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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I/Species A in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2026.
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 9/29/2023 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki et al (US 2008/0266890 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Mochizuki et al disclose a lamp device comprising:
a lamp housing (3) installed on a front of a vehicle, and having an accommodation space therein;
at least one optical module (19) disposed in the accommodation space;
a gear unit (at least 49—there are other gears) positioned in the optical module and configured to rotate the at least one optical module; and
a drive unit (22) for transmitting rotational power to the gear unit to rotate the optical module. (Figure 1 and 2; see at least [0039] onward)
In regard to claim 2, Mochizuki et al disclose each optical module includes:
a light source (15) for emitting light;
an optical module shaft (47) protruding downward from the light source to the gear unit; and
a lighting plate (43) installed in front of the light source. (Figure 1 and 2; see at least [0039] onward)
In regard to claim 8, Mochizuki et al disclose each optical module further includes a heat dissipation unit (23) to dissipate heat from the light source, and the heat dissipation unit is spaced apart from the light source by a set distance. (Figure 1; see at least [0043])
In regard to claim 9, Mochizuki et al disclose the lamp device comprises a plurality of optical modules; and the gear unit comprises a shaft gear (47) installed on the optical module shaft of each optical module; and a connecting gear (49, 51, 55) is disposed between the plurality of shaft gears installed on the plurality of optical module shafts to interface the plurality of shaft gears to each other. (Figure 1 and 2; see at least [0039] onward)
In regard to claim 10, Mochizuki et al disclose the plurality of optical modules are arranged along a line to correspond to a shape of the lamp housing.
In regard to claim 11, Mochizuki et al disclose a plurality of optical modules, wherein each of the lighting plates of the plurality of optical modules includes a side pattern on one side thereof. (This is broad—light is pernicious—there is a side emission inherently.)
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al (US 2008/0266890 A1) in view of Otani et al (US 2013/0135887 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Mochizuki et al fails to disclose the lighting plate includes a front pattern to pattern light emitted from the light source.
Otani et al teaches a lighting plate including a front pattern (22) to pattern light emitted from the light source. (Figure 2; see [0096])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the front patter of Otani et al to the lighting plates of Mochizuki et al in order to shape the resulting light distribution.
In regard to claim 4 and 5, Mochizuki et al disclose a plurality of optical modules.
The combination of Mochizuki et al and Otani et al fail to disclose that the lighting plates of the plurality of optical modules having a common front pattern, as recited in claim 4, or that the front patterns of the plurality of optical modules being different from each other, as recited in claim 5.
However, as both states are claimed it is clear that shape of the patterns between the modules is not critical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a front pattern to all the plates of Mochizuki et al in order to shape the resulting light distribution.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al (US 2008/0266890 A1) in view of Pitkjaan (US 3,688,149 A).
In regard to claim 6 and 7, Mochizuki et al disclose a plurality of optical modules.
Mochizuki et al fail to disclose colored lighting plates.
Pitkjaan teach colored lighting plates. (See Col 12 Line 52 onward)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the coloring effect of Pitkjaan to the lighting plates of Mochizuki et al in order to make colored lights.
The combination fails to teach the lighting plates of the plurality of optical modules are of colors different from each other, as recited in claim 6, or that the lighting plates of the plurality of optical modules are of a common color, as recited in claim 7. However, as both states are claimed, it is clear the color state combination is not critical to the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide any number of color combination in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
Furthermore, the age of the secondary reference must be considered in this case.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al (US 2008/0266890 A1) in view of Saito (US 4,533,860).
In regard to claim 12, Mochizuki et al fail to explicitly disclose a guide groove.
Saito teaches the connecting gear is installed on a connecting shaft protruding from the lamp housing; the connecting gear has a guide groove formed at an angle set in a circumferential direction; the connecting shaft has a protruding guide protruding from a side thereof; and the protruding guide is rotatable in the guide groove. (See Col 3 Line 52 onward)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to install the guide groove of Saito to the lamp of Mochizuki et al in order to limit rotation of the assembly. The age of the reference is also considered—the Examiner takes notice the guide grooves are known and providing them to limit rotation is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zheng et al (US 12,000,564 B1) disclose a rotating member.
Kim (US 2024/0102629 A1) disclose a geared lighting device.
Kim et al (US 2022/0371507 A1) disclose a geared lighting plate.
Kim (US 2022/0034473 A1) disclose a vehicle lamp.
Lim (US 2021/0033256 A1) disclose a vehicle lamp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875