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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed 3 November 2025 has been entered. Currently Claims 16-32 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title or similar is suggested:
LIGHTING DEVICE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING A SEAT WITH REAR WALL HAVING A PROJECTION MODULE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 16, 18, 20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nelson (U.S. Patent No. 11,607,049).
Regarding Claim 16, Nelson discloses in Figures 1-5, a lighting device for a motor vehicle, the lighting device comprising: a vehicle seat 10 for an occupant of the motor vehicle, wherein: the vehicle seat comprises a seat element 14 having a seat surface and a backrest 12, the backrest has a rear wall (perimeter portion 58) with an inner side and an outer side, the rear wall 58 extends from a first end which is arranged next to the seat element 14, to a second end which is arranged away from the seat element 14, a projection module (lighting module 30) is installed in the vehicle seat 10, and the projection module 30 is fixed to the inner side of the rear wall 58 in a fastening position so that light which is generated by the projection module during its operation emerges from a light exit opening (aperture 50) in the rear wall 58 in order to generate a light projection in a projection region (including pocket 46, floor space 34 or task space 36 on the outer side of the rear wall 58 (pocket 46 of rear wall of seat 10 Col 6, lines 54-60).
Regarding Claim 18, Nelson discloses in Figure 1, the lighting device according to claim 16, wherein the light exit opening 50 is directed toward the first end of the rear wall 58.
Regarding Claim 20, Nelson discloses in Figure 5, the lighting device according to claim 16, wherein a recess, in which the projection region is located, is formed in the outer side of the rear wall 58 (the rear wall comprises recess portion 56 col 5, lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 21, Nelson discloses in Figures 5-7, the lighting device according to claim 20, wherein the light exit opening 50 is provided in an edge region of the recess 56 that lies opposite an oblique portion of the recess, the oblique portion being inclined relative to the light exit opening 50 at an angle of inclination of less than 90 degrees and containing the projection region.
Regarding Claim 22, Nelson discloses in Figures 1-5, the lighting device according to claim 16, wherein the projection module 30 is accommodated in a holder (housing 60) that is applied to the inner side of the rear wall 58.
Regarding Claim 32, Nelson discloses the motor vehicle comprising the lighting device according to claim 16 (the seat 14 is a seat within a vehicle Col 1, lines 15-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 17, 19 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (U.S. Patent No. 11,607,049).
Nelson discloses the light projection impinging on various locations of the passenger compartment and can be configured depending on the intended use (col 7, lines 10-17) but does not explicitly disclose the light emerging from the light exit opening 50 impinges exclusively on the projection region of the on the outer side of the rear wall.
In this case, selecting a given intended use of projecting the light only on the back surface of the wall of the seat would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding Claim 19, Nelson does not explicitly disclose in Figures 1-5, the lighting device according to claim 16, wherein the rear wall 58 is shaped such that a smallest angle of incidence at which the light that generates the light projection impinges on the projection region lies between 10 and 15 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the angle of incidence so that the smallest angle of incidence is 10-15 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding Claims 29-30 Nelson does not explicitly disclose the rear wall 58 is a plastic component wherein the rear wall is an injection molded component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use an injection molded plastic for the rear surface of the seat 14 as injection molded plastic was known at the time of the filing to be a cost-effective material that is easily and expeditiously fabricated, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (U.S. Patent No. 11,607,049) in view of Medvec (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0104285).
Nelson does not disclose the projection module 30 is configured such that an animated light projection is generated in the projection region.
Medvec discloses a lighting system for a vehicle for projecting animate light projections within a vehicle (Para 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the module 30 to project an animated image. All the claimed elements in Nelson and Medvec were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the animated image projector with the lighting system of Nelson as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result providing an aesthetic lighting improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, the closest prior art does not teach or suggest alone or in combination the lighting device wherein the holder 60 is fastened to a plurality of protrusions provided on the rear wall or wherein an alignment device for varying the fastening position of the projection module is provided, in order to vary a direction of the light emerging from the light exit opening and thereby the projection region on the outer side of the rear wall.
Regarding Claims 25-28, the closest prior art doe3s not teach or suggest alone or in combination, the alignment device comprises one or more settable adjustment elements, which mechanically interact with the holder such that a variation of the fastening position of the projection module is achievable by setting the one or more settable adjustment elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koliba (U.S. PG Publication No. 20080219016) discloses a lighting device mounted on the rear wall of a seat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights