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 .
Response to Amendment
The supplemental amendment filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claim 12 has been cancelled, claims 1-11 and 13-15 have been amended, and claim 16 has been newly added. Currently claims 1-11, and 13-16 are pending.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo Ariyoshi (US 5526248 A, hereinafter, “Endo”, previously cited by the Examiner) in view of Suzuki Yasufumi (US 20100067249 A1, hereinafter, “Suzuki”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 16, Endo teaches a lighting module (projector type headlight, see figures 1-10) for an automotive vehicle (automobile headlight, see col 1, line 47), comprising:
-a light source (HID bulb 6, see fig 5) adapted to emit light rays (as expected from a light source);
- a collector (reflector 1, see fig 5) with a reflective surface (inner surface of the reflector 1) configured to reflect the light rays in a reflected beam (see figures 8 or 9);
- an optical device (non-spherical convex lens 8, see fig 5) configured to project the reflected beam (light reflected by 1) in a projected beam (see beam reflected) along an optical axis (optical axis z, see fig 6) of the lighting module (projector type headlight) by imaging a portion (as seen in fig 1) of the reflective surface (inner surface of 1);
wherein the reflective surface (inner surface of 1) includes a front edge (see front edge of 1 in fig 5) and a grained front area (see area of fine convexities for low diffusion, and better seen in fig 6) including the front edge (front edge of 1);
wherein the grained front area (area of fine convexities for low diffusion) extends from the front edge (front edge of 1) to a rear edge of the reflective surface (rear edge of 1) over only part of the reflective surface (see portion of 1 covered by area of fine convexities for low diffusion, and better seen in fig 6);
wherein the optical device (8) includes a focal point (focal point of 8) located behind the optical device (as expected from a non-spherical convex lens, see col 5, lines 21-24, and due to the evident arrangement of the curved surface of 8, the focal point of 8 is expected to be positioned somewhere near or on the optical axis z and behind the optical device, as seen in fig 5); but
Endo does not explicitly teach teaches wherein the focal point located near a rear edge of the reflective surface.
Suzuki teaches a lighting module (vehicle headlamp, see figures 1-5) including a light source (semiconductor-type light source 2, see fig 5) emitting light to an optical device (projecting lens 6, see fig 1) via a collector (reflector 3, see fig 1);
wherein the focal point (first focal point F11, see fig 5) located near a rear edge (as seen in fig 5) of the reflective surface (main reflecting surface 12, see fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to position the optical device focal point near the reflective surface as taught by Suzuki into the teachings of Endo, in order to reduce the focal point distance of the projecting lens with respect to the reflective surface. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification so that the dimensions in the optical-axis direction of the optical device of the light module in the embodiment become compact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 1, while lighting modules for automotive vehicle, comprising: a light source adapted to emit light rays; a collector with a reflective surface configured to reflect the light rays in a reflected beam; an optical device configured to project the reflected beam in a projected beam along an optical axis of the lighting module by imaging a portion of the reflective surface; wherein the reflective surface includes a front edge and a grained front area including the front edge; wherein the projected beam is restricted horizontally and vertically, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The lighting module, as disclosed in claim 1 above, wherein at 25 m the projected beam produces a luminous illumination of less than 1 lux outside an area horizontally between - -15° and +15° and vertically between -4.5° and +1.5° relative to the optical axis when the lighting module is in a mounting position on the automotive vehicle.
Claims 2-11 and 14-15 are allowed for being dependent on the allowed claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, while a luminous device for an automotive vehicle, comprising: a main lighting module configured to project a main light beam, extended horizontally and with a horizontal upper cutoff, when the luminous device is in the a mounting position on the automotive vehicle; and -at least one additional lighting module configured to project an additional light beam, restricted and central horizontally and with a horizontal upper cutoff, when the luminous device is in the mounting position on the automotive vehicle; the at least one additional lighting module including a light source adapted to emit light rays, a collector with a reflective surface configured to reflect the light rays in a reflected beam, an optical device configured to project the reflected beam in an additional projected beam along an optical axis of the at least one additional lighting module by imaging a portion of the reflective surface, wherein the reflective surface includes a front edge and a grained front arca including the front edge; wherein the additional projected beam is restricted horizontally and vertically, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The luminous device, as disclosed in claim 13 above, wherein at 25 m the additional projected beam produces an illumination of less than 1 lux outside an arca horizontally between -15° and +15° and vertically between -4.5° and +1.5° relative to the optical axis when the at least one additional lighting module is in the mounting position on the automotive vehicle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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