DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, the disclosure sets forth equations that are undefined and unsolvable, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to create the specific cross section set forth using the equations presented in the disclosure.
“a” : a is defined as “a constant greater than zero”, however as the number is not a set constant, it is actually a variable.
θ : defined as “an angle value greater than 0 degrees”, this angle is a variable. Specifically, θ should be the output of the equation considered, as the intersection line defines the output angle.
(-l, l) : l defines a size of the opening and is a variable.
The resulting equation has two dependent variables (f(x) and θ) and is dependent on two other variables (a, l). The specification sets forth “an image of the function y=f(x) may be drawn, i.e., the image of the first intersection line”, however it is not capable of being drawn without each ‘constant’ being defined as a single, specific number; or with additional equations in the system of equations.
Claim 1-9, 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a plurality of optical units , each optical unit comprising a specific lens that collimates light as claimed in claim 10, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
As argued, and as present in the disclosure, the entire benefit of the invention is the prevention of imaged edge lines from adjacent reflectors after passing through a lens. However, claims 1-5 do not set forth the adjacent reflectors, therefore the specific reflector recited is meaningless. The function and benefit of the invention is not realized.
Furthermore, the disclosure and arguments present that the collimating lens is critical to the operation of the device, however it is not recited in claims 6-9, 11-20.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 6, 11 set forth equations that are unsolvable and unable to define an intersection line as there are too many variables.
Claim 1 sets forth variables:
“a” : a is defined as “a constant greater than zero”, however as the number is not a set constant, it is actually a variable.
θ : defined as “an angle value greater than 0 degrees”, this angle is a variable. Specifically, θ should be the output of the equation considered, as the intersection line defines the output angle.
(-l, l) : l defines a size of the opening and is a variable.
x
f(x):
The system of equations sets forth only a single equation, along with five variables, two of which are dependent variables, i.e. θ and f(x). A single equation with two dependent variables cannot be solved .
Furthermore the values of a and l are variable and creates an unusable equation. The equation does not set forth an intersection line and cannot be used to plot the shape or cross section of the reflector. The system can only have two variables to be plotted in a two dimensional cross section as set forth.
Furthermore, many of the variables are improperly defined. For example, a is a constant greater than 0. Yet a only appears in the form of a/4. There is no purpose to defining it as a/4, it can be expressed as a. As an example, if a is equal to 16, then a/4= 4, however Applicant can redefine a as being equal to 4 and simplify the equation so that a/4 is represented as a.
Each and every variable and constant must be precisely defined. Furthermore, the figures must set forth each of these variables and constants.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, are unable to be interpreted as they set forth undefined constants. The Examiner has found below that the optimization of the angles and lengths of the optical system is within the skill of the art.
Claim 3 sets forth additional variables and constants that suffer the same problems as claim 1.
All other claims are rejected under 112(b) for setting forth undefined parameters.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (U.S. 11,280,464).
Regarding claim 1, Giraud teaches a reflecting mirror (reflector 106, with reflection surface 106.2), comprising a light-reflecting surface, an intersection line of the light-reflecting surface intersecting with a horizontal plane being a first intersection line (see fig. 6, horizontal cross section of the reflector).
Giraud does not teach that the first intersection line satisfying:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
31
16
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein (0,a/4) is a focus of the light-reflecting surface, the a is a constant greater than zero; the l is a constant greater than zero; the 0 is an angle value greater than 00 and less than 900; the x is an independent variable, xe(-l, l), and the f(x) is a dependent variable changing with the x; and
wherein the focus of the light-reflecting surface is located at the coordinates (0,4); the / defines a size of an opening of the light-reflecting surface in a direction, and the size of the opening of the light-reflecting surface in the direction is equal to 2l; and the 0 is an angle between outgoing light at an edge of the light-reflecting surface and a baseline, wherein light shining on the light-reflecting surface is incoming light, light reflected by the light-reflecting surface is the outgoing light, and the baseline is a straight line with x=l.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the horizontal cross section of the reflector of Giraud in light of the prior art to achieve an optimized luminance pattern for establishing a low beam with a desired level of collimation. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
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 the specifics as to the shape of the horizontal intersecting line of the reflector are result effective variables that are well established in the art. Giraud teaches the intersection line that is defined by a line of curvature, however Giraud does not specifically recite the function that defines the line of curvature. The optimization of the line of curvature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an optimum beam width and brightness, specifically when used within overlapping light arrays as taught by Giraud.
To overcome such an interpretation, the Applicant may establish that the specific optimization is taught against by the prior art or achieves unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, there is no frame of reference given for θ. However, the Examiner finds that the optimization of the angle and the intersecting line of Giraud is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Giraud teaches an intersection line of the light-reflecting surface intersecting with a vertical plane is a second intersection line (see fig. 1).
Giraud does not teach that the second intersection line satisfies:
PNG
media_image3.png
130
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
_
wherein (0,
PNG
media_image4.png
33
16
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is a focus of the light-reflecting surface, the b is a constant greater than zero; the m is a constant greater than zero; the y is an angle value greater than 0 and less than 90; the p is an independent variable, pe(-m, m), and the f(p) is a dependent variable changing with the p.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the vertical cross section of the reflector of Giraud in light of the prior art to achieve an optimum angle of emission of the light beam and resultant emitted height. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 4, Giraud does not teach that the ye(5,10°);and/or the m < 10mm.
The orientation or frame of reference is not indicated in the claim. However, the Examiner finds that the optimization of the angle and the intersecting line of Giraud is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as indicated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Giraud does not specifically teach wherein the first intersection line extends along a first direction, and a dimension of the light-reflecting surface in the first direction is 5mm-15mm.
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 first intersection length of Giraud as it is a result effective variable, the first intersection length determines the horizontal width of the reflector, and may be increased for larger light output surfaces or reduced for smaller ones.
Regarding claim 6, Giraud teaches a projection assembly, comprising:
a plurality of optical units (see fig. 1, multiple units), wherein each optical unit comprises:
a reflecting mirror having a light reflecting surface (see fig. 4, 6); and
a lens (lens 110) having a light entering surface, the light entering surface being arranged to correspond to the light reflecting surface;
wherein each optical unit has an optical axis extending in a second direction, the light reflecting surface and the corresponding light entering surface are arranged along the second direction, an intersection line of the light reflecting surface of the reflecting mirror of part of the plurality of optical units intersecting with a horizontal plane is a first intersection line (see fig. 6).
Giraud does not teach that the first intersection line satisfies:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the focus of the light-reflecting surface is located at the coordinates (0,4); the / defines a size of an opening of the light-reflecting surface in a direction, and the size of the opening of the light-reflecting surface in the direction is equal to 2l; and the 0 is an angle between outgoing light at an edge of the light-reflecting surface and a baseline, wherein light shining on the light-reflecting surface is incoming light, light reflected by the light-reflecting surface is the outgoing light, and the baseline is a straight line with x=l.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the horizontal cross section of the reflector of Giraud in light of the prior art to achieve a desired light output size and pattern. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 7, Giraud teaches wherein part of the plurality of optical units is a first main optical unit, an intersection line of the light- reflecting surface of the reflecting mirror of the first main optical unit intersecting with the horizontal plane is the first intersection line, and
the first main optical unit satisfies that:
a side of the light-reflecting surface distant (rear edge of reflector) from the light-entering surface is provided with a first low-beam cut-off line (106.2.2, see col. 6 lines 55-65) capable of forming a first light and dark cut-off line (see fig. 8, 15-15, light modules form a low beam light distribution with cut off line), the first low-beam cut-off line has a first inflection point (central point, see fig. 6) capable of forming an elbow of the first light and dark cut-off line, and the first inflection point is arranged on the optical axis (see col. 6 lines 55-65, see fig. 6 formed on the optical axis).
Regarding claim 8, Giraud teaches that a plurality of first main optical units are provided, and the θ of one of the plurality of first main optical units is greater than the θ of at least one of the remaining of the plurality of first main optical units (see fig. 12, different angles).
Regarding claim 9, Giraud teaches that part of the plurality of optical units is a second main optical unit, the light-reflecting surface of the reflecting mirror of the second main optical unit is a parabolic surface, and the second main optical unit satisfies that: the side of the light-reflecting surface distant from the light- entering surface is provided with a second low-beam cut-off line capable of forming a second light and dark cut-off line, the second low-beam cut-off line has a second inflection point capable of forming an elbow of the second light and dark cut-off line, and the second inflection point is arranged on the optical axis (6.2.2, see fig. 2-4).
Regarding claim 11, Giraud teaches a vehicle lamp, comprising:
a projection assembly, comprising:
a plurality of optical units
wherein each optical unit comprises:
a reflecting mirror (6) having a light reflecting surface; and
a lens (lens 10) having a light entering surface, the light entering surface being arranged to correspond to the light reflecting surface;
wherein each optical unit has an optical axis extending in a second direction, the light reflecting surface and the corresponding light entering surface are arranged along the second direction, an intersection line of the light reflecting surface of the reflecting mirror of part of the plurality of optical units intersecting with a horizontal plane is a first intersection line (see fig. 12, horizontal cross section).
Giraud does not teach that the first intersection line satisfies:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the focus of the light-reflecting surface is located at the coordinates (0,4); the / defines a size of an opening of the light-reflecting surface in a direction, and the size of the opening of the light-reflecting surface in the direction is equal to 2l; and the 0 is an angle between outgoing light at an edge of the light-reflecting surface and a baseline, wherein light shining on the light-reflecting surface is incoming light, light reflected by the light-reflecting surface is the outgoing light, and the baseline is a straight line with x=l.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the horizontal cross section of the reflector of Giraud in light of the prior art to achieve a desired light output size and pattern. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 12, Giraud teaches a vehicle, comprising the vehicle lamp according to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Giraud does not teach that the
PNG
media_image5.png
17
18
media_image5.png
Greyscale
10mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the shape and sizes of the optical module. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 14, Giraud does not teach that the θ E (5 degrees, 10 degrees) and the
PNG
media_image6.png
17
26
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the shape and sizes of the optical module. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 15, Giraud does not teach the reflecting mirror according to claim 3, wherein the m
PNG
media_image7.png
14
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
10mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the shape and sizes of the optical module. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 16, Giraud does not teach the ye(5°,100) and the m < 10mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the shape and sizes of the optical module. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 17, Giraud does not specifically teach a focal length of the light- reflecting surface is 0.5mm~3mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the shape and sizes of the optical module. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 18, Giraud does not teach that the first intersection line extends along a first direction, and a dimension of the light-reflecting surface in the first direction is 5mm-15mm; and a focal length of the light-reflecting surface is 0.5mm~3mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the shape and sizes of the optical module. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 19, Giraud teaches that the second low-beam cut- off line and the first low-beam cut-off line have an overlapping part (forms single low beam line), and the elbow of the first light and dark cut-off line coincides with the elbow of the second light and dark cut- off line (see fig. 19, overlapping low beams for cut off line).
Regarding claim 20, Giraud teaches a plurality of lenses of the plurality of optical units have a one-piece structure, and a separation part is formed between light-entering surfaces of adjacent lenses (see fig. 12, separation part is space between, indicated by line in figure 12).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud in view of Zhang (U.S. 12,405,480; published 11/4/2021 as WO 2021/218826, all references made to the US patent for convenience).
Regarding claim 10, Giraud teaches that the lens has a light-exiting surface corresponding to the light-entering surface.
Giraud does not teach that the light entering surface is configured to collimate light in a first direction, the light exiting surface is configured to collimate light in a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
Zhang teaches a lens wherein the light entering surface is configured to collimate light in a first direction, the light exiting surface is configured to collimate light in a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction (see fig. 1, see col. 4 , input lens has single direction collimating, output side has single direction collimating of perpendicular direction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have use a lens as taught by Zhang to collimate the light output of the reflector of Giraud to project the light farther with less light loss and create a uniform, even light distribution, as desired in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification are accepted. Although they further clarify the inventive subject matter, they do not fully overcome the 112(b) issues present. Specifically, the claims set forth an equation that is unsolvable and unusable for the purpose of mapping the cross section of the reflector, see 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the nonparabolic reflective surface causes the reflected light to diverge, the Examiner notes that this is incorrect. The reflective surface clearly converges the light in every figure of Applicant’s invention. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments indicate that the reflector shape is critical in light of its use in a system and with a specific lens. The Examiner has included an additional 112 rejection to indicate that such features are critical to the operation of the device and must be included in the independent claim.
I.e., Applicant’s reflector causes convergence of the reflected light. It is unclear if Applicant is asserting that the disclosed system of reflectors causes the light to diverge with respect to each other, or each one emits diverging light beams.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the benefit of the disclosure is to reduce bright spot boundaries in the prior art. However, the prior art’s bright spot boundary does not exist without a system of reflectors, i.e. there are no boundaries if such a reflector is singular.
The Examiner highly recommends reciting the claim as a system and incorporating claim 10 into claim 1, without such claims the shape of the reflector is noncritical. The Examiner has no suggestions on how to specifically correct the equations in the claims. Defining the variables to be within a range does not remove them from being variables.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Giraud teaches that the edges of the reflective surface are directly projected as the cut off of the beam pattern, that Giraud does not disclose how to adjust the surface profile of the reflecting surface, or cover parameter θ, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Giraud teaches that the edges of the reflective surface are not directly projected as the cut off beam pattern, and teaches against the shaping edges in the horizontal direction. This is specifically shown in figure 13, the nonparabolic reflector shape converges the light before being collimated and further affected by the lens. As the shape of the reflector is not fully parabolic in the embodiment, it is not collimating and projecting the image of the reflector, this is shown specifically in figure 13. The Examiner notes that this is the same arrangement as Applicant’s disclosure.
Additionally, Applicant’s disclosure does not properly cover θ, or find adjusting the surface profile of the reflecting surface. The Examiner finds that modifying the quasi-parabolic reflector of Giraud to optimize the light output as disclosed in Applicant’s disclosure requires only routine skill and specifically obvious in light of in re Aller and is known in the prior art as indicated.
Conclusion
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