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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2023, 12/18/2024, and 2/18/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/21/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owada (9976720) hereafter Owada in view of Bauer (20160265733) hereafter Bauer.
Regarding claim 1, Owada teaches an array comprising: an optical system, wherein each of the optical systems comprises a pair of an incidence-side lens portion and an emission-side lens portion (see fig. 7), a low refractive index portion is provided between an incident surface of the incidence-side lens portion and an emission surface of the emission-side lens portion (gap between 50 and 52), a refractive index of the low refractive index portion is lower than
refractive indexes of other portions (air), wherein the low refractive index portion comprises a first surface extending through a focus of the emission surface and a second surface extending from the first surface toward the incident surface (see annotated figure 7 below), wherein a cut line forming portion is formed by a boundary portion between the first surface and the second surface (46a forms boundary by reflecting light to form upper portion of light distribution), and wherein the incident surface is provided at a position that does not overlap the second surface in a front view of the incidence-side lens portion (42 is well below a tangent of the second surface in a front view).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Owada does not specifically teach that the lighting device is embodied as a microlens array comprising a plurality of optical systems.
Bauer teaches a lighting device that is embodied as a microlens array comprising a plurality of optical systems (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was filed to have used the structure of Owada on a smaller scale as an array as taught by Bauer to enable fine control of the parts of the light distribution, resulting in a highly controlled and efficient optical system.
The Examiner notes that the limitation "microlens" has been interpreted as a
recitation of the scale of the device. It is well established in vehicular lighting to reduce
the scale of optics and lenses for additional control and precision.
Regarding claim 3, Owada and Bauer discloses and teach as set forth above and Owada further discloses the microlens array according to claim 2, wherein the low refractive index portion and the other portion are made of different materials (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Owada teaches the microlens array according to claim 2, wherein at least a part of the plurality of optical systems is integrally formed along a first direction, and the low refractive index portion penetrates the microlens array in the first direction (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Owada teaches the microlens array according to claim 1, wherein the second surface is a total reflective surface (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Owada teaches the microlens array according to claim 1, wherein the incidence-side lens portion is configured to refract, toward the boundary portion, light incident from the incidence surface (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Owada teaches a vehicle lamp comprising: a light source; and the microlens array according to claim 1 (abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Owada teaches the microlens array according to of claim 2, wherein the incidence-side lens portion is configured to refract, toward the boundary portion, light incident from the incidence surface (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Owada teaches a vehicle lamp comprising: a light source; and the microlens array according to claim 2 (abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12352400 hereafter Kazama. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 6 of Kazama read on or make obvious claims 1, 2, 12, and 18 of the instant invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kazama discloses A microlens array comprising: a plurality of optical systems, wherein each of the optical systems includes a pair of an incidence-side lens portion and an emission-side lens portion, a low refractive index portion is provided between an incidence surface of the incidence-side lens portion and an emission surface of the emission-side lens portion, a refractive index of the low refractive index portion is lower than a refractive index of another portion, the low refractive index portion includes: a first surface extending through a focus of the emission surface; and a second surface extending from the first surface to the incidence surface, and a cut line forming portion is formed by a boundary portion between the first surface and the second surface (see claim 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Kazama discloses the limitations therein (see claim 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, 10, 15, and 16 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 does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 4 (and its dependent) the prior art does not disclose the claimed microlens array specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein a difference between the refractive index of the low refractive index portion and the refractive index of the other portion is 0.03 or more.”
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not disclose the claimed microlens array specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the low refractive index portion is made of an opaque material.”
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the prior art does not disclose the claimed microlens array specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein at least a part of the plurality of optical systems is integrally formed along a first direction, and the hollow portion penetrates the microlens array in the first direction.”
Regarding claims 10 and 16, the prior art does not disclose the claimed microlens array specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein a step portion is provided in the boundary portion, and the step portion is located in the vicinity of a rear focus of the emission-side lens portion, and the step portion configures the cut line forming portion.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1278. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/JAMES C. JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights