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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “the source” on line 10, should be changed to – the light source --.
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 1-11 are 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.
In claim 1, the phrase “a screen …. configured to gather light rays coming directly from the light source, referred to as direct rays..”, on lines 8-10, is unclear because, the term “gathering” light implies the screen has been shaped, positioned or treated to actively accumulate or collet light rays, similar to a reflector or a lens.
However, the specification discloses the screen is devoid of any treatment that improves reflection or light absorption (see ¶ 18), that is, the screen appears to be just in the way of some of the light rays traveling along the optical axis.
Moreover, the claim states that the screen gathers rays directly from the light source. However, the reflector also receives light rays directly from the light source which can be considered direct rays; thus, the term direct rays is not clearly defined in the claim.
For purpose of examination the phrase above has been interpreted to mean -- a screen …. configured to block a portion of light rays coming directly from the light source.. --, as the term “block” has also used in the specification in ¶ 41 in addition to gathering light.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the end face " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the phrase has been interpreted to mean – an end face --.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as they depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimoto et al. (DE 102007007839 A1, hereinafter, “Sugimoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto teaches a luminous module (lamp unit 110, see figures 1-6) comprising:
a light source (discharge lamp 114, see fig 1) capable of emitting light rays (as expected from a discharge lamp);
a plate (lower plate 150D, see fig 1) supporting the light source (114);
a collector (reflector 111, see fig 1) with a reflective surface (inner surface of 111) configured to collect and reflect the light rays (from 114) in a reflected light beam (light reflected by 111) along an optical axis (see optical axis shown as dotted line in fig 1);
an optical system (lens 113, see fig 1) configured to project the reflected light beam (light reflected by 111) by imaging part of the reflective surface (inner surface of 111);
a screen (rotating shield 141, see fig 3a) which is in front of the light source (114), along a main direction (see dotted line in fig 1) of propagation of the reflected light beam (light reflected by 111), and is configured to gather light rays (light from 114) coming directly from the source (111), referred to as direct rays (since the screen positioned in the pathway of light from 114 to reduce the light emitted by the discharge lamp 114, and as disclosed in ¶ 5 of “Embodiment 1”); and
the screen (141) extends along a transverse direction (evident from figure 3a, where it is shown that the screen 141 extends perpendicular to the optical axis) with a constant cross section (see cross section of 141 in fig 3a) and is disposed on the plate (150D).
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto teaches wherein the transverse direction (direction of 141 which extends perpendicular to the optical axis of the lamp, see fig 3a) is perpendicular to the optical axis (dotted line, see fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sugimoto teaches wherein the screen (141) has an end face (low beam shield LS or high beam shield HS, depending on the orientation of 141, see one of the orientations in fig 3b), opposite the plate (150D), which is convex (as both LS or HS orientations show a convexity opposite to 150D).
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto teaches wherein the end face (LS or HS) of the screen (141) has a transverse profile including
a rounded portion with a radius of curvature than or equal to 0.1 mm and/or
a straight portion (see upper straight portion of 141 extending at an angle with respect to the plane of 150D, that is parallel to the optical axis) which is inclined by at least 10° toward the rear (necessarily occurring at one point during rotation of the screen, as while rotating, the screen makes an angle of at least 10 degrees with respect to the plate, evident from figure 3a) and the plate (150D).
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto teaches wherein the rear face (rear surfaces of 141) of the screen (141) is part of the end face (as rear surface correspond to the rear end of 141) of the screen (141).
Regarding claim 7, Sugimoto teaches wherein the cross section of the screen (141) is triangular, circular, oval (as seen in fig 3a) or pentagonal.
Claims 1-3 and 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugie et al. (JP 2014175102 A, hereinafter, “Sugie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 11/6/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Sugie teaches a luminous module (Vehicle lamp 1, see figures 1-6) comprising:
a light source (light source 2, see fig 2) capable of emitting light rays (as expected from a light source);
a plate (horizontal mounting portion 50, see fig 2) supporting the light source (2);
a collector (reflector 4, see fig 2) with a reflective surface (reflective surface 40, see fig 2) configured to collect and reflect the light rays (from 2) in a reflected light beam (light reflected by 4) along an optical axis (lens axis Z1, see fig 2);
an optical system (projection lens 3, see fig 2) configured to project the reflected light beam (light reflected by 4) by imaging part of the reflective surface (40);
a screen (shade 6, see fig 2) which is in front of the light source (2), along a main direction (along Z1) of propagation of the reflected light beam (light reflected by 4), and is configured to gather light rays (light from 2) coming directly from the source (2), referred to as direct rays (as disclosed in ¶ 1-2 of “Description of the action of the embodiment”); and
the screen (6) extends along a transverse direction (a direction perpendicular to Z1, and evident from figure 3, where it is shown that the screen extends perpendicular to Z1) with a constant cross section (see cross section of 6 in figures 2 and 3) and is disposed on the plate (50).
Regarding claim 2, Sugie teaches wherein the transverse direction (direction of shade extension being perpendicular to Z1, see fig 3) is perpendicular to the optical axis (Z1).
Regarding claim 3, Sugie teaches wherein the screen (6) has an end face (reflective surface 61, see fig 2), opposite the plate (50), which is convex (as 61 protrudes rearwardly from 60).
Regarding claim 6, Sugie teaches wherein the rear face (rear surfaces of 6) of the screen (6) is part of the end face (as rear surface correspond to the rear end of 6) of the screen (6).
Regarding claim 8, Sugie teaches wherein the screen (6) is made of a metal material (metal (SUS) plate, see ¶ 1 of “Description of the shade 6”).
Regarding claim 10, Sugie teaches wherein the screen (6) is free of surface treatment of the light-reflecting and/or light-absorbing type (as 6 is made of a material of optically opaque and also with high reflectivity, where no surface treatment is necessary, see ¶ 1 and 3 of “Description of the shade 6”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie et al. (JP 2014175102 A, hereinafter, “Sugie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 11/6/2025) in view of Wall Jr. Franklin. (US 7316488 B2, hereinafter, “Wall”).
Regarding claim 5, Sugie teaches wherein the screen (6) has a rear face (rear surfaces of 6) which gathers the direct rays and is at a distance (see distance between 60 and 2), along the optical axis (Z1), from the light source (2).
Sugie does not explicitly teach the distance is less than or equal to 10 mm.
Wall teaches a luminous module (Beam shutter in LED Package, see figure 1) having a light source (LED die 10) and a screen (beam shutter 20), both mounted on a plate (submount 14);
the distance (distance between 10 and 20) is less than or equal to 10 mm (as the distance ranges from 0-5mm, and thus less than 10mm.see col 3, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance between the light source and screen as taught by Wall into the teachings of Sugie to reduce the overall size of the screen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to as a shorter distance between light source and screen, that provides the same function, would require a smaller screen, and thus less material to manufacture the screen, making the overall device smaller and cost efficient.
Regarding claim 9, Sugie does not teach wherein the screen is attached to the plate by welding, soldering and/or adhesive bonding.
Wall teaches a luminous module (Beam shutter in LED Package, see figure 1) having a light source (LED die 10) and a screen (beam shutter 20), both mounted on a plate (submount 14);
wherein the screen (20) is attached to the plate (14) by welding, soldering (soldered, brazed, see col 2, lines 64-67) and/or adhesive bonding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate attache the screen as taught by Wall into the teachings of Sugie in order to permanently fix the screen to the plate. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the position of the screen on the plate and to reduce the number of parts involved into fixing the screen to the plate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie et al. (JP 2014175102 A, hereinafter, “Sugie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 11/6/2025) in view of Ueno et al. (US 20190093844 A1, hereinafter, “Ueno”).
Regarding claim 11, Sugie teaches wherein the screen (6) has a rear face (rear surfaces of 6) which gathers the direct rays and is at a distance (see distance between 60 and 2), along the optical axis (Z1), from the light source (2).
Ueno teaches a luminous module (light emitting unit 30, see figure 3) having a light source (light-emitting element 32), a reflector (reflector 36) and a screen (white resin 34) at a distance (see distance between 34 and 32) of the light source (32);
the distance (distance between 34 and 32) is less than or equal to 4 mm (as the rear end face of 34 appears to be in contact with 32, the distance is less than 4mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance between the light source and screen as taught by Ueno into the teachings of Sugie to reduce the overall size of the screen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to as a shorter distance between light source and screen, that provides the same function, would require a smaller screen, and thus less material to manufacture the screen, making the device smaller and less expensive to manufacture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugie et al. (EP 2375142 A2) discloses a luminous module having a light source emitting light to a reflector and ahead of the vehicle. A screen having a constant triangular cross section is position ahead of the light source and is configured to intercept at least a portion of the light emitted by the light source. The device provided high precision via a mount section since the mount section and an optical section form an integrated structure so that the light source is mounted on the holding section via mount section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875