DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 12-16 have been withdrawn, claims 7 and 17 have been amended, and claim 19 has been newly added. Currently claims 7-11 and 17-19 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.
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 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 216158966 U, hereinafter, “Bai”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Kang et al. (KR 20190025206 A, hereinafter, “Kang”, newly cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 7, Bai teaches a vehicle lamp (light emitting module 1, see figures 1-12) comprising:
a first lamp unit (reflecting surface 23c, see fig 7, second light source 53, see fig 6, section 40c of lens 4, see fig 5) and a second lamp unit (reflecting surface 22d, see fig 7, first light source 52, see fig 6, section 40d of 4, see fig 5) arranged side by side in a left-right direction (perpendicular to optical axis 6, as seen in fig 8),
wherein the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) and the second lamp unit (22d, 52, 40d) each include a projection lens (40d, 40c),
a light source (52, 53) disposed on the rear of the lamp (1) with respect to a rear focal point (at least 53 of the two light sources at a rear focal point F2, as seen in figures 8-9) of the projection lens (40d, 40c), and
a reflector (23c, 22d) configured to reflect light emitted from the light source (52, 53) toward the projection lens (40d, 40c),
the reflector (23c) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) reflects the light emitted from the light source (53) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) as light converging (as clearly seen in fig 11) in the left-right direction (perpendicular to 6),
the light source (52) of the second lamp unit (22d, 52, 40d) is disposed on the front of the lamp (1) with respect to the light source (53) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c), and
the reflector (52) of the second lamp unit (22d) is disposed on the front of the lamp (1) with respect to the reflector (23c) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) in a positional relation in which a front edge (front edge of 22d) of the reflector (22) of the second lamp unit (22d, 52, 40d) partially overlaps (as clearly seen in fig 10) with a front edge (front edge of 23c) of the reflector (23c) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) in a front view of the lamp (1).
Although Bai explicitly one light source is at the rear of F2, as seen in fig 9, and wherein the other light source is positioned at the rear focal point F1, which can be at the reflecting surface or at the back of the reflecting surface, as seen in fig 8,
Bai does not explicitly teach both of the light sources disposed on the rear of the lamp with respect to a rear focal point of the projection lens.
Kang teaches a vehicle lamp (Lamp for vehicle, see fig 2) having a first lamp unit (100) and a second lamp unit (200) arranged side by side in a left-right direction (perpendicular to optical axis 6, as seen in fig 8);
both of the light sources (first and second light source 110, 120) disposed on the rear of the lamp (Lamp) with respect to a rear focal point (rear focal point of 110, 120 on respective first and second shields 130, 230, better seen in fig 7, and ¶ 10 of “Description of preferred embodiments”) of the projection lens (first and second lens units 140, 240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to position both light sources at the rear focal points of the projection lens as taught by Kang into the teachings of Bai in order to expand or reduce the vertical spread of the light distribution. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to further customize upper part and lower parts of the light emitted by the corresponding projection lens.
Regarding claim 8, Bai teaches wherein a reflection surface (inner surface of 22d) of the reflector (22d) of the second lamp unit (22d, 52, 40d) is smaller (as clearly seen in fig 10) than a reflection surface of the reflector of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c).
Regarding claim 11, Bai teaches wherein the projection lens (40c) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) and the projection lens (40d) of the second lamp unit (22d, 52, 40d) are integrally formed (as seen in fig 5).
Claims 9-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 216158966 U, hereinafter, “Bai”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Kang et al. (KR 20190025206 A, hereinafter, “Kang”, newly cited by the Examiner), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Colombel et al. (WO 2021105058 A1, hereinafter, “Colombel” previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 9, Bai does not explicitly teach wherein the reflector of the first lamp unit and the reflector of the second lamp unit are integrally formed.
Colombel teaches a vehicle lamp (Light module 2, see figures 1-13);
wherein the reflector (portion of reflector 12 in 1st, as annotated in fig 7) of the first lamp unit (1st) and the reflector (portion of 12 in 2nd, as annotated in fig 7) of the second lamp unit (2nd) are integrally formed (as seen in fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to integrally form the reflectors of the first and second lamp units as taught by Colombel into the teachings of Bai, since it has been held that forming in one piece a structure which has formerly been formed in two, or more pieces, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04 IV B. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to facilitated manufacturing and positioning of the reflectors.
See annotated figures 7 of Colombel below:
PNG
media_image1.png
793
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Bai does not explicitly teach wherein the projection lens of the second lamp unit extends obliquely toward the rear of the lamp from an end portion on a first lamp unit side to an end portion on an opposite side thereof.
Colombel teaches a vehicle lamp (Light module 2, see figures 1-13);
wherein the projection lens (first portion 38, see fig 7 above) 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.
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 shape of the projections lens as taught by Colombel into the teachings of Bai, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Colombel. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification as headlamp comes on different shapes and some wrap around the front of the vehicles, requiring oblique projection lenses.
Regarding claim 17, Bai teaches wherein the projection lens (40c) of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) has an optical axis (axis along optical axis 6, and better seen in fig 9) extending in a front-rear direction (light emission direction of 1) of the lamp (1), and the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c) is provided rear of a focal point (see focal point in fig F2, in fig 9) of the first projection lens of the first lamp unit (23c, 53, 40c).
Regarding claim 18, Bai does not explicitly teach wherein the projection lens of the second lamp unit extends in a toroidal lens shape.
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).
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 toroidal shape as taught by Colombel into the teachings of Bai to shape light into an asymmetrical pattern. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because toroidal light emission is highly effective for vehicle headlights and fog lights.
Regarding claim 19, Bai does not explicitly teach wherein the projection lens of the second lamp unit extends more towards the rear of the lamp than the projection lens of the first lamp unit.
Colombel teaches a vehicle lamp (Light module 2, see figures 1-13);
wherein the projection lens (first portion 38, see fig 7 above) of the second lamp unit (2nd) extends more towards the rear (rear of 1, as the portion 38 of the lens curves rearwards from the portion 40 of the lens) of the lamp (1) than the projection lens of the first lamp unit (second portion 40, see fig 7 above).
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 extending shape of the projections lens as taught by Colombel into the teachings of Bai, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Colombel. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification as headlamp comes on different shapes and some wrap around the front of the vehicles, requiring oblique projection lenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7-11 and 17-19 have been considered but are moot 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.
Conclusion
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