DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 10/24/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 (c) with PCT/EP2024/076822 and Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with DE 10 2023 128 233.6. The certified copy for foreign priority has been filed with the Office on 10/24/2025. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date has been recognized as 10/16/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the circumferential border in claim must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 30-31 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “circumferential” in claim 30 is used by the claim to mean “perimeter,” while the accepted meaning is “relating to a circular or otherwise rounded shape.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Examiner has interpreted “circumferential” as – perimeter – in order to execute compact prosecution. Claim 31 is indefinite due to the same reasoning and “circumferential” has been interpreted as – perimeter – in the claim as well.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19, 21, 24-28, 30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joseph et al. (US 20250013079 A1; “Joseph”).
Re Claim 17:
The claim is an independent claim.
Joseph discloses a lighting device (lighting device 1; shown in at least Figs 1-2 and 5; described in at least ¶¶ 0031-0032 and 0035 as well as below) for a motor vehicle (means for transportation 100; Fig 8; described in ¶ 0038 as motor vehicle), the lighting device comprising:
a plurality of light sources (light sources 32);
a cover pane (optical plate 5 and optical film stack 6), wherein the plurality of light sources (32) emit light via the cover pane (5-6) in operation (operation described in at least ¶¶ 0031-0032); and
a plurality of reflectors (cavities 31; Fig 5; ¶ 0035), wherein:
each light source of the plurality of light sources (any individual 32 of the plurality of 32) is separately assigned to one reflector of the plurality of reflectors (the individual 31 surrounding the individual 32; Fig 5; ¶ 0035),
the one reflector (the individual 31) surrounds the assigned light source (the individual 32) and widens toward the cover pane starting from the assigned light source (Fig 2 transposed with Fig 5), and
reflectors adjoining one another are connected to one another via webs (shown in Fig 5), which are spaced apart from the cover pane (spacing shown in Figs 1-2 and described in at least ¶ 0032).
Re Claim 18:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Jospeh further discloses wherein the lighting device (1) is a lighting device for the interior of the motor vehicle (described in ¶ 0038 as arranged in a dashboard).
Re Claim 19:
The claims depends upon claim 18.
Joseph further discloses wherein the lighting device (1) is intended for installation in a dashboard (described in ¶ 0038 as arranged in a dashboard) of the motor vehicle (Fig 8).
Re Claim 21:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Joseph further discloses wherein the plurality of light sources (plurality of 32) are arranged on a common circuit board (arranged on 33; shown in at least Fig 1; described in at least ¶ 0031 as light sources 32 are arranged on a printed circuit board 33).
Re Claim 24:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Joseph further discloses wherein a respective reflector of the plurality of reflectors (any respective 31 in Fig 5) comprises multiple polygonal surfaces (shown in Fig 5).
Re Claim 25:
The claim depends upon claim 24.
Joseph further discloses wherein at least a part of the multiple polygonal surfaces an edge (edge 311 shown in Fig 5), which is associated with a web (web shown in Fig 5), arranged at a distance from the assigned light source (distance from 32 shown in Fig 5).
Re Claim 26:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Joseph further discloses wherein at least a part of the plurality of reflectors each have a border (border defined with edges 311 shown in Fig 2 transposed with Fig 5) arranged at a distance from the assigned light source (shown in Fig 2 transposed with Fig 5), which border extends around the assigned light source (32) in a top view and is formed from webs (Fig 2 transposed with Fig 5).
Re Claim 27:
The claim depends upon claim 26.
Joseph further discloses wherein the border (border of 311) has a shape of a hexagon (shown in Fig 5 and described in ¶ 0035 as hexagons).
Re Claim 28:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Joseph further discloses wherein the plurality of reflectors (31) is integrally formed in a one-piece component (one-piece of 30; Fig 2 transposed with Fig 5).
Re Claim 30:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Joseph further discloses wherein the plurality of reflectors (plurality of 31) is surrounded by a circumferential border (border of housing 7; Fig 2), on which the cover pane (5-6) is fastened (fastened by suitable connecting elements 9; Fig 2; ¶ 0031).
Re Claim 36:
The claim depends upon claim 17 and is written in independent form.
Joseph discloses the motor vehicle (100) comprising the lighting device (1) of according to claim (see claim 17, above).
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 20, 22-23, 29, 31-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph.
Re Claim 20:
The claims depends upon claim 17.
With further regard to the cover pane (2 and 4-6), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to recognize Joseph as at least suggesting wherein the cover pane (2 and 4-6) is a diffuser pane (due to the description of scatter in ¶ 0031).
Re Claim 22:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
With further regard to the plurality of reflectors (plurality of 31), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Joseph to at least suggest wherein a respective reflector of the plurality of reflectors is light-scattering (due to the scattered light L reflecting the 31 shown in Fig 2).
Joseph is silent on the color of the plurality of reflectors, specifically including wherein a respective reflector of the plurality of reflectors has a white surface.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that white surfaces for reflectors were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the surface of a reflector of the plurality of reflectors of Joseph to be a well-known white surface for the benefit of increased reflective efficiency.
Re Claim 23:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
With further regard to the plurality of reflectors (plurality of 31), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Joseph to at least suggest wherein a respective reflector of the plurality of reflectors is light-scattering (due to the scattered light L reflecting the 31 shown in Fig 2).
Re Claim 29:
The claim depends upon claim 28.
Joesph is silent regarding the material of the one-piece reflector (30), specifically including wherein the one-piece component is a plastic component.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that one-piece reflectors comprised of plastic was well-known with in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the one-piece reflector of Joseph as a well-known plastic reflector for the benefit of having a definite configuration.
Re Claim 31:
The claim depends upon claim 30.
With further regard to the border, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the shape of the border of Joseph to be an equivalent shape to the claimed shape of the circumferential border has a shape differing from a rectangle for the purpose of bordering and supporting the plurality of reflectors.
Re Claim 32:
The claim depends upon claim 17.
Jospeh further discloses wherein the cover pane includes a layer (cover glass 4).
With regard to the layer (4), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Joseph as at least suggesting that the cover pane (4) is light-transmissive for the light of the plurality of light sources because light-transmissivity is required for proper operation of a display device.
With further regard to layer, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize whichever means of production Joseph utilized to dispose the layer (4) onto the cover pane (5-6) to be an equivalent means of production for the claimed production means of the cover pane is coated with a layer for the purpose of disposing the layer onto the cover pane.
Re Claim 34:
With further regard to the layer, due to the configuration of the layer (4) shown in Figs 1 (with no light L explicitly shown being emitted as compared with in Fig 2), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Joesph as at least suggesting the capability of wherein the layer is configured such that in a switched-off state of the plurality of light sources, the cover pane, the plurality of light sources, and the plurality of reflectors do not shine through the layer.
Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the specific instance of the claim, all of the structure is disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33 and 35 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 33:
The closest prior art of record (Joesph) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the transmittance of the layer is between 3% and 30% as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 35:
The closest prior art of record (Joesph) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the layer is formed from textile material or is a layer made of thermoplastic polyolefin as set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because they disclose a display device comprising a plurality connected to one another via webs.
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
Prosecution Insights