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 .
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 August 22 of 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment, filed concurrently with the instant application on August 22 of 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-20 and have been amended. Claims 6, 8 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-23 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 16 and 23 being independent.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment, per MPEP 606.01. Any changes to claim scope at time of allowance may also result in an additional title amendment.
At this time, the following title is suggested: Light Guide having Concave Light Emitting Region.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to concisely describe the subject matter of applicant’s invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. A light system including[[:]] a light source; and a light guide having an upper surface, a lower surface, and an at least one edge surface extending between the upper and lower surfaces to define a height therebetween, the edge surface configured to receive light from the light source. The light guide has a concave region [[that]]through which light exits the light guide
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “upper surface” including “optics” (as defined in Claim 1) and the “lower surface” including “optics” (as defined in Claim 23), must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Section a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claim 1 is rejected as it attempts to define a “concave region” that “homogeneously illuminates an article of manufacture”; however, the claim provides no support for such illumination output, and the originally filed description simply declares the disclose structure as capable of such function without providing any evidence of such results, of even describing the structure necessarily enabling such illumination output. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, to expedite prosecution, a homogeneous illumination output being an inherent result of the claimed structure and arrangement.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected at least for their dependency on non-enabled independent claim 1, as detailed above, as they fail to correct the cited deficiencies.
Dependent claim 15 is further rejected as it attempts to define the “light guide” as capable of “homogeneously illuminate the article of manufacture”; however, the claim provides no support for such illumination output, and the originally filed description simply declares the disclose structure as capable of such function without providing any evidence of such results, of even describing the structure necessarily enabling such illumination output. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, to expedite prosecution, a homogeneous illumination output being an inherent result of the claimed structure and arrangement.
Independent claim 16 is rejected as it attempts to define a “concave region” providing a “uniform distribution, amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light to an article of manufacture”; however, the claim provides no support for such illumination output, and the originally filed description simply declares the disclose structure as capable of such function without providing any evidence of such results, of even describing the structure necessarily enabling such illumination output. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, to expedite prosecution, the recited illumination output being an inherent result of the claimed structure and arrangement.
Dependent claims 17-22 are rejected at least for their dependency on non-enabled independent claim 16, as detailed above, as they fail to correct the cited deficiencies.
Dependent claim 19 is rejected as it attempts to define a “concave region” that “homogeneously light is free of hot spots”; however, the claim provides no support for such illumination output, and the originally filed description simply declares the disclose structure as capable of such function without providing any evidence of such results, of even describing the structure necessarily enabling such illumination output. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, to expedite prosecution, a homogeneous light without hot spots being an inherent result of the claimed structure and arrangement.
Independent claim 23 is rejected as it attempts to define a “concave region” that “homogeneously illuminates an article of manufacture”; however, the claim provides no support for such illumination output, and the originally filed description simply declares the disclose structure as capable of such function without providing any evidence of such results, of even describing the structure necessarily enabling such illumination output. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, to expedite prosecution, a homogeneous illumination output being an inherent result of the claimed structure and arrangement.
Section b
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 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the invention defined by the claim is just a “lighting system”, as defined in the preamble; or the combination of the recited “lighting system” and “an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle”, as implied by the claim requirement of light projected from the “concave region” illuminating such article of manufacture. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 1 as attempting to define just a lighting system, such that the recited article is not part of the invention.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite independent claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 14 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, the range the recitation “within about 15 cm or less and about 2 cm or more” is attempting to define. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the claimed “light guide” as configured to be located in the range of 2 cm to 15 cm from the “article of manufacture”.
Dependent claim 14 is further indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the invention defined by the claim is just a “lighting system”, as defined in the preamble; or the combination of the recited “lighting system” and the “article of manufacture”, as implied by the claim requirement of light projected from the “concave region” homogeneously illuminating such article of manufacture. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 14 as attempting to define just a lighting system, such that the recited article is not part of the invention.
Dependent claim 15 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, the functional features the recitation “the light guide includes a length and a width and a substantially homogeneous distribution, amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light extends out of the concave region along the length and the width to homogeneously illuminate the article of manufacture” is attempting to define. Is term “uniform” intended to apply to “amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light”, or simply to the “distribution”? What is the phrase “a uniform distribution” attempting to define, since “amount” and “intensity” of light are recited as competing entities? The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 16 as attempting to define the “concave region” as providing just a “uniform distribution” (i.e. a distribution with a substantially uniform amount and intensity of light across an output surface).
Independent claim 16 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the invention defined by the claim is just a “lighting system”, as defined in the preamble; or the combination of the recited “lighting system” and “an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle”, as implied by the claim requirement of light projected from the “concave region” illuminating such article of manufacture. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 16 as attempting to define just a lighting system, such that the recited article is not part of the invention.
Independent claim 16 is further indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, the functional features the recitation “light directed through the concave region provides a uniform distribution, amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light to an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle” is attempting to define. Is term “uniform” intended to apply to “amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light”, or simply to the “distribution”? What is the phrase “a uniform distribution” attempting to define, since “amount” and “intensity” of light are recited as competing entities? The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 16 as attempting to define the “concave region” as providing just a “uniform distribution” (i.e. a distribution with a substantially uniform amount and intensity of light across an output surface).
Dependent claims 17-22 are rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite independent claim 16, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 18 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the invention defined by the claim is just a “lighting system”, as defined in the preamble; or the combination of the recited “lighting system” and the “article of manufacture”, as implied by the claim requirement of light projected from the “concave region” be directed towards such article of manufacture. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 18 as attempting to define just a lighting system, such that the recited article is not part of the invention.
Dependent claim 20 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, the intended meaning of the recitation “the concave region spreads the light a distance of about 1 cm or more to about 15 cm or less”. The applicant is advised that the words “spreads the light a distance”, or even the term “spread/spreads/spreading”, could not be found related to any range in the originally filed description and drawings; therefore, no reasonable assumption could be made as the meets and bounds of claim 20. Claim 20 has been considered as standing or falling with dependent claim 16, from which it directly depends.
Independent claim 23 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the invention defined by the claim is just a “lighting system”, as defined in the preamble; or the combination of the recited “lighting system” and “an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle”, as implied by the claim requirement of light projected from the “concave region” illuminating such article of manufacture. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 23 as attempting to define just a lighting system, such that the recited article is not part of the invention.
Section d
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claim 14 recites the “light guide” as configured to be located within a distance from the “article of manufacture” to homogeneously illuminate such article; however, the claims fails to define any additional structural elements or features specifically limiting the “lighting system”, as previously defined by independent claim 1 (from which claim 14 directly depends), to such arrangement.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 1-3, 9-12, 14-18, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TESSNOW et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0185389).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of TESSNOW et al (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0185389), simplified and annotated to clearly reference claimed structural elements and features.
Regarding independent claim 1 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. discloses a light system 10 (as seen in Figure 4) including a light source 12 (as seen in Figure 4); and a light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4) aligned with the light source 12 (as seen in Figure 4) so that light from the light source 12 directs light into the light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4), with the light guide 14 including an upper surface (convex side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) and a lower surface (concave side surface, as seen in Figure 4) and a height (thickness of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) between the upper surface and the lower surface (as seen in Figure 4), wherein the light guide 14 has a concave region (concave side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) that light extends through (as seen in Figure 4), with the upper surface and lower surface being curved in the concave region (as seen in Figure 4) and the upper surface includes optics 26 (as seen in Figure 6) that redirect the light out of the concave region (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding the “light extending from the concave region homogeneously illuminates an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle”, the applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the lighting system 10 of TESSNOW et al. discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus.
Regarding dependent claim 2 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses a guiding device 12 (housing enclosing element 12, as seen in Figure 4) connected to an end of the light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4), the guiding device 12 directing the light from the light source 12 into the light guide 14 (as evidenced by Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 3 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the concave region of the light guide 14 has a center (as evidenced by Figure 4) located between two ends 28/30 (as evidenced by Figures 4 and 6) so that the concave region is arcuate (as seen in Figure 4) and includes a radius (as evidenced by Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 9 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the optics 26 include a reflecting surface (surface of element 26 facing element 12, as seen in Figure 4) and a redirecting surface (surface of element 26 facing away from element 12, as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 10 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the reflecting surface extends at an angle relative to the redirecting surface (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 11 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the redirecting surface is planar (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 12 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the reflecting surface has a triangular cross-sectional shape (radial sector 26 of element 14 is substantially triangular, as evidenced by Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 14 (as best understood), the applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the lighting system 10 of TESSNOW et al. discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform such as “light extending from the concave region homogeneously illuminates an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle”, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus.
Regarding dependent claim 15 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the light guide 14 includes a length (as seen in Figure 4) and a width (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding “a substantially homogeneous distribution, amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light extends out of the concave region along the length and the width to homogeneously illuminate the article of manufacture”, the applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the lighting system 10 of TESSNOW et al. discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the cited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus.
Regarding independent claim 16 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. discloses light system 12 (as seen in Figure 4) including a light source 12 (as seen in Figure 4); a guiding device 12 (housing enclosing element 12, as seen in Figure 4); and a light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4) in communication with the guiding device 12 (as seen in Figure 4) that light from the light source 12 extends into the light guide 14 through the guiding device 12 (as seen in Figure 4) and extends along a length of the light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4), wherein the light guide 14 includes a curved upper surface (convex side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) extending along the length (as seen in Figure 4) and a lower surface (concave side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) extending along the length opposite the upper surface (as seen in Figure 4) with the lower surface including a concave region (concave side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) formed in the lower surface along the length of the light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding the “so that light directed through the concave region provides a uniform distribution, amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light to an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle; wherein the light guide is configured to be located a predetermined distance from the article of manufacture to provide the uniform distribution, amount, intensity, or a combination thereof of light on the article of manufacture”, the applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the lighting guide 14 of TESSNOW et al. discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus.
Regarding dependent claim 17 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the concave region is generally arcuate (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 18 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses optics 26 (as seen in Figure 6) that break an internal reflection and direct the light from a direction parallel to the length of the light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4) to a direction towards the concave region and out of the concave region (as seen in Figure 4) towards the article of manufacture (as evidenced by Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 20 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the concave region spreads the light a distance of about 1 cm or more and about 15 cm or less (inherent, see previous section 32 of the instant Office Action).
Regarding dependent claim 21 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. further discloses the concave region of the light guide 14 has a center (as evidenced by Figure 4) located between two ends 28/30 (as evidenced by Figures 4 and 6) so that the concave region is arcuate (as seen in Figure 4) and includes a radius (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding dependent claim 23 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. discloses a light system 10 (as seen in Figure 4) including a light source 12 (as seen in Figure 4); and a light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4) aligned with the light source 12 (as seen in Figure 4) so that light from the light source 12 directs light into the light guide 14 (as seen in Figure 4), with the light guide 14 including an upper surface (concave side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) and a lower surface (convex side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) and a height (thickness of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) between the upper surface and the lower surface (as seen in Figure 4), wherein the light guide 14 has a concave region (concave side surface of element 14, as seen in Figure 4) that light extends through (as seen in Figure 4), with the upper surface and lower surface being curved in the concave region (as seen in Figure 4) and the lower surface includes optics 26 (as seen in Figure 6) that redirect the light out of the concave region (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding the “light extending from the concave region homogeneously illuminates an article of manufacture within an interior of a vehicle”, the applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the lighting system 10 of TESSNOW et al. discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus.
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 4, 5, 7, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TESSNOW et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0185389).
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. teaches all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the radius at the center and the radius at the two ends are equal.
However, it has been long held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to shaped the concavity of TESSNOW et al. such that the radius at the center and the radius at the two ends is equal, to achieve the predictable result of matching the specific shape of an intended supporting surface, as pre the teachings of TESSNOW et al. (see paragraph 0022).
Regarding dependent claim 5 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. teaches, or at least suggests, all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the radius is about 2 mm to about 5 cm.
However, it has been long held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to shaped the concavity of TESSNOW et al. such that the radius is about 2 mm to about 5 cm, to achieve the predictable result of matching the specific shape of an intended supporting surface, as pre the teachings of TESSNOW et al. (see paragraph 0022).
Regarding dependent claim 7 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. teaches all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the height is about 2 mm to about 5 cm.
However, it has been long held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to shaped the light guide 14 of TESSNOW et al. such that the height is about 2 mm to about 5 cm, to achieve the predictable result of meeting the spatial requirements of a given application, as pre the teachings of TESSNOW et al. (see paragraph 0022).
Regarding dependent claim 19 (as best understood), TTESSNOW et al. teaches all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the homogeneous light has an intensity from about 50 lux to at about 1000 lux at the article of manufacture and the homogeneous light is free of hot spots.
However, it has been long held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to configure the light system 10 of TESSNOW et al. such that the homogeneous light has an intensity from about 50 lux to at about 1000 lux at the article of manufacture and free of hot spots, to achieve the predictable result of meeting the illumination requirements of a given application, as pre the teachings of TESSNOW et al. (see paragraphs 0023 and 0024).
Regarding dependent claim 22 (as best understood), TESSNOW et al. teaches all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the radius at the center and the radius at the two ends are equal.
However, it has been long held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to shaped the concavity of TESSNOW et al. such that the radius at the center and the radius at the two ends is equal, to achieve the predictable result of matching the specific shape of an intended supporting surface, as pre the teachings of TESSNOW et al. (see paragraph 0022).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Birdseye (U.S. Pat. 2,135,480), Redmond (U.S. Pat. 6,538,828), DuNah et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,400,224), Hulse et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,915,062), and George et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,677,721) disclose illumination devices including a light guide element including a concave surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights