DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-28 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 21 and 25 are of distinct construction. The applicant has already elected Group I without traverse. They cannot introduce new groups at this point in prosecution.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The only argument the Examiner will accept at this time is that claims 21-28 are not patentably distinct from claim 1. However, the Examiner maintains their rejection over Badoil et al. If they are not patentably distinct as required, then they would be rejectable by Badoil et al as well.
Claim Rejections - 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(s) 1, 3-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badoil et al (US 2019/0351821 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Badoil et al disclose a trim component having a substrate (36) used for an interior or exterior of a vehicle, the trim component comprising:
a support structure (12 and 24) securely coupled to the substrate;
a carrier (16) securely attached to the support structure;
at least one light source (20) fixedly attached to the carrier; and
an optic element (26) placed over the at least one light source to disperse light from the at least one light source,
and, as recited in the amendment filed 5/19/2026,
wherein the optic element is attached directly to the carrier to cover the at least one light source (this is clearly depicted in Figure 2—the optic element is clearly sandwiched in 16). (Figure 2; see at least [0035] onward)
In regard to claim 3, Badoil et al disclose the optic element is formed with a first surface directed inward toward the at least one light source and a second surface directed outward toward an opposite side from the first surface.
In regard to claim 4, Badoil et al disclose the first surface of the optic element is spaced apart from a surface of the at least one light source to form an interior space.
In regard to claim 5, Badoil et al disclose the optic element is configured to provide a sealing feature to protect against the ingress of debris or other contaminants into the interior space.
In regard to claim 13, Badoil et al disclose the optic element is formed of an unfilled silicone. (See [0044])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badoil et al (US 2019/0351821 A1) in view of Walters et al (US 2019/0389412 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 11 and 12, Badoil et al fail to disclose a curved reflective surface.
Walters et al teaches the trim component includes at least one curved surface (34, 36) defining a disrupted reflective surface and at least one facet formed over the at least one curved surface configured to reflect an incident light beam from the at least one light source, and as recited in claim 12, wherein the at least one facet has radius of curvature preferably between 5 mm and infinity. (Figure 4; see at least [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to surface of Walters et al to the trim of Badoil et al in order to provide for a decorative trim appearance.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badoil et al (US 2019/0351821 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Badoil et al disclose the optic element is formed of an unfilled silicone. (See [0044])
Where the interpretation of “unfilled silicone” is argued, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use unfilled silicone in the optic of Badoil et al in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Badoil et al fails to teach the newly added limitation of “wherein the optic element is attached directly to the carrier to cover the at least one light source”. The Examiner has no idea what the applicant is talking about. Look at figure 2. That’s attached. It’s at least touching, and the rest of the components hold it together. That’s directly attached under BRI.
The rejection is Final.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James (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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights