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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,194,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
A vehicle lamp comprising
(‘911 teaches claim 1 “A vehicle lamp comprising”)
a plurality of light sources arranged along an up-down direction to generate light
(‘911 teaches claim 1 “plurality of lamp modules to generate a beam pattern therewith, wherein the plurality of lamp modules are arranged in one direction”)
and a plurality of light guiding lenses disposed in front of the plurality of light sources and integrally formed along an arrangement direction of the plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light guiding lenses comprises:
(‘911 teaches claim 1 “and wherein each of the plurality of lamp modules comprises: a light source that generates light ;an optical guide unit, which guides the light incident from the light source to be emitted forward; wherein the optical guide unit comprises”)
an incident portion onto which light emitted from a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources is incident
(‘911 teaches claim 1 “an entrance section, through which the light is incident from the light source”)
an exit portion disposed in front of the incident portion to output the incident light;
(‘911 teaches claim 1 “an exit section, which is disposed in front of the entrance section to allow at least some of the light incident upon the entrance section to exit”)
and a transmission portion that transmits at least a portion of the light incident on the incident portion to the exit portion
(‘911 teaches claim 1 “a transmission section, which transmits the light incident upon the entrance section to the exit section”)
wherein the exit portion is formed to be convex forward.
(‘911 teaches claim 3, which depends from claim 1: “wherein the exit section has a convex shape toward the front of the vehicle lamp.”)
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 3, 5-8, and 11-15 have been 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.
Re 3: the claim states “the plurality of light sources are slanted such that they are disposed more to one side” but does not specify to one side of what. Examiner reads the claim as “the plurality of light sources are disposed nearer to the incident portion than the exit portion.”
Re 5-8: in claim 5, “a center line of the exit portion is tilted by a predetermined angle according to an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources with respect to a horizontal reference line, which is parallel to a front-back direction and passes through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in a left-right direction” is confusing and renders the claim indefinite.
It is unclear if the center line is titled with respect to the optical axis of the corresponding light source, the horizontal reference line, or both. Also, it is unclear which line “is parallel to a front-back direction and passes through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in a left-right direction.” Lastly, the dependent claim 7 refer to “the center line of the exit portion,” yet claim 5 only explicitly defines one center line.
Examiner has read the claim as “wherein each exit portion of the plurality of light guiding lenses has a center line, and each one of the center lines of the plurality of light guiding lenses is formed such it is tilted by a predetermined angle relative to an optical axis of its corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources, and the predetermined angle is greater than zero degrees; wherein a horizontal reference line running through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses is tilted by the predetermine angle with respect to each one of the center lines.”
Re 11-15: the claims are indefinite because it is unclear in the first place which line (the vertical reference line or optical axis) is “parallel to a front-back direction and passes through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in the up-down direction” in claims 11 and 13. Moreover, in claim 13 it states that the line is parallel to “a front-back direction” yet in claim 11 this line passes through a center of the lenses in the “up-down” direction, and in claim 13 it is the ”left-right direction.”
Similarly, in claim 15 it defines a vertical reference line much like claim 11 which is also parallel to the “front-back direction” yet it is unclear how this claim, which depends from claim 13, can have both a vertical and horizontal line that are both parallel to a front-back direction. Also, in claim 12 it is unclear how light sources can be disposed above a vertical line since the vertical line extends, by definition, to positive and negative infinity.
In short, it is unclear how a vertical line and a horizontal line are both parallel to a “front-back” direction when those lines would be orthogonal to each other.
Examiner has read the claims as follows:
Claim 11: further comprising a center line that runs through the center of the plurality of light guiding lenses, wherein a tilting direction of the up-down curvature of each of the plurality of optical lenses varies according to a direction in which an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources is disposed with respect to a vertical reference line, the center line is parallel to a front-back direction and the vertical reference line passes through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in the up-down direction.
Claim 12: wherein among the plurality of optical lenses, an optical lens that corresponds to a light source whose optical axis is disposed above the [[vertical reference]]center line and an optical lens that corresponds to a light source whose optical axis is disposed below the [[vertical reference]]center line are formed such that up-down curvatures thereof are tilted in opposite directions with respect to the vertical line.
Claim 13: wherein a tilting direction of the up-down curvature of each of the plurality of optical lenses varies according to a direction in which an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources is disposed with respect to a horizontal reference line, [[which]]the horizontal reference line is parallel to a front-back direction and passes through the center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in the left-right direction.
Claim 14: wherein each of the plurality of optical lenses is tilted to a side of the vertical line in a direction toward the horizontal reference line.
Claim 15: further comprising a center line that runs through the center of the plurality of light guiding lenses, wherein the tilting direction of the up-down curvature of each of the plurality of optical lenses varies according to an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources with respect to a vertical reference line, the center line is parallel to the front-back direction and the vertical reference line passes through the center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in the up-down direction.
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, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. KR 20220133529 A (“Jung”).
Re 1: Jung teaches:
a plurality of light sources 100/400 arranged along an up-down direction to generate light (Fig. 1); and
a plurality of light guiding lenses 200/500 disposed in front of the plurality of light sources and integrally formed along an arrangement direction of the plurality of light sources (Fig. 1: lenses are stacked in the same arrangement direction as light sources),
wherein each of the plurality of light guiding lenses comprises:
an incident portion 210/510 onto which light emitted from a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources is incident (Fig. 1: light is incident on 210/510 which are called “incident units”; p.4);
an exit portion 230/530 disposed in front of the incident portion to output the incident light (Fig. 1: light exits 230/530 onto 300/600 and are named as “emission units”; p. 4); and
a transmission 220/520 portion that transmits at least a portion of the light incident on the incident portion to the exit portion (Fig. 1: light transmits along 220/520 which are named as “transmission units”; p. 4),
wherein the exit portion is formed to be convex forward (Fig. 1: shown as being formed convex forward).
Re 2: wherein, for each of the plurality of light sources, an optical axis in a left-right direction and an optical axis in the up-down direction are different (Fig. 1: the axes are different insofar as they extend in different directions, the claim does not specify how they differ).
Re 3: (as best understood by Examiner) wherein the plurality of light sources are slanted such that they are disposed more to one side in a left-right direction going from top to bottom (Fig. 1).
Re 4: wherein the incident portion comprises (Figs. 6-7): a central surface 211 that is centered on an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources; a protruding surface 211a formed to protrude from an edge of the central surface toward the corresponding light source; and a reflective surface 212 that reflects light incident on the protruding surface to allow the light to travel toward the exit portion (Figs. 6-7: 212 is known as reflective part).
Re 9: further comprising a plurality of optical lenses 300/600 (Fig. 1, 9), each allowing light output from a corresponding light guiding lens among the plurality of light guiding lenses to be transmitted therethrough to form a predetermined beam pattern (Figs. 1, 9).
Re 10: wherein an incident surface of at least one of the plurality of optical lenses is formed such that an up-down curvature thereof is tilted to either side of a vertical line in a left-right direction (Fig. 1: showing incident side is curved so it tilts with respect to a vertical line (which is parallel to the up-down arrangement direction)).
Re 16: wherein the plurality of light guiding lenses comprise a first light guiding lens and a second light guiding lens disposed adjacent to each other in the up-down direction (Fig. 1), and a shield hole 221 (Fig. 1; note: “he light transmission units 220 and 520 may include shield units 221 and 521 (refer to FIGS. 4 and 11 ) that block transmission of some of the transmitted light. The shield parts 221 and 521 may be formed by recessing one side of the light transmitting parts 220 and 520 inward.”) is formed between the first light guiding lens and the second light guiding lens to block at least a portion of light incident on the first light guiding lens (Figs. 1, 3).
Re 17: wherein a lowermost light guiding lens among the plurality of light guiding lenses comprises a shield portion formed as a recess on a bottom surface to block at least a portion of light that is incident on the incident portion (Fig. 1; note: see claim 16 where it cites the application discussing 221 blocks light that is incident from the light incident portion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In combination with the other limitations nothing in the prior art of record teaches, suggests, or discloses:
Re 5-8: in claim 5, (as best understood by Examiner) “wherein the exit portion of at least one of the plurality of light guiding lenses is formed such that a center line of the exit portion is tilted by a predetermined angle according to an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources with respect to a horizontal reference line, which is parallel to a front-back direction and passes through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in a left-right direction.”
The closest prior art is US 20230258311 (“Han”). Han teaches that the optical axis Ax1 and center line are parallel and both offset with respect to a horizontal reference line R; thus, Han does not teach that the center line is offset from the optical axis by a predetermined angle that is greater than zero degrees.
Re 11-12: in claim 11, (as best understood by Examiner), “wherein a tilting direction of the up-down curvature of each of the plurality of optical lenses varies according to a direction in which an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources is disposed with respect to a vertical reference line, which is parallel to a front-back direction and passes through a center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in the up-down direction.”
Namely Jung does not teach varying of the lenses as a function of the placements of their respective optical axes with respect to a vertical reference line.
Re 13-15: in claim 13, “wherein a tilting direction of the up-down curvature of each of the plurality of optical lenses varies according to a direction in which an optical axis of a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources is disposed with respect to a horizontal reference line, which is parallel to a front-back direction and passes through the center of the plurality of light guiding lenses in the left-right direction.”
Namely Jung does not teach varying of the lenses as a function of the placements of their respective optical axes with respect to a horizontal reference line.
Conclusion
Relevant prior art considered: US 20210199256 a lamp for a vehicle includes a light source unit for emitting light; a lens unit for irradiating the light emitted from the light source unit to exterior; and a shield disposed between the light source unit and the lens unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD J SUFLETA II whose telephone number is (571)272-4279. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EDT/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, 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.
GERALD J. SUFLETA II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/GERALD J SUFLETA II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875