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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 retaining elements are snap-in, threaded, or adhesive elements in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
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 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim requires a “flat optical waveguide” on line 3 and then later requires “the optical waveguide is flexible and framed on at least the opposing narrow sides by retaining elements such that the optical waveguide has a defined curvatures in the assembled state”. These limitations are unclear given that applicant’s claims are to an apparatus which is assembled. Therefore, its unclear how the light guide is a flat optical waveguide and has a defined curvature.
Regarding claim 3, The claims requires retaining elements on a frame that has a flexible section with the waveguide and a rigid section at a right angle to the frame section. The Examiner is unclear how the rigid section which is a part of the frame section can then be at a right angle to the frame section. Again this is an apparatus claim which is considered to be in an end state not a process of making an apparatus. This claim is so unclear that I can’t come up with an interpretation for it.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0227382 Hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0275925 Hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a lighting device for vehicles, the lighting device comprising:
a light source (11, Fig. 6); and
a flat optical waveguide (10, Fig. 6) with opposing flat sides (top and bottom surface of 10, Fig. 6), and narrow sides (the vertical sides of 10, Fig. 6) connecting the opposing flat sides, wherein a front flat side is a light emitting surface for light from the light source entering the flat optical waveguide, and wherein the front flat side has dedicated micro-optical elements (70, Fig. 6),
wherein the optical waveguide is framed (12, Fig. 2) on at least the opposing narrow sides by retaining elements (the walls of the frame) such that the optical waveguide has a defined curvature in the assembled state (the defined curvature being that it is flat so zero curvature).
Watanabe fails to teach wherein the optical waveguide is flexible.
Chen teaches wherein the optical waveguide (10, Paragraph 0032) is flexible (Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the light guide of Watanabe being made of a flexible material as taught by Chen, in order to provide a common material for the light guide as well as having the light guide being able to easily expand and contract due to heat.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches the retaining elements are formed on a frame or partial frame, wherein the frame or partial frame is made of a rigid material (Paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe fails to teach the optical waveguide is made of a transparent silicone material.
Chen teaches the optical waveguide is made of a transparent silicone material (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches a number of light sources (11, Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 2) are placed in recesses on a back side of the optical waveguide (Fig. 6).
Watanabe fails to teach the light sources being flush therewith.
Chen teaches the light sources (22, Figs. 2, 5, or 6) being flush with the optical waveguide (10, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the light source of Watanabe being flush with the optical waveguide as taught by Chen, in order to teach an alternate way of providing the lighting device that is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe teaches optical elements on the front flat side of the optical waveguide or a front side of the optical panel facing away from the optical waveguide are in an area in an axial extension of an optical axis (A) of the light source, and have a surface area that is larger than the surface area of the light source (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe teaches a back side of the optical waveguide has a cover (14, Fig. 6) made of a diffusing, reflective surface (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe teaches the optical waveguide and optical panel form a flat optical waveguide module (all the elements shown in Fig. 2), a number (the number being 1, Fig. 2) of which form horizontally and/or vertically adjacent and adjoining cover lenses (15 and 16 can be seen as flat lenses) inside a housing (frame 12, Fig. 2), at an equidistant spacing thereto.
Claim(s) 6-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0227382 Hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0275925 Hereinafter Chen) further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0049877 Hereinafter Watanabe’877).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe fails to teach the optical waveguide has reflecting elements on a back side in an area where light does not enter it, which reflect the light entering the waveguide toward the front side.
Watanabe’877 teaches the optical waveguide has reflecting elements (42, Fig. 3) on a back side in an area where light does not enter it, which reflect the light entering the waveguide toward the front side (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the reflecting elements of Watanabe’877 on the backside of the waveguide of Watanabe, in order to provide elements intended to guide the light in the correct direction as well as providing diffusion to the light as desired for a given application.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe fails to teach the reflecting elements are elements formed in a printing or structuring process.
Watanabe’877 teaches the reflecting elements are elements formed in a printing or structuring process. (Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the teaching of having the reflective elements formed via printing or structuring process as taught by Watanabe’877, in order to teach common methods of providing optical elements as required for a given application. Additionally, In this apparatus claim, the examiner notes that process limitations with product-by- process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe fails to teach the limitations of claim 8.
Watanabe’877 teaches an optical panel (41, Fig. 4) lies on the front side of the optical waveguide (10, Fig. 4), or the front side is covered by an optical film, either of which has micro-optical elements (41, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe fails to teach the limitations of claim 9.
Watanabe’877 teaches the micro-optical elements on the optical panel are formed in a printing or structuring process (Paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe in view of Watanabe’877 fail to explicitly teach the optical panel has a thickness of 1 mm to 2 mm.
However, Examiner takes official notice in pointing out that Watanabe’877 teaches that the waveguide is between 0.2 and 20mm (Paragraph 0051) therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the date of filing that the optical panel would have a thickness of 1-2mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the optical panel of Watanabe in view of Watanabe’877 to be between 1-2mm, in order to teach a specific required height of optical elements that are well know in the field of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe in view of Watanabe’877 fail to explicitly teach the optical film has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, Examiner takes official notice in pointing out that Watanabe’877 teaches that the waveguide is between 0.2 and 20mm (Paragraph 0051) therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the date of filing that the optical panel would have a thickness of 0.1-0.5mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the optical panel of Watanabe in view of Watanabe’877 to be between 0.1-0.5mm, in order to teach a specific required height of optical elements that are well know in the field of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe teaches another optical panel (16 it’s a prism sheet, Paragraph 0034) is place on the front of the optical panel or optical film, and/or the optical waveguide, which contains optical elements for shaping and focusing the light exiting the waveguide (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0227382 Hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0275925 Hereinafter Chen) further in view of Muegge et al. (US 2023/0408054 Hereinafter Muegge).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe fails to teach the waveguide being curved.
Muegge teaches retainers (walls for the frame 8) on the frame are on opposite sides thereof to define a spacing (b) between (where the light guide is located, Fig. 1) opposite narrow sides of the optical waveguide (2, Fig. 1) such that the optical waveguide assumes a predefined curvature about an axis between the retaining elements in the assembled state (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the waveguide of Watanabe be curved like that of Muegge, in order to provide a different distribution of light and allow for use in a desired application.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0227382 Hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0275925 Hereinafter Chen) and Watanabe et al. (US 10203442 Hereinafter Watanabe’442)
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe fails to teach the retaining elements are snap-in, threaded, or adhesive elements.
Watanabe’442 teaches the retaining elements are adhesive elements (14, Fig. 3, Column 10 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the retaining elements of Watanabe being adhesive as taught by Watanabe’442, in order to provide a specific teaching for elements locking in the light guide relative to the frame.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasek (US 2025/0043931) teaches a light guide with optical members over the LEDs. Yagi et al. (US 11703625) teaches several layers optical layers over the wave guide and the LED being recessed therein. Vasylyev (US 10908350) teaches light sources with optical members and curved sections and multiple layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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 (James) 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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875