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 29 April 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “and” should be added to the end of line 9 of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, “ofback” and “tofront” on lines 3 and 4 should be corrected to “of back” and “of front”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(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.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Starting on line 7 of the claim, “…the top plate and the back plate form a light-emitting cavity covering the mirror body” is unclear. At least paragraph [0032] of the specification and the associated figures show the top and bottom plate only cover a portion of the mirror body; thus, the language is unclear. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is understood as “…the top plate and the back plate form a light-emitting cavity covering the light-transmitting area of the mirror body.”
At the end of the claim, “…a part of the light beams…and another part of the light beams” are unclear as there is no quantitative relationship between the two. It could be 1% one way and 99% the other or 50/50. For purposes of examination, the phrases ‘a part of’ and ‘another part of’ are interpreted broadly to mean that some light follows each path, without requiring any particular ratio or proportion between the two lighting effects.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, “an energy beam splitter” on line 2 is unclear as it is not a recognized term in optics. Standard terms that are usually found “beam splitter” (splits by amplitude); dichroic beam splitter (splits by wavelength); and polarizing beam splitter (splits by polarization). Further, similar to claim 1, “…with a part of energy…and…a remaining part of energy” is unclear as there is no quantitative relationship between the two. Turning to the specification, this appears to be a standard beam splitter (amplitude-dividing) with no special “energy-splitting” characteristic beyond what any beam splitter does. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the term ‘energy beam splitter’ is interpreted as a conventional beam splitter that divides incident light by amplitude, reflecting some portion of the incident light energy and transmitting the remaining portion. The phrases ‘a part of energy’ and ‘remaining part of energy’ are interpreted to mean that the beam splitter divides the incident light into reflected and transmitted components without requiring any specific splitting ratio.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, similar to claims 6 and 10, “a part of wavelengths…and…a remaining part of wavelengths” is unclear as there is no quantitative relationship between the two. For purposes of examination, the phrase ‘a part of wavelengths’ is interpreted to mean a first subset of wavelengths within the emission spectrum of the lamp strip, and ‘a remaining part of wavelengths’ is interpreted to mean a second subset comprising wavelengths not included in the first subset. The claim is interpreted to require that the wavelength beam splitter selectively reflects certain wavelengths while transmitting other wavelengths, such that the front lighting effect and back lighting effect have different spectral compositions and thus different perceived colors.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of "the top plate adjustment unit is a transformer...OR, the top plate adjustment unit is a hydraulic press...OR, the top plate adjustment unit is a heater..." [emphasis added] is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: these articles are from fundamentally different structural classes. The alternatives represent different physical structures (electrical vs. mechanical vs thermal), fields of technology, and modes of operation.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is understood as any means of adjusting the transmittance.
The remaining claims are rejected based on at least their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 10,865,979; hereinafter ‘Yu’).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a high brightness lamp mirror, comprising: a mirror body (1; as seen in at least figs. 1-6), wherein a light-transmitting area (4; as seen in at least figs. 1-5) is provided on the mirror body (1);
a back light frame (2, 3; as seen in at least figs. 1-6) provided on a back surface of the mirror body (as seen in at least figs. 1-6), wherein, the back light frame (2, 3) includes a top plate (2; as seen at least figs. 1-4) and a back plate (3 as seen in at least figs. 1-6); the top plate (2) is a light-transmissive plate (as disclosed in at least column 5, line 65-column 6, line 7), the top plate is provided between a mirror body contour edge (not specifically numbered; as seen in at least figs. 1-6) and an outer edge (not numbered; as seen in at least figs. 1-6) of the light-transmitting area of the mirror body (as seen in at least figs. 1-6); the back plate (3) is connected to the top plate (2) (as seen in at least figs. 1-6), the top plate (2) and the back plate (3) form a light-emitting cavity covering the mirror body (as seen in at least figs. 1-4), a light-emitting opening is provided on one side of the light-emitting cavity near the mirror body;
a lamp strip (5, as seen in at least figs. 1-4) provided in the light-emitting cavity (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) of the back light frame (2, 3); wherein, a part of light beams emitted by the lamp strip exits from the light-transmitting area of the mirror body through the light-emitting opening, forming a front lighting effect; and another part of the light beams emitted by the lamp strip exits from the mirror body contour edge through the top plate along the back surface of the mirror body, forming a back lighting effect (as disclosed in at least column 3, lines 34-45).
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses the high brightness lamp mirror of claim 1, wherein, the back light frame further includes a bottom plate (where the LEDs 5 rest, portion 7 of the frame 3) , the bottom plate (7) is provided between an inner edge of the light-transmitting area of the mirror body and a central area of the mirror body (as seen at least figs. 1-4), the back plate (3) is connected to the top plate (2) and the bottom plate (7) to form a light-emitting cavity (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) with the light-emitting opening (at 4, as seen in at least figs. 1-4) that only faces the light-transmitting area (4) of the mirror body (1); the lamp strip (5) is provided on the bottom plate (7).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses the high brightness lamp mirror of claim 2, wherein, the light-transmitting area (4) of the mirror body (1) is provided near the mirror body contour edge (as seen in at least fig. 5; the examiner notes “near” is a relative term) and is arranged around the mirror body (as seen in at least fig. 5); the bottom plate (7) and the top plate (2) of the back light frame are perpendicular to the mirror body (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 4), the back plate of the back light frame is parallel to the mirror body (portion 8 of the back light frame), the back light frame is configured to cover the light-transmitting area of the mirror body to forma light-emitting cavity that surrounds the light-transmitting area (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Yu, in figure A below, the high brightness lamp mirror of claim 2, wherein, a first fixing plate is provided on an end portion of the top plate, the first fixing plate is provided between the top plate and the outer edge of the light-transmitting area of the mirror body, the first fixing plate is closely attached and fixed to the mirror body; a second fixing plate is provided on an end portion of the bottom plate, the second fixing plate is provided on the central area of the mirror body, the second fixing plate is closely attached and fixed to the mirror body; a balancing plate is provided on an end portion of the back plate connected to the bottom plate, the balancing plate and the second fixing plate directly face each other and are in parallel. The Examiner notes that Yu’s patent does not individually label all the features of claim 4, so figure A is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
493
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG A: Yu’s Fig. 2 edited to clearly show the limitations of claim 4, as well as other key features.
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 5, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Black et al. (US 2017/0059151).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Yu does not specifically disclose mechanisms for adjusting an intensity proportion of the backlight.
Black teaches a device which has a two emission surfaces and a mechanism to adjust various parameters (such as intensity, color characteristic, or distribution) (see at least paragraphs [0037-0042 and 0067] and at least fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make Yu’s top plate adjustment unit, wherein, the top plate adjustment unit is configured to control a change of a transmittance, as taught by Black, of the top plate to adjust an intensity proportion of back light to front light.
One would have been motivated to do so to wash the wall with light having a desirable aesthetic.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Yu, as modified by Black, teaches the high brightness lamp mirror of claim 5, wherein, the top plate adjustment unit is a transformer, the top plate is a liquid crystal panel, when a voltage input to the top plate through the transformer increases, the transmittance of the top plate increases; or, the top plate adjustment unit is a hydraulic press, the top plate is a liquid crystal panel, when a pressure applied to the top plate through the hydraulic press increases, the transmittance of the top plate increases; or, the top plate adjustment unit is a heater, the top plate is a two-dimensional photonic crystal, when the heater controls a temperature of the top plate to increase, the transmittance of the top plate increases (the claim is considered met as understood above including the disclosure of altering the light transmittance; see at least the rejection of claim 5 as well as paragraphs [0037-0042 and 0067] and fig. 3).
Regarding claims 10-12, as best understood, Yu discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Yu alone does not specify a beam splitter.
Black alludes to a beam splitter in line with the rejection of claim 5 (see at least paragraphs [0037-0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Black’s beam splitter—in the form of an energy beam splitter (claims 10 and 11) or wavelength beam splitter (claim 12)—provided in Yu’s light-emitting cavity, wherein, a light beam with a part of energy emitted by the lamp strip is reflected by the splitter and exits from the light-transmitting area of the mirror body through the light-emitting opening, forming the front lighting effect; at the same time, a light beam with a remaining part of energy emitted by the lamp strip transmits through the splitter and exits from the mirror body contour edge through the top plate along the back surface of the mirror body, forming the back lighting effect; a light splitting adjustment unit, wherein, the light splitting adjustment unit controls a change of an energy proportion of split light from the energy beam splitter to adjust an intensity proportion of front light to back light or a wavelength adjustment unit, wherein, the wavelength adjustment unit controls a wavelength selection range of the wavelength beam splitter to adjust colors respectively presented by back light and front light.
One would have been motivated to do so as both energy beam splitters and wavelength beam splitters are well known in the art to modify the light’s intensity.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, prior art whether taken alone or in combination fails to disclose, teach, or render obvious including a displacement unit, wherein, the displacement unit is configured to control the back light frame to move back and forth between the inner edge and the outer edge of the light-transmitting area of the mirror body to adjust an intensity proportion of back light to front light.
The remaining claims are indicated as being dependent only on a rejected base claim not on their merits alone.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following are cited as teaching similar lamp mirrors: Yao (US 12,146,648)
Tang (US 12,092,313)
Tang (US 11,927,337)
Brown et al. (US 2016/0154290)
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, 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.
/LEAH MACCHIAROLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875