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 Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an … end portion of the turn signal lamp… includes a recess…. The other [portion] includes a protrusion…” It is unclear what the recess and the protrusion are a portion of and what the metes and bounds of the term “portion” are. The Examiner suggests defining the structures in terms of the lenses or light guides as shown in the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeSantis (U.S. 4,831,503).
Regarding claim 1, Desantis teaches a lamp unit for a rear end portion of a vehicle body of a vehicle (see fig. 1, 2), the lamp unit comprising:
two license lamps separated from each other in a width direction (license plate lamps 26);
rear lamps (rear lamps 24, 22, 20) disposed on outer sides of the two license lamps, respectively, in the width direction (see fig. 2,3); and
a rear reflector (license plate P, reflective surface from retroreflective layers),wherein:
the two license lamps and the rear lamps are housed in a common casing (see fig. 1);
a recessed portion (license plate recess) is defined between the two license lamps;
the recessed portion is recessed forward (recessed portion for license plate); and
the rear reflector is attached to the common casing in the recessed portion (see fig. 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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSantis.
Regarding claim 4, DeSantis teaches that each of the rear lamps includes a turn signal (turn light 22) lamp and a stop lamp (20); the rear reflector is disposed between the two license lamps arranged side by side in the width direction (see fig. 1); the stop lamp is disposed outward of one of the two license lamps in the width direction.
DeSantis does not teach that the turn signal lamp is disposed outward of the stop lamp in the width direction.
Regarding the arrangement of the stop and turn signal lamp, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).
The Examiner additionally takes official notice that it is well known to have turn signals outward of the stop lamps in vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have put the turn signals outward of the stop lamps to additionally function as marker or conspicuity light, as is frequently used in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (U.S. 8,016,308) in view of Kobayashi (U.S. 8,317,212).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a lamp unit for a rear end portion of a vehicle body of a vehicle (see fig. 4), the lamp unit comprising:
two license lamps separated from each other in a width direction (see fig. 6, license lamp 11 shown with two light sources);
rear lamps (lights 44) disposed on outer sides of the two license lamps, respectively, in the width direction (see fig. 6); and
a rear reflector (reflector 12),wherein:
the two license lamps and the rear lamps are housed in a common casing (see fig. 8, casing 90);
a recessed portion (see fig. 6, recessed forward) is defined between the two license lamps;
the recessed portion is recessed forward; and
the rear reflector is attached to the common casing in the recessed portion (see fig. 6).
Ishikawa does not specifically teach that the recessed portion is between the license lamps.
Kobayashi teaches that the that the recessed portion is between the license lamps (recessed portion holds reflector 39 directly between rear lights, see fig. 5, recessed forward).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have located the recessed portion directly between the rear lamps of Ishikawa as taught by Kobayashi to reduce the size of the rear visibility structure, thereby reducing the structural requirements.
Regarding the arrangement of the lighting structures, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)). The Examiner finds that the prior art teaches all of the structures claimed to perform the same functions disclosed in the application, and that the location of such structures on the rear of the vehicle appears to be an obvious rearrangement for aesthetic effect.
Regarding claim 6, Ishikiawa teaches that a rear surface of the common casing extends obliquely forward and toward an outer side in the width direction (see fig. 4, extends forward and outer).
Regarding claims 13, Ishikawa teaches that the vehicle is a motorcycle.
Regarding claims 16, the recitation of the vehicle as a three-wheeled vehicle is immaterial to the operation of the device. Such recitations cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the prior art because they are seen as intended use/result. Only structural and some functional limitations are given patentable weight.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 14, 17 in view of Ishikawa is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiura (U.S. 11,371,674)
Regarding claim 2, Yoshiura teaches a lamp unit for a rear end portion of a vehicle body of a vehicle (see fig. 3), the lamp unit comprising:
license lamps (license plate lamp 71); and
rear lamps (combination lamps 40) disposed on outer sides of the license lamp, respectively, in the width direction (see fig. 3, on outer sides of the license lamp), wherein:
the two license lamps and the rear lamps are housed in a common casing (see fig. 4, rear housing 30);
each of the rear lamps includes a turn signal lamp and a stop lamp;
the stop lamp (tail lamp 52) is disposed on an inner side of the turn signal lamp (turn signal 54) in the width direction (see fig. 7);
one of an inner end portion of the turn signal lamp in the width direction or an outer end portion of the stop lamp in the width direction includes a recess recessed in the width direction, and the other of the inner end portion of the turn signal lamp in the width direction or the outer end portion of the stop lamp in the width direction includes a protrusion protruding in the width direction (see annotated figure 7); and
the protrusion is located within the recess with the protrusion interposed between an upper portion of the recess and a lower portion of the recess in an upper-lower direction (see annotated figure 7).
Yoshiura does not specifically teach two license lamps separated from each other in a width direction.
Ishikawa teaches two license lamps separated from each other in a width direction (see fig. 6, license plate lamp 11 has two light sources that are separate from each other in the width direction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used two license plate lamps as taught by Ishikawa instead of a singular one as taught by Yoshiura to provide additional lighting coverage and increase the illumination on the license plate, as is known in the art.
The Examiner further notes that It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produce. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have duplicated the tail lights of Yoshiura to provide additional lighting as noted above.
PNG
media_image1.png
627
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Yoshiura teaches wherein: a recessed portion is defined between the two license lamps; and the recessed portion is recessed forward (see fig. 2, 7, recessed area between taillights).
Regarding claims 14, Yoshiura teaches that the vehicle is a motorcycle.
Regarding claims 17, the recitation of the vehicle as a three-wheeled vehicle is immaterial to the operation of the device. Such recitations cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the prior art because they are seen as intended use/result. Only structural and some functional limitations are given patentable weight.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Kobayashi, further in view of Tatewaki (U.S. 7,163,322).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa does not specifically teach that the two license lamps and the rear lamps are composed of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and are disposed on a common substrate.
Tatewaki teaches that the two license lamps and the rear lamps are composed of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and are disposed on a common substrate (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used LEDs on a common substrate as taught by Tatewaki in the structure of Ishikawa to provide a longer life and higher brightness for less power consumption, see background of Tatewaki.
Claim(s) 8-12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Hirano (U.S. 2022/0297783).
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa teaches a vehicle comprising:
vehicle body (see fig. 4);
a lamp unit disposed on a rear end portion of the vehicle body; and
, wherein the lamp unit includes:
two license lamps (see fig. 6, lights 11) separated from each other in a vehicle width direction; and
rear lamps disposed on outer sides of the two license lamps (lights 44), respectively, in the vehicle width direction, and
wherein: the two license lamps and the rear lamps are housed in a common casing (see fig. 8, casing 90);
a recessed portion (see fig. 6) is defined between the two license lamps;
the recessed portion is recessed forward.
Ishikawa does not teach a rearview radar configured to detect an object approaching from behind and that the lamp unit is disposed below and rearward of the rearview radar.
Hirano teaches a rearview radar (radar 20) configured to detect an object approaching from behind and that the lamp unit (indicators 24) is disposed below and rearward of the rearview radar (see fig. 7).
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 rearview radar as taught by Hirano to detect vehicles coming from behind and increase the safety of the vehicle of Ishikawa (see p. 0003-0005).
Additionally the Examiner finds that claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa and Hirano does not specifically teach that a size of the recessed portion in the vehicle width direction the same as a size of the rearview radar in the vehicle width direction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the size of the recessed portion to be the same size of the radar in the width direction for aesthetic benefits and to not form wasted space. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa and Hirano does not specifically teach that a size of the recessed portion in the vehicle width direction is larger than a size of the rearview radar in the vehicle width direction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the size of the recessed portion to be an ideal size in the width direction for aesthetic benefits and to not form wasted space. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
The Examiner notes that claim 9 and 10 are directed towards the size of the recessed portion, which appears to be immaterial to the operation of the device, see MPEP 2144.04 IV(A).
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa teaches further comprising: a rear flap (42) disposed on the rear end portion of the vehicle body, wherein the lamp unit is attached to a rear end portion of the rear flap (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa teaches wherein: each of the two license lamps has an irradiation surface on a lower surface of the common casing (see fig. 6); and at least part of the irradiation surface is located behind a front surface of the recessed portion (angled back, is behind recessed portion).
Regarding claims 15, Ishikawa teaches that the vehicle is a motorcycle.
Regarding claims 18, the recitation of the vehicle as a three-wheeled vehicle is immaterial to the operation of the device. Such recitations cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the prior art because they are seen as intended use/result. Only structural and some functional limitations are given patentable weight.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights