DETAILED ACTION
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20190001878 A1; “Schneider”)
Re Claim 1:
Schneider discloses an emblem (vehicle trims assembly 10; shown in Figs 1-4; described below) comprising:
a light source (LED 22, best shown in Fig 2);
a light guide (lens 24) through which tight rays radiated from the light source (24) are guided (guidance of light rays shown in Figs 3-4);
an optical component (light-extracting deformities 26; Figs 3-4; ¶ 0063), and that emits light rays by transmitting the light rays radiated from the light guide (shown in Figs 3-4); and
a housing (plastic substrate 33) in which the light guide is housed (configuration shown in Figs 2-4), to which an outer circumferential portion of the optical portion (26) is connected (shown in Figs 3), and which has a space (air gaps 36) between the optical component and housing (between 26 and 33), wherein:
the light source (22) is disposed on an inner circumferential portion side of the optical component (26) when viewed from an outer lens side (Fig 1 transposed with Fig 3), and the light rays from the light source (22) are guided to an outer circumferential portion of the light guide (portion proximate to air gap 36, Fig 1 transposed with Fig 3), and
the light rays from the light source (22) guided to the light guide (24) are guided from the light guide (24) to an edge portion (surface-defining areas 28) of the optical component (of 26, shown in Fig 3) outer lens, and the light rays guided to the edge portion (28) of the optical component (26) and are transmitted through the portion (28) of the outer lens (shown in Fig 3).
With regard to a housing being bonded to an optical component, the limitation is a Product-By-Process limitation under MPEP § 2113. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) would not have recognized a difference between Applicant’s claimed bonding and Schneider’s disclosed connection for the purpose of structural orientation and configuration.
With regard to the outer component and the outer circumferential portion of the optical component, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Schneider as at least suggesting an equivalent structure to the claimed outer lens and outer circumferential portion of the outer lens by disclosing the optical component and the outer lens of the optical component due to the disclosed functionality of emitting light in the outer circumferential area of an emblem (Fig 1).
With regard diffusion, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Schneider as at least suggesting diffusion by the description of diffusing polymer and light diffusing material in ¶ 0025. Due to the rationale above, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Schneider as at least suggesting an outer lens containing diffusion material and an equivalent functionality to the claimed light rays guided to the outer circumferential portion of the outer lens are diffused in the outer circumferential portion of the outer lens and are transmitted through the outer circumferential portion of the outer lens for the purpose of guiding light to the outer circumferential area of the emblem and emitting diffused light at the area.
With further regard to the housing, light guide, and equivalent outer lens configuration, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). In the specific instance, the claimed configuration of a space in which the light guide is disposed between the outer lens and the housing and Schneider’s disclosed (or at least suggested) configuration of between the outer lens (26) and housing (33), both perform the functionality of guiding light to outer circumference of an emblem to emit diffused light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Schneider as at least suggesting an equivalent configuration to the claimed configuration for the purpose of guiding light to outer circumference of an emblem to emit diffused light.
Re Claim 4:
Schneider further discloses wherein the outer circumferential portion (portion proximate to 36) of the light guide (24) is disposed along a connection portion between the outer lens and the housing (between 26 and 33, Figs 2-3).
With regard to bonding, the limitation is a Product-By-Process limitation under MPEP § 2113. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) would not have recognized a difference between Applicant’s claimed bonding and Schneider’s disclosed connection for the purpose of structural orientation and configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 2:
The closest prior art of record (Schneider) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the covering layer as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 3:
The claim contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence in intervening claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant respectfully argued that Schneider did not anticipate nor render claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further, Applicant argued their position by at least the passages below which were in turn respectfully responded to.
Passage 1, Page 5
PNG
media_image1.png
158
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the Examiner agrees that Schneider discloses uses one component rather than using two components. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that using two components rather than one makes the limitations in claim one non-obvious and distinguishing from an equivalent structure and functionality. In example, a Non-Patent Literature Reference, Yan et al. (Edge-Lighting Light Guide Plate Based on Micro-Prism for Liquid Crystal Display, Journal of Display Technology, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 2009; “Yan”) teaches equivalence in structure for a light guide with a modifying emission structure (Fig 3 (a), Page 356, PDF Page 2) and a light guide with a separate emission structure (Fig 2 (b), Page 356, PDF Page 2), both having the functionality of modifying light. Similarly, as admitted by Applicant below, both Schneider’s disclosed light guide (24) with a modifying emission structure (26) and Applicant’s disclosed light guide and separate emission structure (outer lens), both perform the functionality of guide light to an outer circumference of an emblem to emit diffused light. Further, prior art recognized equivalence for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize disclosed light guide with a modifying emission structure as an equivalent structure to the claimed light guide and separate modifying emission structure (outer lens) for the purpose of performing the functionality of guide light to an outer circumference of an emblem to emit diffused light.
Passage 2, Page 5
PNG
media_image2.png
140
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to fundament differences, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). With equivalence established above, the differences described are not patentable.
Passage 3, Page 5
PNG
media_image3.png
198
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to level of ordinary skill in the art, as described above, prior art recognized equivalence has been established and as a matter of case law for the particular difference – prior art one component rather than the claimed two – is not patentable.
Passage 4, Page 5
PNG
media_image4.png
115
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For the reasons above, it is the Examiner’s position that Schneider at least one of discloses, suggests equivalence, or render’s obvious the combined structure and functionality of the limitations in claim 1.
Therefore, the Examiner’s rejections are sustained.
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 KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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 at (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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875