DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 12-16 have been withdrawn, claims 17-18 have been newly added. Currently claims 17-11 and 17-18 are pending.
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 17-18 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 17, the phrase “wherein the projection lens of the first lamp unit has an optical axis extending in a front-rear direction of the lamp, and the first lamp unit is provided rear of a focal point of the first projection lens.” is unclear because:
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 where it is recited the first lamp unit includes: a projection lens, a light source and a reflector, see lines 4-6. Claim 1 also recites the projection lens has a rear focal point.
Note: it is assumed the “first projection lens” on claim 17, line 3 refers back to the “projection lens” on claim 17, line 1.
Therefore, it is not clear how the first lamp unit, which includes a projection lens, could be positioned on the rear of a focal point of its own projection lens.
For purpose of examination, the phrase above has been interpreted to mean: -- wherein the projection lens of the first lamp unit has an optical axis extending in a front-rear direction of the lamp, and the light source of the first lamp unit is provided rear of a focal point of the projection lens. --
Claim 18 is rejected as it depends from claim 17
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colombel et al. (WO 2021105058 A1, hereinafter, “Colombel” previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 7, Colombel teaches a vehicle lamp (Light module 2, see figures 1-13) comprising:
a first lamp unit (see 1st in annotated figure below) and a second lamp unit (se 2nd in annotated figure 7 below) arranged side by side in a left-right direction (as seen in fig 5), wherein
the first lamp unit (1st) and the second lamp unit (2nd) each include a projection lens (first portion 38 for 2nd, and second portion 40 for 1st, as seen in fig 5), a light source (light sources 76 for 1st and 2nd, better seen in fig 5) disposed on the rear of the lamp (2) with respect to a rear focal point (focal point of optical element 10, which comprises 38 and 40, see ¶ 4-6 of “Description”) of the projection lens (38, 40), and a reflector (see multiple portions of reflector 12 for 1st and 2nd as seen in fig 7) configured to reflect light emitted from the light source (76s) toward the projection lens (38 and 40),
the reflector (potion of 12 in 1st) of the first lamp unit (1st) reflects the light emitted from the light source (76 in 1st) of the first lamp unit (1st) as light converging (as each reflector portion, also labeled cavity 116, is a partially elliptical, harvesting all light from the light source that is emitted upwards-sideways and converging it in one direction, forward into 40, and discussed in see ¶ 4 of “Description”) in the left-right direction (as expected in all vehicles, see fig 7),
the light source (76) of the second lamp unit (2nd) is disposed on the front of the lamp (2) with respect to the light source (76) of the first lamp unit (1st), and
the reflector (portion of 12 in 2nd) of the second lamp unit (2nd) is disposed on the front of the lamp (2) with respect to the reflector (portion of 12) of the first lamp unit (1st) in a positional relation (better seen in fig 7) in which the reflector (portion of 12 in 2nd) of the second lamp unit (2nd) partially overlaps with (better seen in annotated fig 7 below, where second reflector overlaps the front of the first reflector) the reflector (portion of 12 in 1st) of the first lamp unit (1st) in a front view of the lamp (2).
See annotated figures 7 of Colombel below:
PNG
media_image1.png
793
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Colombel teaches wherein a reflection surface (inner surface of portion of 12 in 2nd) of the reflector (portion of 12 in 2nd) of the second lamp unit (2nd) is smaller (evident from figure 7) than a reflection surface (inner surface of portion of 12 in 1st) of the reflector (portion of 12 in 1st) of the first lamp unit (1st).
Regarding claim 9, Colombel teaches wherein the reflector (portion of 12 in 1st) of the first lamp unit (1st) and the reflector (portion of 12 in 2nd) of the second lamp unit (2nd) are integrally formed (as seen in fig 7).
Regarding claim 10, Colombel teaches wherein the projection lens (38) of the second lamp unit (2nd) extends obliquely (as 38 extends to match the lamp curvature, better seen in fig 4 with respect to the axis B) toward the rear of the lamp (2) from an end portion (portion of 1st closer to axis A, as seen in fig 4) on a first lamp unit (1st) side to an end portion (end towards 6th, as seen in annotated figure above) on an opposite side thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Colombel teaches wherein the projection lens (40) of the first lamp unit (1st) and the projection lens (38) of the second lamp unit (2nd) are integrally formed (evident from figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Colombel teaches wherein the projection lens (40) of the first lamp unit (1st) has an optical axis (formed by the focal points of the elliptical profile of the reflective surface focal point of the projection lens, see ¶ 3 of description) extending in a front-rear direction of the lamp (2), and the first lamp unit (1st, as the light source is positioned at the first focal point of the elliptical reflector) is provided rear of a focal point (as the focal point of 40 coincides with the second focal point of the elliptical reflector, see ¶ 3 of description) of the first projection lens (40).
Regarding claim 18, Colombel teaches wherein the projection lens (38) of the second lamp unit (2nd) extends in a toroidal lens shape (as 38 is curved along the B axis and curved along the C axis, following, at least externally, a toroidal shape, as seen in fig 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 8-9 that Colombel does not teach “the reflector of the second lamp unit is disposed on the front of the lamp with respect to the reflector of the first lamp unit in a positional relation in which the reflector of the second lamp unit partially overlaps with the reflector of the first lamp unit in a front view of the lamp”, stating that: the alleged 2nd second reflector is directed away from the opening of the alleged 1st reflector. With this configuration there would be no overlapping of the alleged 1st and 2nd reflectors "in a front view of the lamp"
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not require the reflectors should be directed in any specific way in order to at least partly overlap. Figure 7 has been reproduced below to more clearly show the reflectors overlap following the intended shape of each reflector, although not pointing in the same direction the overlap occurs. That is, from the point of view of an observer in front of the device (see line parallel to the device’s axis A, as annotated in figure 7 below), a left portion of the second reflector overlaps the view of a right portion of the first reflector. And the applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
See annotated figures 7 of Colombel below:
PNG
media_image2.png
1108
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights