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 .
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 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.
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 5-9 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.
Claim 5 recites “a mirror filter”. However, it is unclear if this is the same mirror filter from claim 1 or a second mirror filter. Therefore, claim 5, and claims 6-9 by dependence, are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as the same mirror filter as claim 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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Hori US 20200174100 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Brenner teaches an integrated lamp device for a vehicle, the integrated lamp device comprising:
a housing having a light exiting part (headlamp 101 with headlight cover 104, Fig. 2, [0204]);
a first light source module installed in the housing and configured to emit lidar sensing light so that the lidar sensing light is moved to the light exiting part (lidar transmitter 150, [0216]);
a second light source module installed in the housing, spaced apart from the first light source module, and configured to emit beam patterning light to a movement path for the lidar sensing light (light source 102, Fig. 2, [0204]); and
a reflection unit including a mirror filter provided at a position at which the lidar sensing light of the first light source module and the beam patterning light of the second light source module overlap each other, (frequency-selective LiDAR radiation manipulating device 130 includes a LiDAR reflector, [0203, 217]),
wherein the mirror filter is configured to be tiltable (LiDAR reflector is rotatable, [0217]).
Brenner does not explicitly teach the mirror filter being configured to transmit the lidar sensing light and reflect the beam patterning light
Hori teaches a beamsplitter used to pass non-visible light (for LiDAR) and reflect visible light (3057 Fig. 27, [0467]).
Additionally, swapping the positions of light sources is a simple rearrangement of parts and would not modify the operation of the device beyond using an appropriate mirror (such as Hori’s beamsplitter). It has been held that a rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice when the rearrangemnt would not have modified the operation of the device (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70, n re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144 V. C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that mirror filter being configured to transmit the lidar sensing light and reflect the beam patterning light similar to Brenner with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing components to be positioned inside the housing for optimal use of space.
Regarding claim 3, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 1, wherein the first light source module comprises:
a first light source part configured to emit the lidar sensing light (150a, Fig. 2, [0203]); and
a sensing part configured to receive the lidar sensing light that exits through the light exiting part and returns by being reflected (150b, Fig. 2, [0203]).
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Hori US 20200174100 A1 and further in view of Nguyen US 20240329334 A1
Regarding claim 2, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises:
a first installation part disposed to be opposite to the light exiting part and having the first light source module therein (150, Fig. 2, [0203-204, 216-217]); and
a second installation part, (portion with 102, Fig. 2, [0203-204, 216-217]);.
Brenner does not explicitly teach the second installation part disposed between the first installation part and the light exiting part and spaced apart upward or downward from the first installation part and the light exiting part, the second installation part being configured to be penetrated inward and outward so that the second light source module is detachably provided in the second installation part.
However, Brenner’s portion with 102 (Fig. 2, [0203-217]) includes an “illumination module” that could be detached an removed in an inward and outward direction (examiner notes that no specific structure is claimed for “detachably provided” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any module could be detached from the remainder of a device).
Furthermore, Nguyen teaches a light source module (35) shown inward and outward from a housing (16) and detachable (Fig. 6, [0039])
Additionally disposed the second installation part between the first installation part and the light exiting part and spaced apart upward or downward from the first installation part and the light exiting part is a simple rearrangement of parts which would not modify the operation of the device. It has been held that a rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice when the rearrangemnt would not have modified the operation of the device (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70, n re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144 V. C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that the second installation part disposed between the first installation part and the light exiting part and spaced apart upward or downward from the first installation part and the light exiting part with a reasonable expectation of success, and the second installation part being configured to be penetrated inward and outward so that the second light source module is detachably provided in the second installation part similar to Nguyen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing components to be positioned inside the housing for optimal use of space and allowing a modular design for repairs and updates.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Hori US 20200174100 A1 and further in view of Hori US 20230001846 A1 (hereinafter Hori ‘846).
Regarding claim 4, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 1, wherein the second light source module comprises:
a second light source part configured to emit the beam patterning light (102, Fig. 2, [0024]);
and a reflective mirror configured to reflect the beam patterning light emitted from the second light source part so that the beam patterning light moves to the movement path for the lidar sensing light (reflector not shown, [0204]).
Brenner does not explicitly teach a heat sink coupled to the second light source part and configured to dissipate heat;
Hori ‘846 teaches a heat sink 36 coupled to a light source 33 (Fig. 4, [0034-35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner to include a heat sink coupled to the second light source part and configured to dissipate heat similar to Hori ‘846 with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result dissipating heat inside the lamp and decreasing potential damage to electronics.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Hori US 20200174100 A1 and further in view of Yamamoto US 20110044063 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 1, wherein the reflection unit comprises:
a mirror filter configured to transmit the lidar sensing light and reflect the beam patterning light (frequency-selective LiDAR radiation manipulating device 130 includes a LiDAR reflector, Fig. 2, [0203, 217]);
Brenner does not explicitly teach a pivot bracket tiltably installed in the housing and connected to the mirror filter; and a drive unit installed in the housing, connected to the pivot bracket, and configured to adjust a tilting angle of the mirror filter together with the pivot bracket depending on whether the drive unit operates.
Yamamoto teaches a pivot bracket and actuator with drive sources inside a vehicle lamp device ([0004]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this kind of bracket and drive would be applicable to individual components inside a lamp device to rotate Brenner’s reflector)
Additionally, Brenner does teach rotation of the mirror filter (130 in Fig. 2, [0206-217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner to include a pivot bracket tiltably installed in the housing and connected to the mirror filter; and a drive unit installed in the housing, connected to the pivot bracket, and configured to adjust a tilting angle of the mirror filter together with the pivot bracket depending on whether the drive unit operates similar to Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing control over the direction light was emitted.
Regarding claim 6, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 5, wherein the mirror filter is inclined at a preset angle with respect to the movement path for the lidar sensing light (130 shown at an angle in Fig. 2, [0203, 217]; examiner notes that any angle can be considered preset).
Regarding claim 7, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 5,
Brenner does not explicitly teach wherein the pivot bracket comprises a fixed part fixed to the housing, and a rotary part tiltably installed on the fixed part, wherein the mirror filter is mounted on the rotary part, and wherein the drive unit is connected to the rotary part.
Yamamoto teaches fixed portions (e.g. supporting member 5, post 1b, in Figs. 1-5, [0037-38]), rotary part tiltably installed on the fixed part (ball portion 2b, Figs. 1-5, [0038]), and drive unit connected to the rotary part (actuator 3, Figs. 1-5, [0038-40]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that the pivot bracket comprises a fixed part fixed to the housing, and a rotary part tiltably installed on the fixed part, wherein the mirror filter is mounted on the rotary part, and wherein the drive unit is connected to the rotary part similar to Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing control over the direction light was emitted.
Regarding claim 8, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 7,
Brenner does not explicitly teach wherein the drive unit comprises: a motor part installed on the housing and configured to transmit power; and a rod part configured to rectilinearly move by receiving power from the motor part, connected to the rotary part, and configured to change the tilting angle of the mirror filter together with the rotary part in accordance with a movement position of the rod part.
Brenner teaches an actuator with a motor (actuator 3 in Fig. 1, [0040-41]) and output shaft (15b, Fig. 1, [0040-43]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that the drive unit comprises: a motor part installed on the housing and configured to transmit power; and a rod part configured to rectilinearly move by receiving power from the motor part, connected to the rotary part, and configured to change the tilting angle of the mirror filter together with the rotary part in accordance with a movement position of the rod part similar to Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing control over the direction light was emitted.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Hori US 20200174100 A1 and Yamamoto US 20110044063 A1, and further in view of Na US 10302271 B2.
Regarding claim 9, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 5,
Brenner does not explicitly teach wherein whether to operate the drive unit is determined by an instruction of a controller, and wherein the controller adjusts the tilting angle of the mirror filter when an instruction to emit a low or high beam is made by the controller, such that the lidar sensing light is emitted toward the light exiting part, and the beam patterning light exits through the light exiting part to a high-beam pattern region or a low-beam pattern region.
Na teaches controlling a beam pattern reflector to rotate towards a low-beam mode or high-beam mode (Claim 1, See at least Col. 43 lns. 24 – 44)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that whether to operate the drive unit is determined by an instruction of a controller, and wherein the controller adjusts the tilting angle of the mirror filter when an instruction to emit a low or high beam is made by the controller, such that the lidar sensing light is emitted toward the light exiting part, and the beam patterning light exits through the light exiting part to a high-beam pattern region or a low-beam pattern region similar to Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing control over the direction light was emitted and what intensity of light is emitted.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Sato US 20090046474 A1
Regarding claim 10, Brenner teaches an integrated lamp device for a vehicle, the integrated lamp device comprising:
a housing having a light exiting part (headlamp 101 with headlight cover 104, Fig. 2, [0204]);
a first light source module disposed in a direction orthogonal to an imaginary line passing through the light exiting part in the housing, the first light source module being configured to emit lidar sensing light (lidar transmitter 150, [0216]; examiner notes that the imaginary line could be drawn in ANY direction and location that passes through the light exiting part, e.g. a horizontal line at the bottom of Fig. 2);
a second light source module disposed in a direction orthogonal to the imaginary line passing through the light exiting part in the housing, the second light source module disposed at a position farther from the light exiting part than the first light source module and configured to emit beam patterning light (light source 102, Fig. 2, [0204]; examiner notes that at least a portion of the 102 is disposed orthogonally to an imaginary line passing through the light exiting part); and
a reflection unit including
a reflector configured such that the beam patterning light of the second light source module enter the reflector, the reflector being configured to move the beam patterning light toward the light exiting part (reflector (not shown), [0204]), and
a mirror filter configured to reflect the lidar sensing light and transmit the beam patterning light,
wherein the mirror filter are configured to be tiltable (frequency-selective LiDAR radiation manipulating device 130 includes a LiDAR reflector which is rotatable, [0203, 217]).
Brenner does not explicitly teach lidar sensing light enters the reflector; and the reflector is configured to be tiltable.
Sato teaches a rotatable mirror for a visible light source in a vehicular headlamp (33 in Fig. 8, [0053]).
Additionally, without explicit components to block lidar light from reach Brenner’s reflector, some portion of the lidar light will reach Brenner’s reflector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that lidar sensing light enters the reflector; and the reflector is configured to be tiltable similar to Sato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing control over the direction of pattern light emitted.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner US 20250004139 A1 in view of Sato US 20090046474 A1and further in view of Nguyen US 20240329334 A1
Regarding claim 11, Brenner as modified above teaches the integrated lamp device of claim 10, wherein the housing comprises:
a first installation space having the first light source module provided in the direction orthogonal to the imaginary line passing through the light exiting part (150, Fig. 2, [0203-204, 216-217]); and
a second installation space provided to be spaced apart from the first installation space in a direction away from the light exiting part (portion with 102, Fig. 2, [0203-204, 216-217])
Brenner does not explicitly teach the second installation space to be penetrated inward and outward so that the second light source module is detachably provided in the second installation space.
However, Brenner’s portion with 102 (Fig. 1, [0203-217]) includes an “illumination module” that could be detached an removed in an inward and outward direction (examiner notes that no specific structure is claimed for “detachably provided” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any module could be detached from the remainder of a device).
Furthermore, Nguyen teaches a light source module (35) shown inward and outward from a housing (16) and detachable (Fig. 6, [0039])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brenner such that the second installation part being configured to be penetrated inward and outward so that the second light source module is detachably provided in the second installation part similar to Nguyen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing a modular design for repairs and updates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious: The device of claim 12, specifically including: the mirror filter provided between the reflector and the light exiting part and disposed at a position at which the lidar sensing light and the beam patterning light overlap each other, the mirror filter being configured to reflect the lidar sensing light and transmit the beam patterning light; a pivot bracket tiltably installed in the housing and connected to allow the reflector and the mirror filter to be tilted at the same tilting angle; and a drive unit installed in the housing, connected to the pivot bracket, and configured to adjust a tilting angle of the reflector and a tilting angle of the mirror filter depending on whether the drive unit operates
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645