DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 1, 2026 has been entered. Claim 16 is amended. Claims 16-33 are pending.
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)(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 16-18, 23-24 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terao (US 5,172,972).
Regarding claim 16, Terao discloses a lighting device for a motor vehicle, the lighting device comprising: one or more first lighting units (generally 11, particularly at least 50,51,52,53), each of which is configured to generate a distribution of light for a dip beam and/or a high beam function, and one or more second lighting units (generally 13; at least 100,101,102,103; Examiner note: the one or more second lighting units could additionally or alternatively be second lighting unit 12, specifically at least collective elemetns 90-95 which is rigidly and directly connected to outer lens 4 via reflector 92 and has an opening between at least light source 90 and outer lens 4; see Fig. 1), each of which is configured to create a light distribution for a light function other than the dip beam function and the high beam function, and each of which does not generate the distribution of the light for the dip beam function and the high beam function, wherein: the one or more first lighting units 11 and the one or more second lighting units 13 (and/or 12) are covered by a common outer lens 4 which is transparent at least in sections and through which light coming from the one or more first lighting units and the one or more second lighting units exits from the lighting device, each of the one or more first lighting units 11 is spaced apart from the outer lens 4 and each of the one or more second lighting units 13 (and/or 12) is rigidly connected to the outer lens, and each of the one or more second lighting units 13 (and/or 12) is directly connected to the outer lens 4 (at least portions 102,103, and/or 92), and an opening is formed between each of the one or more second lighting units and the outer lens 4 (see opening between light source 101 and outer lens 4, and opening between light source 90 and outer lens 4) (see at least Figures 1-3 and col. 3, line 27 through col. 8 line 40).
Regarding claim 17, Terao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more second lighting units 13 (and/or 12) are configured to create a light distribution for a daytime running light, for a position light, for a turn signal, for illumination of an area along the outer lens, and/or for contour lighting alone one edge of the outer lens (see at least Fig. 1 and col. 7, line 35).
Regarding claim 18, Terao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses at least one of the one or more first lighting units 11 is a lighting module comprising a first housing (52 and/or 53) in which there is disposed a light emitter 50 for creating the distribution of light for the dip beam function and/or the high beam function (see at least Figure 1 and col. 4, line 63 through col. 5, line 5).
Regarding claim 23, Terao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more second lighting units 13 (and/or 12) is a lighting module comprising a second housing (100 and/or 103,92a, or 92) in which there is disposed a light emitter 101 (or 90) for creating the lighting distribution for the light function other than the dip beam and the high beam function (see at least Fig. 1 and col. 7, line 35-50).
Regarding claim 24, Terao discloses the limitations of claim 23, and further discloses wherein the second housing (at least portions 92b,103, or 92) is rigidly connected to the outer lens 4 (see at least Figure 1).
Regarding claim 32, Terao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the outer lens 4, upon installation in the motor vehicle, has an extend in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle that extends from one edge of the motor vehicle to essentially a center of the motor vehicle (see at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 33, Terao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a motor vehicle comprising the lighting device according to claim 16 (see at least col. 1, lines 5-6 and col. 3, lines 27-37).
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.
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 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terao (US 5,172,972).
Regarding claims 26-27, Terao does not specifically teach a radiation unit connected to the outer lens 4 for emitting radiation other than light. However the use of radiation units in headlamps to emit radiation other than light is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a radiation unit in the outer lens 4 of Terao for emitting radiation other than light in order to provide detection means such as LIDAR around the vehicle for improved safety and reduced collisions, or for heating the outer lens 46 with infrared radiation to remove ice/condensation for improved visibility and safety..
Regarding claim 28, Terao does not specifically teach that the outer lens 4 be formed from plastic. However plastic outer lenses are well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that outer lens 4 in Terao be made of plastic in order to provide a resilient, durable and inexpensive outer lens 4, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 29, the recitation that the outer lens be “a multicomponent injection molding” relates to the method of manufacturing the device which is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the device itself. Therefore this recitation is not to be given patentable weight (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 30-31, Terao teaches an inner surface of the lighting device (see at least Figs. 1-3, surfaces of 53 and/or 92,103) which is visible through the outer lens 4, but Terao does not specifically teach that the inner surface have an absorptivity of 50% or 90%. However providing inner surfaces with absorption coatings to achieve a high absorptivity is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the inner surface in Terao with high absorptivity in order to protect the inner surface from damage while reducing glare for a more defined light distribution pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 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 claim 19, the best prior art of record, Terao, does not teach that the first housing (52 and/or 53) be connected to the outer lens via a flexible connector. Accordingly, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 20-22 are allowable in that they are dependent on, and further limit claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 16, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission that Terao does not teach “an opening is formed between each of the one or more second light units and the outer lens”. As set forth in the rejection above, Examiner submits that there is an opening between the light source 100 of second lighting unit 13 and outer lens 4 (see Fig. 1). Additionally and alternatively, Examiner submits that the at least one second lighting unit in Terao can include second lighting unit 12 (at least collective elements 90-95) which also is rigidly and directly connected to outer lens 4 and has an opening between at least light source 90 and outer lens 4. For the foregoing reasons, Examiner submits that Terao teaches “an opening is formed between each of the one or more second lighting units and the outer lens”. Accordingly, the rejection of at least claim 16 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm 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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights