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 Office Action
General Information
Examiner recognizes Applicant’s 1/23/2026 efforts in responding to the previous Office Action. The arguments
presented have been carefully considered, but are not entirely persuasive that the rejection of the claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) should be withdrawn. Notwithstanding, the drawing and specification objections in the previous
action have been overcome and are hereby withdrawn. The rejection of record under 35 USC § 112(a)&(b) is also
overcome and is withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s declaration filed in the 1/23/2026 response to the previous action and the
connection it establishes between Applicant/Inventor and the “Philips” prior art reference. However, the
declaration does not contain the required acknowledgements as set forth by MPEP 717.01(C)(II).
The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Additionally, the declaration is lacking proper signature by the declarant, MPEP 717.01(c)(I), required for Applicant
to file the declaration. Unfortunately, due to these omissions, the declaration is improper and does not overcome
the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) made in the prior action, which is hereby repeated and made
FINAL below.
This final rejection was issued after a telephonic interview with Attorney Anthony Kassas on 6/3/2026 in which he
requested the Examiner proceed with a written action instead of submitting a corrected declaration.
FINAL Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The claim is FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Philips’ "Ultinon Pro5100
LED car headlight bulb (H11)" (hereinafter “Philips” reference)(Non-Patent Document Citation No. U), because 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claimed design Vs. Philips reference
The appearance of the Philips reference is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. The ordinary
observer test is the sole test for anticipation. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589
F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02.
For anticipation to be found, the claimed design and the prior art design must be substantially the same.
Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313, 59 USPQ2d 1472, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citing Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)).
"The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between
the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are
not exact copies of one another." Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243, 93 USPQ2d at 1008.
Applicant may attempt to overcome this rejection by providing convincing evidence, in the form of an affidavit or declaration, that the disclosure was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and 1) the disclosure was made by the inventor, a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor; or 2) before such disclosure, the subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. See MPEP 2155.
Notes on Correspondence
Please note that, at this time, the examiner is prohibited from initiating or returning international telephone calls.
If applicant wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be reached by email to arrange a time for a
telephone interview: robert.rieker@uspto.gov. The merits of the application may not be discussed via email unless
an appropriate authorization for email communication is placed in the U.S. application file at the USPTO. For those
applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email
or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the
undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of
this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these
communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please see MPEP 502.03 II (Article 5) for more details.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case
A Power of Attorney (POA), filed with the USPTO in the specific case, is required whether or not attorney for the
applicant has POA authority in a foreign IP office. Examiner may not discuss the merits or specifics of a case
without a proper POA on file.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim is allowed, as set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B RIEKER whose telephone number is (571)272-8607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5 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, RICHARD KEARNEY can be reached at (571) 272-8312. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2933
/Richard Kearney/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2933
Prosecution Insights