DETAILED ACTION
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 4, 8 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.
Claim 4 recites “the color developing layer includes a color change layer… the color change layer is colored so as to change a color of white light transmitted therethrough…”
However, claim 4 depends on claim 1, which recites “when white light is transmitted through the color adjustment layer and the exterior color layer, the color adjustment layer maintains white color of the white light”.
The claim read together requires that the color adjustment layer “maintains white color of the light” and “changes a color of white light transmitted therethrough”. These two limitations are directly contradictory.
Dependent claims cannot contradict the claims from which they depend.
Claim 4 has been interpreted to state “the color developing layer includes a layer capable of transmitting light from the light source”.
Claim 8 is rejected for being dependent on claim 4.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claims 4, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
As noted above, claim 4 directly contradicts claim 1. Therefore claim 4 fails to properly limit the subject matter upon which it depends.
Claims 8 is rejected based on its dependence from claim 4.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa (U.S. 2013/0063050) in view of Yamaguchi (U.S. 2018/0119922) and Salter (U.S. 10,457,201).
Regarding claim 1, Morikawa teaches an exterior component, comprising:
a housing having an opening (see fig. 4);
a light source (light source 2) disposed in the housing; and
a cover (combination of 3, 4, 5) covering the opening of the housing, wherein the vehicle exterior component is configured such that the cover is disposed to be exposed toward an exterior, the cover includes:
a color-developing layer (combination of 3, 5) that is stacked on the transparent base layer in a thickness direction, the color-developing layer (3) includes an exterior color layer and a color adjustment layer (5) that exhibit different colors from each other (3 removes green and red, i.e. appears blue; 5 removes blue, i.e. includes green and red),
the color adjustment layer (5) contains pigment (ink or paint, see p. 0017, either of which contains pigment by definition, see arguments below) is located closer to the light source than the exterior color layer is, and when white light is transmitted through the color adjustment layer and the exterior color layer, the color adjustment layer maintains white color of the white light (see fig. 1, even amount of BGR light emitted in L3).
Morikawa does not teach that the light source is used in a vehicle and is exposed toward an exterior of a vehicle and that a transparent base layer capable of transmitting light from the light source.
Yamaguchi teaches that the structure is used in a vehicle (see p. 0031) and that a transparent base layer capable of transmitting light from the light source (polarized film layer 312, see p. 0023).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a polarized layer as taught by Yamaguchi as a base layer to form the color layers of Morikawa to filter the light and enhance the quality of the image (see Yamaguchi p. 0023).
The Examiner notes that Yamaguchi teaches that 312 has stacked films formed on top of it to form the graphical images.
Salter teaches that the graphical device is used in the exterior of a vehicle (badge).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the backlit graphic of Morikawa and Yamaguchi on the exterior of a vehicle as backlit badges, displays, or other graphics are aesthetic illuminated structures used for exterior display as taught by Salter.
Regarding claim 2, Morikawa teaches that the color-developing layer includes a concealing layer (light shielding layer 4, with pattern 4a) located between the exterior color layer and the color adjustment layer.
Morikawa does not teach that the concealing layer is formed of a smoke-colored paint.
Yamaguchi teaches that the concealing layer is formed of smoke colored paint (smoke layer 316).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a smoke layer as taught by Yamaguchi in place of an opaque shielding layer as taught by Morikawa to illuminate the entire structure partially in the desired color, resulting in an aesthetic effect.
Regarding claim 3, Morikawa does not teach that the concealing layer contains a large number of sparkle particles.
Salter teaches that the concealing layer contains a large number of sparkle particles (see col. 4 lines 23-49, glass particles or beads for added light scattering).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the scattering particles as taught by Salter to provide a sparkle effect in the lens structure of Morikawa to increase the aesthetic effects, see col. 4 of Salter.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi teaches that the color-developing layer includes a layer (color enhancing film, see p. 0026) capable of transmitting light from the light source.
Regarding claim 5-8, Morikawa teaches the exterior color layer and the color adjustment layer are colored so that a minimum value of transmittance of light in a red wavelength range through the exterior color layer is equal to a minimum value of transmittance of light in a green wavelength range through the color adjustment layer (see fig. 1, transmittance of green and red light in L1 are even before the structure and are both reduced to be even when emitted from the structure as L3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Morikawa does not contain a pigment as Morikawa only teaches “general purpose materials (ink, paint, and color filter)”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“Pigment” has been interpreted as “a substance that imparts black or white or a color to other materials”. This limitation is broader than ink, paint, or color filter as set forth in Morikawa. Ink, paint, and color filters all three require pigments to function as stated.
Specifically, paint (noun) is defined as “a mixture of a pigment and a suitable liquid”. As Morikawa teaches general purpose materials where at least one requires the pigment as recited, Morikawa reads on the claim.
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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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 Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights