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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyun KR 20230095228 (see English translation for references to page numbers/paragraphs).
As for claim 1, Hyun discloses a lighting device (1) for a vehicle (see Fig. 2-6; paragraph 0001) - see attached machine translation), the lighting device comprising:
a housing portion (210, Fig. 2), an outer lens portion (220) coupled to the housing portion (210) and configured to cover an opening provided on the housing portion (210, Fig 2; see second half of page 3); a light source portion (100) installed in the housing portion (210, see Fig 2) and configured to emit light toward the outer lens portion (see Fig 3; emits light toward 220); and a light-blocking portion (400) provided on the outer lens portion (220) and configured to partially block light emitted from the light source portion (100) (see Fig. 5-9; see first half of page 5).
3. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 1, and further discloses, wherein the light-blocking portion 400 is smaller than the outer lens portion 220 (Fig 5 shows 400 as being smaller than 220).
4. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 3, wherein: the outer lens portion 220 has a first portion (portion of 220 where 400 is disposed, see Fig 5), and the light-blocking portion 400 is disposed on the first portion of the outer lens portion (as shown in Fig 5).
5. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 4, wherein the light-blocking portion 400 comprises: a non-transmissive portion (first coating layer 410) configured to block the light emitted from the light source portion from passing through (see first two paragraphs of page 5; see also Fig 6); and a light-transmitting portion (second coating layer 420) disposed on the non-transmissive portion (Fig 6 shows 420 on 410) and configured to allow the light emitted from the light source portion to pass through (first two paragraphs of page 5).
7. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 5, wherein: the outer lens portion 220 further has a second portion different from the first portion (second portion of lens 220 is a portion of the lens outside of the boundary of where 400 is disposed; for example, see area of 220 above 400 in Figures 5, 14, and 15), and the light source portion 100 comprises: a first light source portion configured to emit the light toward the light-transmitting portion (LED 100 Figures 3, 5, and 126 Fig 15); and a second light source portion (see Figure 15; upper LED 116 of light source portion 100) configured to emit the light toward the second portion of the outer lens portion (emits towards second portion of lens 220, above and outside of the boundary of where 400 is disposed).
8. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 7, wherein the light-blocking portion 400 comprises a coating layer (first coating layer 410, second paragraph of page 5) applied to (1) a first surface (inner surface) of the outer lens portion 220 facing in a first direction (applied on surface facing light source, interpreted as being a first direction, see Fig 5 and 6).
10. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 8, wherein the light-transmitting portion (420, see Fig 6 and page 5) is made by a different process (page 5 teaches light-transmitting portion is a coating layer). The limitations, “the light-transmitting portion formed by laser etching or laser perforation,” (emphasis added) are product-by-process limitations. The applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the light-transmitting portion 420 of Hyun since the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as the product of the prior art; the product is both cases is a light-transmitting portion (see 420 page 5 of translation of Hyun). See MPEP § 2113.
11. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the light-blocking portion 400 is disposed between the outer lens portion 220 and the light source portion 100 (see as least Fig 5).
12. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 1, and further discloses having an inner lens portion disposed between the outer lens portion 220 and the light source portion100 (see inner lens portion 118 Fig 18 and 114b, 124, Fig 15 which are disposed between 220 and light source 100).
13. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the outer lens portion 220 comprises: a first outer lens portion (see area B, Fig 14 and 17); and a second outer lens portion coupled to the first outer lens portion (area A) and including the light-blocking portion (see area A12, Fig 17; see bottom of page 4 and top of page 5).
16. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the housing portion 210 is mounted on a front portion or a rear portion of a vehicle body of the vehicle (can be used as a brake lamp or a headlamp, see first half of page 3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun in view of Goetzelmann US 2024/0101022.
2. Hyun discloses the lighting device 1 of claim 1, but fails to specifically further teach wherein the light-blocking portion 400 has a same color as a vehicle body of the vehicle. Goetzelmann teaches wherein a light-blocking portion (opaque region) has a same color as a vehicle body of the vehicle (paragraph 0021; see also 0043). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to Goetzelmann and utilize having the light-blocking portion as a same color as a vehicle body of the vehicle in the device of Hyun to achieve a desirable, aesthetically pleasing, color-matched look for the vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun.
6. Hyun discloses the lighting device 1 of claim 5, further comprising a plurality of light-transmitting portions (see plurality of transmissive portions 420, Fig 6; see also transmissive areas A11, Fig 8); however, Hyun is silent to the plurality of light-transmitting portions being arranged concentrically and radially. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the plurality of light-transmitting portions to being arranged concentrically and radially, where achieving an alternate light-emissive pattern is desired, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun in view of Siakos WO 2019/048183.
9. Hyun discloses the lighting device 1 of claim 7, Hyun further discloses having a light blocking portion (400, see Fig 5) the light blocking portion being disposed on a first surface of the outer lens portion facing in a first direction or (2) a second surface positioned to face in a second direction opposite to the first direction (see location of 400 on 220, Fig 5 and 6), but Hyun is silent to specifically teaching the light-blocking portion comprises a film insert-molded onto a first surface of the outer lens portion facing in a first direction or a second surface position to face a second, opposite direction.
Siakos teaches the light-blocking portion comprises a film (optically opaque film, see pages 15 ln 23-page 16 line 4) insert-molded onto a first surface of the outer lens portion facing in a first direction (see 115 Fig 6a, opaque film 115, facing first direction, see direction 115 faces). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Siakos and substitute the opaque optical film as a light-blocking portion in with the device of Hyun to provide an alternate, well-known type of light-blocking structure to achieve a desired luminous effect in Hyun.
Regarding the film being insert-molded, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from opaque film of Blyton since the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as the product of the prior art (the product is both cases is a light-blocking film). See MPEP § 2113.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun in view of Salter US 2018/0163942.
17. Hyun discloses the lighting device of claim 1 and it is implied that there is a controller to allow activation of the light sources and electronic components and vehicle electronic components and configured to receive operating signals from the one or more vehicle electronic components and control the light source portion; however Hyun is silent to specifically reciting details to the controller and therefore does not specifically recite a control unit electrically connected to (1) the light source portion and (2) one or more vehicle electronic components and configured to receive operating signals from the one or more vehicle electronic components and control the light source portion.
Salter teaches a control unit 100 electrically connected to the light source portion and one or more vehicle electronic components and configured to receive operating signals from the one or more vehicle electronic components and control the light source portion (see paragraph 0072). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Salter and provide the controlled and related components to provide a controlling means connected to the light source to configured to receive operating signals from the vehicle to control the lighting device; one would have been motivated to make this combination to provide a controller to facilitate with operating the light source within the vehicle.
19. Hyun in view of Salter teach the lighting device of claim 17; see discussion above for combining with Salter for the control unit 100. Salter further teaches that the control unit is configured control an ON/OFF operation of the light source portion to implement a daytime driving mode or a nighttime driving mode of the vehicle based on an illumination value received from the one or more vehicle electronic components, in response to receiving an operation signal from one of the one or more vehicle electronic components responsible for detecting external illumination of the vehicle (see paragraph 0073; controller 100 may be in communication with ambient light sensor 128 for communicate a condition regarding brightness/intensity and thereby adjust output to controller 100). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the ambient light sensor and related components of Salter with Hyun to provide a means of controlling operation of the lighting device in response to signals received from an ambient light sensor to provide an improved light controller with additional means to control based on environmental factors such as ambient light.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun in view of Salter US 2018/0163942, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim US 2022/0371507.
18. Hyun in view of Salter teach the lighting device of claim 17; see discussion above for combining with Salter for the control unit 100. The combination of Hyun and Salter fails to further teach wherein the control unit is configured to an ON/OFF operation of the light source portion to implement a welcome mode or a goodbye mode of the vehicle based on an ignition ON/OFF signal of the vehicle, in response to receiving an operation signal from one of the one or more vehicle electronic components responsible for operating an ignition ON/OFF operation of the vehicle.
Kim teaches wherein a control unit (700, paragraph 0080) is configured to an ON/OFF operation of the light source portion to implement a welcome mode or a goodbye mode of the vehicle based on an ignition ON/OFF signal of the vehicle (see paragraphs 0080, 0099: welcome and goodbye signals) in response to receiving an operation signal from one of the one or more vehicle electronic components responsible for operating an ignition ON/OFF operation of the vehicle (0098, regarding vehicle ignition being turned on/off). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the control unit and related components configured to an ON/OFF operation of the light source portion to implement a welcome mode or a goodbye mode of the vehicle based on an ignition ON/OFF signal of the vehicle of Kim in the device of Hyun in view of Salter to provide an improved controlling means with desirable activation modes that enable having the light emitting unit illuminate and generate a welcome and/or goodbye signal; one would have been motivated to make this combination to provide additional illuminating features for the vehicle of Hyun.
20. Hyun in view of Salter teach the lighting device of claim 17; see discussion above for combining with Salter for the control unit 100. The combination fails to further teach the control unit is configured to control an ON/OFF operation of the light source portion to indicate a stop state of the vehicle in response to receiving an operation signal from one of the one or more vehicle electronic components responsible for detecting a distance between a pedestrian outside the vehicle and the vehicle.
Kim teaches a control unit 700 is configured to control an ON/OFF operation of the light source portion to indicate a stop state of the vehicle (stop state indicated is pedestrian walking direction illumination, see paragraph 0080) in response to receiving an operation signal from one of the one or more vehicle electronic components responsible for detecting a distance between a pedestrian outside the vehicle and the vehicle (control unit 700 receives signals regarding pedestrian being detected within a first set distance or second set distance, paragraph 0080). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the control unit and related components of Kim to allow the device to illuminate to a pedestrian based on a stop state of the vehicle and detected distance of pedestrian to provide improved safety features that enable the device to signal/notify a pedestrian of a safe walking direction with respect to the vehicle. One would have been motivated to make this combination to provide additional lighting and safety features with the combination of Hyun and Salter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter; the prior art fails to teach or disclose:
14. The lighting device of claim 13, wherein the first outer lens portion comprises: a lens body portion coupled to the housing portion and covering the opening; and a lens mounting portion recessed on an outer surface of the lens body portion, wherein the second outer lens portion is mounted on the lens mounting portion
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagafuchi US’249 discloses a light distribution pattern for a tail/stop lamp in one direction and another light distribution pattern for a side marker lamp in another direction without use of a dedicated light sources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan P Dzierzynski whose telephone number is (571)272-2336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm PST.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875