DETAILED ACTION
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 11-14, 17-18, 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orisich (U.S. 10,343,590) in view of Tsukamoto (U.S. 20160040848).
Regarding claim 11, Orisich teaches a headlight for a motor vehicle (see summary, low beam module, see fig. 5-10), the headlight comprising:
a first illumination device (low beam module 710); and
a second illumination device (additional low beam modules 715, 720), wherein:
the first illumination device and the second illumination device are configured to generate a low beam light (see fig. 8), the first illumination device, in a switched-on state, generates a first light distribution of the low beam light on a ground in front of the motor vehicle (see col. 5, lies 53-67 710 is active when a headlight should be on) and
the second illumination device, in the switched-on state, generates a second light distribution of the low beam light on the ground in front of the motor vehicle (additional low beam modules 715, 720),
the first illumination device is in the switched-on state when the low beam light is activated (active when headlight is on),
the second illumination device is in a switched-off state when the low beam light is activated and a predetermined condition is met (see col. 6 lines 4-12, under threshold speed),
the second illumination device is always switched into the switched-on state from the switched-off state when a velocity of the motor vehicle is greater than or greater than or equal to a predetermined velocity threshold (see col. 6 lines 4-12),
the first illumination device is configured such that, in the switched-on state, the first illumination device generates the first light distribution in a first ground area in front of the motor vehicle (600, closest to vehicle as it has a lower angle of emission),
the second illumination device is configured such that, in the switched-on state, the second illumination device generates the second light distribution (610) in a second ground area in front of the motor vehicle (610, higher angle of distribution),
a first distance from a front of the motor vehicle to a first edge of the first ground area closest to the front of the motor vehicle is smaller than a second distance from the front of the motor vehicle to a second edge of the second ground area closest to the front of the motor vehicle (distance to bottom of 600 is smaller than distance to bottom of 610), and
a maximum distance of the second light distribution from the front of the motor vehicle is greater than a maximum distance of the first light distribution from the front of the vehicles(see annotated figure 6, 610 has a higher angle of emission and therefore has a farther maximum range than 600), and
wherein the second illumination device comprises one or more projection modules (see fig. 10, at least one), which each generate at least part of the second light distribution by projection of light generated in the respective projection module (at least one generates light).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Orisich does not specifically teach that the first illumination device comprises an illumination unit, which comprises a plurality of light sources,
a plurality of imaging optical units, and a light-transmissive intermediate lens, wherein each imaging optical unit consists of a single lens,
each light source is assigned a separate imaging optical unit, by which light of the respective light source is imaged on the ground in front of the motor vehicle,
the light of the respective light source passes through the intermediate lens after passing through the assigned imaging optical unit,
the second illumination device comprises one or more reflection modules, which each generate at least a part of the second light distribution by reflection of light generated in the respective reflection module.
Tsukamoto teaches that the first illumination device (see fig. 1) comprises an illumination unit (light emitting unit 30), which comprises a plurality of light sources (see fig. 2, light sources 32),
a plurality of imaging optical units (transparent members 34) , and a light-transmissive intermediate lens (projection lens 12), wherein each imaging optical unit consists of a single lens (singular transparent member),
each light source is assigned a different one of the imaging optical unit (see fig. 2), by which light of the respective light source is imaged on the ground in front of the motor vehicle, and
the light of the respective light source passes through the intermediate lens after passing through the assigned imaging optical unit (see fig. 1),
the first illumination device is arranged adjacent to the second illumination device such that the first illumination device is physically separate from the second illumination device (see fig. 1), and
and that the second illumination device (low beam module using light source 14) comprises one or more reflection modules (reflector 16), which each generate at least a part of the second light distribution by reflection of light generated in the respective reflection module.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an illumination device as taught by Tsukamoto to perform the lighting function of both the first and second illumination device of Orisich as Tsukamoto teaches a low beam light source (14) used adjacent to a supplement light source with a larger maximum distance and enables good continuity of the light distribution, see p 0019-0021 of Tsukamoto.
Regarding claim 12, Orisich teaches that the predetermined condition is met when the motor vehicle is in an urban area, and the velocity of the motor vehicle is less than or less than or equal to the predetermined velocity threshold (velocity).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “met when the motor vehicle is in an urban area” is an intended use limitation. “(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner finds it obvious to not use the additional low beam lighting modules in an urban area as it urban areas have more traffic that may be dazzled by the lights and additionally have lower speed limits.
Regarding claim 13, Orisich does not teach that the predetermined velocity threshold is between 50 km/h and 70 km/h.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the predetermined velocity threshold, 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 a threshold is based on design choice and is immaterial to the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 14, Orisich does not teach that the predetermined velocity threshold is 60 km/h.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the predetermined velocity threshold, 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 a threshold is based on design choice and is immaterial to the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Tsukamoto teaches that the intermediate lens (12) is inclined in relation to a plane which extends perpendicularly to a vehicle longitudinal axis (see p. 0034, specifically states that Ax is angled slightly downward with respect to vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, Tsukamoto teaches that the intermediate lens, in a top view of the headlight, forms a contour made up of one or more straight and/or curved sections (curved projection lens).
Regarding claim 21, Orisich teaches a motor vehicle comprising the headlight according claim 11.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orisich in view of Tsukamoto, further in view of Bauer (U.S. 9,951,919).
Regarding claim 20, Orisich and Nishimura does not teach comprising: a third illumination device, which generates a daytime running light of the motor vehicle in the switched-on state.
Bauer teaches further comprising: a third illumination device (see fig. 2, three illumination devices), which generates a daytime running light in the switched- on state (see fig. 3, 3b, partial light distributions can operate as a DRL).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an additional DRL module as taught by Bauer for additional lighting functions in the structure of Orisich and Tsukamoto, specifically enabling conspicuity during the daytime, as is known in the art of DRL lights.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding specifically Applicant’s argument that “physically separate” means that the first illumination device and the second illumination device do not share any components, the Examiner has interpreted this statement in light of the disclosure. I.e. Applicant indicates in figure 1 that the illumination devices appear to share a housing and it is unclear if intermediate lens 9 is shared between the illumination devices.
Furthermore, the claims do not define a lens or optical unit for the second illumination device.
With respect to the prior art, Tsukamoto shows that the first and second illumination device share a housing and a projection lens, however this is not excluded by the claims. The limitations defined are separate in view of Tsukamoto, see annotated figure below for further clarity.
The Examiner suggests if Applicant further defines the second illumination device structure, i.e. reciting an individual lens, to point out specifically in the disclosure support.
PNG
media_image2.png
724
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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