least one source is emitted is integral with a reflective element capable of reflecting at least some of the emitted light rays toward the second face of the other movable shutter element, in the at least one open position (as disclosed in the machine translation at notation B).
Whilst Buergers teaches the shutters are rotatable, it is not specifically disclosed that the rotation is performed by an actuator. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the necessity for an actuator to perform the rotation as well as holding the shutters in place.
Klop teaches another vehicular grille shutter assembly including an actuator (28) to provide movement to shutters (20), wherein the actuator is capable of generating a mechanical force to move the movable shutter elements, and the device further comprises a mechanical element capable of transmitting the mechanical force generated by the actuator to the at least one light source (as disclosed in at least the abstract), and wherein the mechanical element is a camshaft capable of converting the mechanical force of the actuator into a path of the light source by means of a non-linear function (as disclosed in at least column 3, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date include an actuator, as taught by Klop, capable of moving Buergers’ at least two movable shutter elements to a closed position of the device and to at least one open position of the device.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide controllable airflow through the grille while retaining Buergers’ reflective illumination arrangement.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buergers in view of Klop for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above, and further because Buergers teaches a plurality of illuminated adjacent slat pairs, each slat having reflective side faces, thereby teaching at least two reflective elements arranged to reflect light toward respective faces of two grille members, as recited in claim 2. Buergers also teaches that the light sources may be LED units composed of one or more LEDs, thereby teaching that the at least one light source includes at least one luminous element arranged to emit light rays toward the reflective elements, as recited in claim 3. Klop teaches that the grille members are movable vanes of an active grille shutter system actuated between open and closed positions.
Regarding claim 4, Buergers discloses the device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one light source (7; as seen in at least fig. 2) includes at least two luminous elements (as disclosed in the Applicant supplied English translation of the abstract), each luminous element being able and arranged to emit light rays toward only one of the at least two reflective elements (as disclosed in the Applicant supplied English translation of the abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Buergers discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the movable shutter elements (3) extend longitudinally in a first direction (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2), wherein the at least one light source (7) extends longitudinally in the first direction (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the at least one light source (7) includes at least one luminous element for each longitudinal position in a set of longitudinal positions in the first direction (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Buergers discloses the device as claimed in claim 5, wherein for each longitudinal position, the device includes N reflective elements and the light source includes N luminous elements, each luminous element being capable of emitting light rays to only one of the N reflective elements, N being greater than or equal to 2 (as seen in at least fig. 2 and as described in at least the machine translation of the Applicant-provided abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Buergers discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a frame (at least 2d; as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2) and a reflective element (at least 5, 6; as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2) fastened to at least one light source is capable of emitting light rays toward the frame (as inferred from the figures), and the reflective element (5,6) fastened to the frame is capable of reflecting at least some of the light rays toward a second face of a movable shutter element (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 2 due to the positioning of the shutters betwixt the LED/optics and frame), the second face of which is not facing any first face of another movable shutter element.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buergers applied to claim 6 and further in view of Klop and Takada et al. (US 2019/0145595; hereinafter ‘Takada’).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Buergers disclose the claimed invention as indicated above. Buergers further discloses the luminous elements (7) disposed on a single surface.
However, Buergers, as modified by Klop, does not specifically disclose luminous elements which are two different directions.
Takada teaches another vehicle lamp which teaches multiple embodiments including one including an embodiment with a flexible substrate (80) to allow the lights to be pointed in at least two directions (see at least figs. 56 and 57; as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0333-0335]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a flexible circuit board to position the LEDs such that multiple directions, as taught by Takada, such that for each longitudinal position, the luminous elements are arranged on a face of a given support, in which the face of the support is shaped to define respective inclinations of the luminous elements and/or respective positions of the luminous elements along a first axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis and along a second axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the first axis and the second axis being perpendicular to each other; wherein the respective inclinations and/or positions along the first and second axes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis are different for at least two reflective elements of the N reflective elements.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide the appropriate light distribution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as teaching other devices including shutters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH S MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2719. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx 8:30am to 4:30pm.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at (571) 270-3119. 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.
/LEAH MACCHIAROLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights