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 .
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, 10-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2009/0290370) in view of salter et al. (US 9586523 Hereinafter Salter).
Regarding claim 1, Koizumi teaches a lighting device for the rear of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a first light source (24, Fig. 3) and a second light source (34, Fig. 3);
a housing (52 and 54, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0061) on or in which the first light source and the second light source are arranged;
a cover panel (54, Fig. 3) joined to the housing, the cover panel being at least partially transparent (Paragraph 0036) and having a first exit surface (54A, Fig. 3) for light emitted downward by the first light source and a second exit surface (54b, Fig. 3) for light emitted rearward by the second light source,
wherein, in an installed state of the lighting device, the light emitted by the first light source emerges at least partially downward from the housing through the first exit surface of the cover panel, and the light emitted by the second light source emerges at least partially rearward from the housing through the second exit surface of the cover panel (Fig. 3); and
a reflection device (4, Fig. 3) outside of the housing, such that the light emitted downward from the housing through the first exit surface strikes the reflection device and is at least partially reflected by the reflection device and propagates away from the motor vehicle (Fig. 3).
Koizumi fails to explicitly teach the brake light and tail light functions.
Salter teaches wherein the light emitted by the first light source (38/58, Figs. 2 and 3) generates a taillight function in at lest a central section of the lighting device (Column 4, lines 33-53) and the light emitted by the second light source (36/60, Figs. 2 and 3) generates a brake light function in a lateral edge section of the lighting device (Column 4, lines 33-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included being able to use the lighting devices of Koizumi as a brake light and tail light as taught by Salter, in order to provide added use and safety for the vehicle or to reduce other light sources thereby lowering cost.
Regarding claim 10, Koizumi teaches a first reflector (26, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0039) in the housing, wherein the light emitted by the first light source is at least partially reflected by the first reflector onto the first exit surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Koizumi teaches a second reflector (36, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0040) in the housing, wherein the light emitted by the second light source is at least partially reflected by the second reflector onto the second exit surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Koizumi teaches the second light source comprises two second light sources (Fig. 4);
the second exit surface comprises two second exit surfaces, the two second exit surfaces being disposed in a lateral edge section of the rear of the motor vehicle (Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 15, Koizumi teaches the reflection device is disposed on an outside of the housing such that, in the installed state, the reflection device extends downwards below the first exit surface and forms an angle of between 30° and 80° with the first exit surface (Fig. 3, Specifically the image shows an angle of 70 degrees).
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2009/0290370) in view of salter et al. (US 9586523 Hereinafter Salter) and further in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2003/0128549 Hereinafter Matsuura).
Regarding claim 3, Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device has a diffusing structure.
Matsuura teaches the reflection device (25, 20a, and 100, Fig. 5) has a diffusing structure (25, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have replaced the reflection device of Koizumi with the reflection device of Matsuura, in order to provide diffused light which can provide a more pleasing lighting effect.
Regarding claim 4, Koizumi teaches the light emitting a front surface of the reflection device which has a surface for light emitted through the cover panel (54A, Fig. 3).
Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device has a transparent component which has an entry surface for light emitted through the cover panel.
Matsuura teaches the reflection device (25, 20a, and 100, Fig. 5) has a transparent component (20a, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have replaced the reflection device of Koizumi with the reflection device of Matsuura, in order to provide diffused light which can provide a more pleasing lighting effect.
Regarding claim 5, Koizumi fails to teach a diffusing structure.
Matsuura teaches a diffusing structure (25, Fig. 5) is arranged on the exit surface of the transparent component (20a, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have replaced the reflection device of Koizumi with the reflection device of Matsuura, in order to provide diffused light which can provide a more pleasing lighting effect.
Regarding claim 6, Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device in view of Matsuura.
Matsuura teaches the reflection device has a reflective layer or an opaque layer which at least partially reflects incident light (Specifically that’s how the plate is able to be seen because some of the light is reflected out.
Regarding claim 7, Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device in view of Matsuura.
Matsuura teaches the reflective layer or the opaque layer (100, Fig. 5) is arranged on an exit surface (backside if 20a) of the transparent component (20A, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Koizumi teaches wherein the reflection device (4, Fig. 3) has an opaque layer which at least partially reflects incident light.
Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device in view of Matsuura.
Matsuura teaches the diffusing structure (25, Fig. 5) is arranged on the exit surface of the transparent component, and wherein the opaque layer (100, Fig. 5) is arranged on the side of the diffusing structure facing away from the exit surface.
Regarding claim 9, Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device in view of Matsuura.
Matsuura teaches the reflective layer (100, Fig. 5) is arranged on the transparent component (20A, Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2009/0290370) in view of salter et al. (US 9586523 Hereinafter Salter) and further in view of Joo et al. (US 12173860).
Regarding claim 13, Koizumi fails to teach the reflection device extends over the entire width of the motor vehicle.
Joo teaches the reflection device (920, Figs. 10 or 11) extends over the entire width of the motor vehicle (Fig. 10).
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 reflection device extending over the entire width of the motor vehicle of Koizumi as taught by Joo, in order to provide a lighting effect which illuminated the entire surface of the vehicle making it more noticeable and provided a desired light distribution for a given application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights