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 § 112
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 6, 9, and 12 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 6. The use of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the light generated by the at least one light source to be incident on the transparent cover and the layer. or either the transparent cover or the layer.
For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting that the light generated by the at least one light source to be incident on the transparent cover or the layer.
Regarding claim 9. the claim recites “the carrier plate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12. The use of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the discontinuities are linear and form a pattern; or either linear or a pattern.
For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting that the discontinuities are linear or form a pattern.
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, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SACCO et al. (DE 3843522 A1 hereinafter refer as “SACCO”).
Regarding claim 1. SACCO discloses a lighting device (1, see Fig. 1, Abstract, claim 1) for a motor vehicle, comprising: at least one light source (5, see Fig. 1, Abstract) configured to generate light; and a transparent cover (lens 3/15, see Figs. 1 and 3, Abstract) through which the light generated by the at least one light source passes and on which a flat layer having a plurality of discontinuities (metal coatings 4, 16, see Figs. 1 and 3, Abstract) is provided.
Regarding the claim limitation “any scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the flat layer is stronger than any scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the transparent cover,” the applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition, or produced by identical or substantially identical processes, cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
In this case, SACCO discloses metal coating (16) which is identical structure to the claimed flat layer. Therefore, the properties applicant claims (i.e. scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the flat layer is stronger than any scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the transparent cover) are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 3. SACCO further discloses the transparent cover (15) is an outer cover through which the light generated by the at least one light source (5) exits the lighting device (1, see Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5. SACCO further discloses comprising at least one optical unit (coloring agent 8 is curved to bundle the light, see Fig. 1) configured to define a path of the light generated by the at least one light source within an interior of the lighting device (see Claim 1).
Regarding claim 6. WEIHING further discloses the at least one optical unit (coloring agent 8 is curved to bundle the light, see Fig. 1) is configured to cause at least part of the light generated by the at least one light source to be incident on the transparent cover and/or the layer in an at least substantially parallelized manner (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7. WEIHING further discloses the at least one optical unit (coloring agent 8 is curved to bundle the light, see Fig. 1) is a lens or a light guide.
Regarding claim 11. WEIHING further discloses the at least one optical unit (coloring agent 8 is curved to bundle the light, which is attached to the lens 3 by means of a holder 9, see Fig. 1) is configured as a section of the transparent cover opposite the layer.
Regarding claim 12. SACCO further discloses the discontinuities are linear and/or form a pattern (e.g. in the form of symbols. see claim 5).
Regarding claim 13. SACCO further discloses the layer (16) is a color layer (e.g. copper or silver coating or t is also possible to match the color of the metallic coating to the adjacent body parts).
Regarding claim 14. SACCO further discloses the layer is a metal layer (metal coating, for example from Al, Cu, Ag, An and other metals or Alloys exist, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 15. SACCO further discloses the layer (16) is a roughened surface of the transparent cover (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16. SACCO further discloses the layer (16) is a surface structure comprising projections and depressions (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17. SACCO further discloses the transparent cover comprises a transparent glass or a transparent plastic (e.g., PC, PMMA or Plexiglas).
Regarding claim 18. SACCO further discloses the transparent cover comprises an acrylic glass (e.g., PC, PMMA or Plexiglas).
Regarding claim 19. SACCO discloses a motor vehicle (see claim 1), comprising: at least one lighting device (1, see Fig. 1) provided as an exterior lamp, the at least one lighting device including: at least one light source (5, see Fig. 1) configured to generate light; and a transparent cover (3, 15, see Figs. 1 and 3) through which the light generated by the at least one light source passes and on which a flat layer (4, 16, see Figs. 1 and 3) having a plurality of discontinuities is provided (see Fig. 3).
Regarding the claim limitation “any scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the flat layer is stronger than any scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the transparent cover,” the applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition, or produced by identical or substantially identical processes, cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
In this case, SACCO discloses metal coating (16) which is identical structure to the claimed flat layer. Therefore, the properties applicant claims (i.e. scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the flat layer is stronger than any scattering of the light generated by the at least one light source caused by the transparent cover) are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 20. SACCO further discloses the at least one lighting device is a headlight of the motor vehicle or a taillight of the motor vehicle (rear light, 1).
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 2, 4, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACCO in view of HWANG et al. (US 2023/0158946 hereinafter refer as “HWANG”).
Regarding claim 2. The teachings of SACCO have been discussed above.
However, SACCO is silent with respect to including an outer cover through which the light generated by the at least one light source exits the lighting device, wherein the transparent cover is an intermediate light cover arranged between the at least one light source and the outer cover.
HWANG teaches a lighting device (lighting grill assembly for a vehicle) that includes an outer cover (10, see Figs. 1 and 6, Para. 0029) through which the light generated by a light source (56) exits the lighting device, wherein a transparent cover (inner lens 40, see Fig. 1, Para. 0029) is an intermediate light cover arranged between the at least one light source and the outer cover.
Therefore, in view of HWANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SACCO by including an outer cover in order to provide extra protection for the transparent cover. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to for providing significant portion of the front surface of a lighting device.
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 10. SACCO further discloses the at least one optical unit (coloring agent (8) is curved to bundle the light, see Fig. 1) is arranged between the at least one light source, and the transparent cover; or is configured as a section of the transparent cover, in particular opposite the layer (see Fig. 1).
However, SACCO is silent with respect to comprising at least one carrier plate on which the at least one light source is arranged; wherein one optical unit is arranged between the carrier plate and the transparent cover; the at least one optical unit is arranged between a carrier plate of the at least one light source and the transparent cover, wherein the at least one light source is arranged on the carrier plate, as recited in claim 10.
HWANG further teaches a grill housing (50, see Figs. 1 and 2) provided for the installation of a carrier plate (substrate 54) and the light source (56, see Fig. 2, Para. 0041-0043).
Therefore, in view of HWANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SACCO by including a carrier plate thereby the light source may be installed thereon, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a carrier plate thereby the light source may be installed thereon.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACCO in view of BUERGERS et al. (2024/0125447 hereinafter refer as “BUERGERS”).
Regarding claim 8. The teachings of SACCO have been discussed above.
However, SACCO is silent with respect to the at least one optical unit is an optical fiber.
BUERGERS teaches a headlight that includes a housing (2); optical units (3, 4, and 5, see Fig. 1, Para. 0027) use LEDs as light source; and an optical fiber, which comprises the optical fiber sections (7 and 8, see Fig. 3, Para. 0028).
Therefore, in view of BUERGERS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SACCO by including an optical fiber in order to provide an extended light emission toward the cover pane, as suggested by BUERGERS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to for providing an improved light emission toward the cover pane.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WEI (US 2025/0164090) discloses a vehicle light is provided, including: a housing, a first lighting module, a second lighting module and a light guiding member (see Fig. 4); HASHIYA et al. (US 2016/0327219 ) discloses a light-emitting apparatus that includes a light-emitting device and a photoluminescent layer; Hanulak et al. (2017/0276314) discloses a light device discloses a signal lamp for motor vehicles comprising a translucent cover and a lighting unit (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights