Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/675,963

VEHICLE LIGHTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
APENTENG, JESSICA MCMILLAN
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hella Saturnus Slovenija D O O
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
636 granted / 969 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
1037
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 969 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered. 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, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasquet (US 2004/0136203 A1) in view of Irgang et al. (US 2019/0243056 A1) and Yamada (JP 2000251508 A). Regarding claim 1, Gasquet teaches a vehicle lighting device (figures 1-9C) comprising: a main lighting module (2 and 3; see at least figure 1) radiating light along a main radiation direction (see at least figure 1), and a secondary lighting module with a light source (7; see at least figures 1 and 3) and a light guide component (6; see at least figure 1, 3 and 8) the light source (7) radiating light into the light guide component (6) via an end face (see figure 3 where 7 is on an end face of 6), the light guide component (6) including outcoupling elements (see 15 in at least figure 8) protruding at a rear side for light outcoupling out of an opposite front side of the light guide component (6), the light guide component (6) being arranged in front of the main lighting module (2 and 3; see at least figure 1) such that at least a part of the light guide component (6; see at least figure 1 and 3) is within a field of view of the main lighting module (2 and 3; figure 1 and 3), and the light radiated by the main lighting module (2 and 3) along the main radiation direction (Z) passes through the light guide component (see at least figure 1 where light guide 6 is in front of lighting module 2 and 3), wherein the outcoupling elements have shapes with plane end faces (see at least figure 1and 3), the plane end faces being oriented parallel to the front side of the light guide component (6, see at least figure 1 and 3) and/or perpendicular to the main radiation direction (Z) and/or inclined in an intermediate orientation. Gasquet does not explicitly teach the outcoupling elements having truncated shapes. Irgang et al. teaches a light guide (12) comprising a plurality of truncated portions (32; see figures 2-5) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gasquet to include outcoupling elements having truncated shapes as taught by Irgang et al. so that the light guide can act as a light source multiplier to create an appearance that more light sources are present than are actually used (see paragraph [0018]). Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. does not explicitly teach the outcoupling elements protruding outward at a rear side and the outcoupling elements protrude toward the main lighting module, wherein inner surfaces of the light guide component at the front side and the rear side are configured to reflect the light radiated via the light source of the secondary lighting module within the light guide component, wherein the outcoupling elements protrude outward and away from the inner surface at the rear side toward the main lighting module, and where the inner surface at the rear side is defined by a spacing between the outcoupling elements. PNG media_image1.png 168 288 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 218 169 media_image2.png Greyscale Yamada teaches the outcoupling elements (6c; figure 1) protruding outward at a rear side (see figure 4) and the outcoupling elements (6c) protrude toward the main lighting module (4a; see figure 4 where the elements 6c protrude toward the light 4a), wherein inner surfaces of the light guide (6) component at the front side and the rear side are configured to reflect the light radiated via the light source (5a; figure 4) of the secondary lighting module within the light guide component (6), wherein the outcoupling elements (6c) protrude outward and away from the inner surface at the rear side toward the main lighting module (4a; see figure 4 where elements 6c protrude towards the lighting module 4a), and where the inner surface at the rear side is defined by a spacing between the outcoupling elements (6c; see figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gasquet to include outcoupling elements that protrude outward at a rear side as taught by Yamada to achieve cost reduction, downsizing and improvement in performance for a vehicle lamp as well as decrease in heat generation in a lamp chamber and avoiding a reduction in brightness (see paragraph [0022] of translation of Yamada). Regarding claim 2, Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, and Irgang et al. further teaches outcoupling elements (32; see at least figures 2 and 3) wherein the outcoupling elements are shaped as truncated cones, truncated pyramids, truncated hemispheres, truncated ellipsoidal segments and/or truncated free-form bodies (see truncated portions 32 in at least figures 2 and 3), wherein the plane end faces are formed by the truncation (see figure 1 where the truncated portions 32 from the plane end faces) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gasquet to include outcoupling elements having truncated shapes as taught by Irgang et al. so that the light guide can act as a light source multiplier to create an appearance that more light sources are present than are actually used (see paragraph [0018]). Regarding claim 3, Gasquet further teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, wherein the orientation of the plane end faces with respect to the main radiation direction (Z) and/or the front side of the light guide component (6; see figures 1 and 3) varies among the outcoupling elements (15). Regarding claim 4, Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada further teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, and Gasquet further teaches wherein the light guide component (6; see at least figures 1 and 3 includes an elongated curved shape (see figures 9A-9C where curved shape of light guide 6 is shown) in such a way that the orientation of the front side and the orientation of the plane end faces of the outcoupling elements (15) vary along the elongation of the light guide (6) component with respect to the main radiation direction (see at least figure 1-5). Regarding claim 7, Gasquet further teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, wherein the body of the light guide component (6, see at least figure 1-9C) is shaped as a rod, a plate, or a free-form body (see shape of 6 in figures 2A-2C and 9A-9C). Regarding claim 8, Gasquet further teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle lighting device is a headlight (see paragraph [0050]) and the main lighting module is a low-beam lighting module (see figure 1 and at least paragraph [0009]). Regarding claim 10, Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, but Gasquet does not explicitly teach wherein the inner surfaces are parallel to the plane end faces of the outcoupling elements. Yamada teaches wherein the inner surfaces (see figure 4) are parallel to the plane end faces of the outcoupling elements (6c). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gasquet to include inner surfaces that are parallel to the plane end faces of the outcoupling elements as taught by Yamada to achieve cost reduction, downsizing and improvement in performance for a vehicle lamp as well as decrease in heat generation in a lamp chamber and avoiding a reduction in brightness (see paragraph [0022] of translation of Yamada). Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasquet (US 2004/0136203 A1) in view of Irgang et al. (US 20190243056 A1) and Yamada (JP 2000251508 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,674,826 B1). Regarding claim 5, Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, and Gasquet further teaches outcoupling elements (15) but does not explicitly teach wherein the outcoupling elements protrude at the rear side of the light guide component by a height in a range of 0.05 mm to 5 mm. Tanaka et al. teaches a lighting apparatus comprising prisms (22) having a height of 1mm (see column 7, lines 45-53) which is in a range of 0.05 mm to 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the outcoupling elements of Gasquet to have a protruding height in the range of 0.05mm to 5mm as taught by Tanaka et al. so that overall uniformity of luminance can be improved (see column 7, lines 1-8 of Tanaka et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasquet (US 2004/0136203 A1) in view of Irgang et al. (US 20190243056 A1) and Yamada (JP 2000251508 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Saitoh et al. (US 2007/0058359 A1). Regarding claim 6, Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, and Gasquet further teaches outcoupling elements (15) but do not explicitly teach wherein the outcoupling elements have a lateral size in a range of 0.05 mm to 5mm. Saitoh et al. teaches an illumination device comprising prisms 58 having a width of 0.65 mm and 1.3 mm which is in the range of 0.05 mm to 5 mm (see paragraph [0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the outcoupling elements of Gasquet to have a lateral size in a range of 0.05mm to 5mm as taught by Saitoh et al. as an alternative design choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasquet (US 2004/0136203 A1) in view of Irgang et al. (US 20190243056 A1) and Yamada (JP 2000251508 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Taleb-Bendiab et al. (US 8,333,493 B2). Regarding claim 9, Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada teaches the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a shape, dimensions, and a spacing of the outcoupling elements vary along the light guide component. Taleb-Bendiab et al. teaches a light pipe for automotive lighting comprising prisms that vary in shape, dimensions and spacing along the light pipe (16; see column 5, lines 51-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light guide component of Gasquet modified by Irgang et al. and Yamada to include elements that vary in shape, dimensions and spacing along the light guide component as taught by Taleb-Bendiab et al. in order to equalize the amount of light reflected by the prisms and therefore achieve a desired illumination output from the vehicle light device ( see column 5, lines 1-11 of Taleb-Bendiab et al.) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1 and 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. Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation, “wherein inner surfaces of the light guide component at the front side and the rear side are configured to reflect the light radiated via the light source of the secondary lighting module within the light guide component, wherein the outcoupling elements protrude outward and away from the inner surface at the rear side toward the main lighting module, and where the inner surface at the rear side is defined by a spacing between the outcoupling elements.”. A new reference, Yamada, teaches the newly recited limitation and therefore, claim 1 remains rejected. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, 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. /JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585155
BACKLIGHT PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584605
LAMP FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578576
FRONT LIGHTING OF A DISPLAY FOR A WEARABLE E-READER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570206
AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557703
ILLUMINATOR, ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING DEVICE, AND ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 969 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month