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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 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, 23-25 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wuerthele et al (US 2013/0215633).
Regarding claim 16, Wuerthele discloses a lighting device for a motor vehicle, the lighting device comprising: one or more first lighting units (at least 26 or collective 26,28), 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 (at least 32), 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 26 and the one or more second lighting units 32 are covered by a common outer lens 46 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 26 is spaced apart from the outer lens 46 and each of the one or more second lighting units 32 is rigidly connected to the outer lens (second lighting unit 32 is rigidly connected to the outer lens 46 via at least front housing section 21, see at least Figs. 3 and 7 and para [0036]) (see at least Figures 1-8 and paragraphs [0018]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 17, the one or more second lighting units 4 in Wuerthele 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 para [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, at least one of the one or more first lighting units 26 in Wuerthele is a lighting module comprising a first housing (see Fig. 2 and housing of first lighting unit 26) in which there is disposed a light emitter for creating the distribution of light for the dip beam function and/or the high beam function (see at least Figures 2-3 and para [0020]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 23, at least one of the one or more second lighting units 4 in Wuerthele is a lighting module comprising a second housing (at least 55,56) in which there is disposed a light emitter (at least 48) for creating the lighting distribution for the light function other than the dip beam and the high beam function (see at least Figures 2-3 and 7 and paras [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 24, the second housing 55,56 in Wuerthele is rigidly connected to the outer lens 48 (see at least Figure 7, rigidly connected to outer lens 48 via housing portion 21).
Regarding claim 25, at least one of the one or more second lighting units 32 in Wuerthele comprises a surface light guide 50 (see at least Figs. 2-7 and para [0027]).
Regarding claim 32, the outer lens 48 in Wuerthele, 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 Figures 1-3 and 7).
Regarding claim 33, Wuerthele discloses a motor vehicle 10 comprising the lighting device according to claim 16 (see at least Figure 1 and para [0019]).
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 Wuerthele et al (US 2013/0215633).
Regarding claims 26-27, Wuerthele does not specifically teach a radiation unit connected to the outer lens 46 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 46 of Wuerthele 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, Wuerthele does not specifically teach that the outer lens 46 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 46 in Wuerthele be made of plastic in order to provide a resilient, durable and inexpensive outer lens 46, 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, Wu teaches an inner surface of the lighting device (at least inner surface of housing portion 21, see at least Fig. 3) which is visible through the outer lens 46, but Wuerthele 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 of the housing 21 in Wuerthele with high absorptivity in order to protect the inner surface from damage while reducing glare for a more defined light distribution pattern.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuerthele et al (US 2013/0215633) in view of Mano (US 2021/0231284).
Regarding claims 19-22, Wuerthele does not specifically teach the first housing of the first lighting unit 26 be connected to outer lens 46 via a flexible connector of the type claimed and the manner claimed. However, attaching first housings to outer lenses via flexible connectors is common in the art and taught in Mano (see Mano, at least Figure 4 and paras [0060]-[0061]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to connecting the first light housing 26 in Wuerthele to the outer lens 46 via a flexible connector as taught by Mano in order to direct light from the first light housing 26 for improved brightness and efficiency while preventing light from the other lighting devices in the headlight from interfering with the light beam pattern emitted from the first lighting unit 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission that the one or more second lighting units 32 in Wuerthele are not rigidly connected to the outer lens 46. Examiner respectfully submits that the one or more second lighting units 32 in Wuerthele are rigidly connected to outer lens 46 via at least front housing section 21 (see at least Figs. 3 and 7 and para [0036]). 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