DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein a long edge of each of the at least two LEDs is parallel with the longitudinal central axis, and a short edge of each of the at least two LEDs is positioned…” The LEDs are not disclosed in the disclosure to have a long edge and a short edge. The Examiner has interpreted the “long edge” to be the “edge extending parallel to the axis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25, 27-29 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 25 sets forth “the array of LEDs”, however there are two arrays of LEDs set forth in the claim, i.e. “each of the two LEDs comprises an array of LEDs arranged in a column”. There is unclear antecedent basis for the limitation “the array of LEDs”.
Claim 1 sets forth “a short edge of each of the at least two LEDs is positioned at a same reference distance from the reference plane”. Claim 27-29 recite “wherein the first and second array of LEDs are positioned at a same reference distance from the reference plane”. It is unclear how the arrays of LEDs are positioned at the same reference distance from the reference plane, when the short edge of the at least two LEDs is positioned at the same reference distance. I.e. there is no interpretation of claims 27-29 that further limit claim 1. The Examiner has interpreted claims 27-29 to require “a short edge of an LED in the array of LEDs is at the same reference distance from the reference plane”, however this does not additionally limit claim 1.
Claims 28 and 29 recite “wherein the array of LEDs…” However claims 23 and 25 recite “[each] LED comprises an array of LEDs”. It is unclear which array of LEDs claims 28 and claim 29 are referring to as “the array of LEDs” is lacking antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 22-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ‘504 (U.S. 2024/0183504, with effective filing date of 3/2/2021, referred to as “504”).
Regarding claim 1, ‘504 teaches a light emitting diode device configured to replace a halogen device comprising a filament (see p. 0021), the LED headlight device comprising:
a plate having a top surface, a bottom surface, and a longitudinal central axis (see fig. 4, central axis X10);
a protruding member (ring shaped mounting member 20) connected to an end of the plate and having a reference plane perpendicular to the longitudinal central axis and contiguous with a first surface of the protruding member that faces the end of the plate;
a lighting unit comprising at least two LEDs (see annotated figure 4 below), the lighting unit being installed on the plate,
wherein the at least two LEDs are positioned on the top surface of the plate and on a first side of the longitudinal central axis (see fig. 4, see p. 0093, array 141 approximately striding axis x10), wherein a long edge of each of the at least two LEDs is parallel with the longitudinal central axis, and a short edge of each of the at least two LEDs is positioned at a same reference distance from the reference plane (see annotated figure 4 below).
Claim 1 recites “the at least two LEDs are positioned… on a first side of the longitudinal central axis”. Based on the disclosure the Examiner has interpreted the limitation to only require that a portion of the LED is on the first side of the axis, not the entire LED, as such an interpretation would be new matter in light of the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
973
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, ‘504 teaches one of the at least two light emitting diodes provides low beam generation (141 is low beam, see p. 0159).
Regarding claim 8, ‘504 teaches wherein one of the at least two light emitting diodes provides high beam generation (142, see p. 0159).
Regarding claim 22, ‘504 teaches that the protruding member comprises a flange of the headlight device (see fig. 4, mounting flange).
Regarding claim 23, ‘504 teaches that each of the at least two LEDs comprises an array of LEDs that are arranged in a column and has a long edge that is parallel to the longitudinal central axis (see annotated figure 4, each comprises a column with a long edge that is parallel).
Regarding claim 24, ‘504 teaches wherein a first array of LEDs is latitudinally adjacent to a second array of LEDs (bottom of first array of LEDs, i.e. 1422, is latitudinally adjacent 1420 of second array of LEDs), and
wherein the first array of LEDs (141) is a lesser latitudinal distance (straddles axis) than the second array of LEDs from the longitudinal central axis (offset).
Regarding claim 25, ‘504 teaches that each of the at least two LEDs comprises an array of LEDs arranged in a column, wherein the array of LEDs is latitudinally offset relative to the longitudinal central axis (1420, 1421 clearly offset, at least 1422 offset, 141 appears to be aligned with 1422 as shown in figure 2 and therefore straddle but are parallel and not coincident with axis ).
Regarding claim 26, ‘504 teaches that a first array comprises a first LED, a second LED, and a third LED(first array comprises 3 leds of 141 and 1422), and/or wherein a second array comprises a fourth LED, a fifth LED, and a sixth LED.
Regarding claim 27, ‘504 teaches that the first and second array of LEDs are positioned at a same reference distance from the reference plane (see fig. 4, 1422 and 1420 are at the same distance).
Regarding claim 28, ‘504 teaches that the array of LEDs comprises from 1 light emitting diode to 3 light emitting diodes (see annotated figure 4), wherein the array of LEDs is positioned at the same reference distance from the reference plane.
Regarding claim 29, ‘504 teaches that the array of LEDs comprises from 1 LED to 3 LEDs, wherein the array of LEDs is positioned at the same reference distance from the reference plane.
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) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘504 (U.S. 2024/0183504, with effective filing date of 3/2/2021, referred to as “504”) in view of Cruesen (U.S. 2017/0198875).
Regarding claim 10, 504 does not teach that the distance is selected from a range of 40.1 millimeters to 45.5 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the range of the distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The Examiner finds that such optimization determines the length of the plate between the reference plane and the light source, i.e. how far the light source is located within a reflector housing of the prior art, e.g. see fig. 3 of Creusen which uses the distance “D32”. Such a distance is well known to determine the beam size, with smaller distances forming smaller beams, and larger distances forming larger beams. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the distance to form an ideal beam size that complies with federal standards, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 11, 504 does not teach that the distance comprises 42.1 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the range of the distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The Examiner finds that such optimization determines the length of the plate between the reference plane and the light source, i.e. how far the light source is located within a reflector housing of the prior art, e.g. see fig. 3 of Creusen which uses the distance “D32”. Such a distance is well known to determine the beam size, with smaller distances forming smaller beams, and larger distances forming larger beams. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the distance to form an ideal beam size that complies with federal standards, as is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that asserts “D’Icncecco is silent regarding that ‘there are no light emitting diodes being on the second sides’ corresponding to the presently recited ‘wherein a second side of the longitudinal central axis is devoid of an LED’ of claim 1.” The argument is directed at claim language not present in claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite “a second side of the longitudinal central axis is devoid of an LED” as argued. As presented in the previous nonfinal rejection on 8/7/2025 such language would be rejected under 112(a) as new matter. Applicant’s disclosure specifically recites that the first column of LEDs is arranged on the central axis, and figure 1 additionally supports this limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s further argument that the claimed LED headlight device “offers unexpected advantages that would not have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant specifically asserts that the recited offset of the lighting unit “generates a safe road beam with low glare and good visibility distance”.
It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted "where the results of optimizing a variable, which was known to be result effective, [are] unexpectedly good." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620, 195 USPQ at 8-9 “However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” Aller 456.
The Examiner finds that although the results that Applicant achieves may be beneficial, they are expected and well within capabilities of one skilled in the art, see Mpep 716.02 (c) II. Specifically, rearranging and optimizing the locations of the LEDs with respect to the optical axis will predictably result in improved brightness and lower glare, and this is well known and well within the capabilities of one skill in the art.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Applicant has not met the burden of proof that the location of the LEDs as described in the disclosure is critical to achieving said results. The Examiner finds this to be a particularly high bar as the reflector, optics, e value, and semiconductor structure of the diodes are not disclosed and therefore cannot be relied upon.
For Applicant to establish proof of unexpected results they must show that the unexpected results stem primarily from the arrangement and location of the LEDs, and not to any undisclosed structures. Specifically this would have to stem from the reference distance itself as the arrangement and location of the LEDs as claimed is taught by the prior art.
Once Applicant establishes that the unexpected results are primarily from the arrangement and location of the LEDs, Applicant must then indicate why the arrangement is not within the capabilities of one skilled in the art or would not be obvious to try in light of the prior art.
The Examiner notes, in the interest of compact prosecution, that the current rejection of the claims may be overcome by further clarifying claim language. However, the Examiner finds that the rearrangement of LED array 141 and 142, e.g. to be arranged horizontally with respect to one another, or to be off axis, is an obvious rearrangement in view of the prior art. Finding an ideal reference distance and ideal LED location to achieve higher brightness and lower glare is an exemplary case of “optimization through routine experimentation”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schoenfelder (U.S. 11,199,297) appears to anticipate all of the claims (see fig. 2).
Grave (U.S. 2019/0184891) teaches a similar arrangement of LEDs.
Kresge (U.S. 2018/0335190) teaches a similar arrangement of LEDs.
Matsumoto (U.S. 10,240,738) appears to anticipate all of the claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights