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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 06 January 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 10-11 and 13 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-9 and 12, and 14-16 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
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 12 and 14-16 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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends upon claim 10, which has been cancelled by Applicant’s amendment. Thus, it is unclear as to which previously recited claim the limitations of claim 12 are intended to further limit. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 12 as being dependent upon claim 1. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, both claims 14 and 16 depend upon claim 13, which have been cancelled by Applicant’s amendment. Thus, it is unclear as to which of the previously recited claims the limitations of claims 14 and 16 are intended to further limit. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 14 and 16 as being dependent upon claim 1, respectively. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 14.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckstein et al. (US 10,232,763 B1, herein referred to as: Eckstein), in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0386382 A1, herein referred to as: Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Eckstein teaches or suggests a vehicle lamp (Figs. 1-11) comprising a plurality of lamp modules (1101, 1102, and 1103, as shown in Fig. 11), wherein each of the plurality of lamp modules comprises: a light source unit (901-903, and the substrate upon which the light sources 901-903 are disposed) that includes at least one light source (901-903) and generates light (as shown in Fig. 11); an optical path adjustment unit (103, 907-909) that adjusts a path of the light emitted from the light source unit (as shown in Fig. 11); and an optical unit (911) that transmits at least some of the light emitted from the optical path adjustment unit to form a predetermined beam pattern (as shown in Fig. 11), wherein the optical unit (911) is tilted in at least one direction such that a first side thereof is disposed further forward than a second side thereof (for at least 1101 and 1103, as shown in Fig. 11), wherein the optical unit includes: a plurality of incident lenses (111; “...where optical element 911 includes an illumination MLA, an aperture layer, and a projection MLA as described above...”); a plurality of emission lenses (113) corresponding to the plurality of incident lenses (as shown in Fig. 1, e.g., “...where optical element 911 includes an illumination MLA, an aperture layer, and a projection MLA as described above...” and thus, the optical unit includes a plurality of incident lenses and emission lenses corresponding thereto as previously described, or as described above, in the Eckstein reference); a deposition layer (107) disposed between the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses (as shown in Figs. 1-11) to obstruct some light from proceeding toward the plurality of emission lenses (“...light transmitted by MLA 105 passes through aperture layer 107 before entering a second MLA 109...”); and a plurality of apertures (the apertures in layer 107) that are formed in the deposition layer and allow some light to be transmitted toward the plurality of emission lenses (e.g., as shown in Fig. 1 and as outlined in the citation above and in the corresponding description), the apertures formed in an area at which the incident and emission lenses overlap (as shown in Figs. 5-6), wherein the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses are arranged in a staggered, non-coaxial manner such that the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses define an overlapping area (as shown in Fig. 6, one group is depicted for simplicity, which depicts a staggered, non-coaxial manner such that the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses define an overlapping area in which an aperture is formed), where at least one incident lens overlaps with at least one emission lens along a direction of light emission (as shown in Fig. 6, e.g., at a lower portion thereof), and a non-overlapping area, where the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses do not overlap along the direction of light emission (as shown in Fig. 6, e.g., at an upper portion thereof), and wherein each of the plurality of apertures is formed in the overlapping area (as shown in Fig. 7).
Eckstein does not explicitly teach that one or more lenses among the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses are formed to be asymmetrical in at least one direction; wherein a first portion and a second portion within the one or more lenses with respect to a reference line that is parallel to a front-rear direction have curvatures that are different from each other.
Choi teaches or suggests (Figs. 5, 7, and 9) a deposition layer (410) disposed between the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses to obstruct some light from proceeding toward the plurality of emission lenses (as shown in Fig. 7); and a plurality of apertures (between 410’s, as shown in Fig. 5) that are formed in the deposition layer and allow some light to be transmitted toward the plurality of emission lenses (as shown in Figs. 7 and 9), wherein one or more lenses among the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses are formed to be asymmetrical in at least one direction (as shown in Figs. 7 and 9), and wherein a first portion and a second portion within the one or more lenses with respect to a reference line that is parallel to a front-rear direction have curvatures that are different from each other (paragraphs [0065]-[0070], e.g., the points P1 and P2 may correspond to inflection points, and thus, indicate a change in curvature between the lens portions there above and there below), wherein the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses are arranged in a staggered, non-coaxial manner (as shown in Figs. 7 and 9) such that the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses define an overlapping area (as defined by the dashed line S), where at least one incident lens overlaps with at least one emission lens along a direction of light emission (as shown in Figs. 7 and 9), and a non-overlapping area (an area at the lower end of each incident lens), where the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses do not overlap along the direction of light emission (as shown in Figs. 7 and 9), and wherein each of the plurality of apertures is formed in the overlapping area (as shown in Figs. 7 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of one or more lenses among the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses are formed to be asymmetrical in at least one direction; wherein a first portion and a second portion within the one or more lenses with respect to a reference line that is parallel to a front-rear direction have curvatures that are different from each other, such as taught or suggested by Choi, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the contrast and/or performance of the lighting device (i.e., by providing an embodiment in which a step may be prevented from occurring between the incident lenses adjacent to each other and between the exit lenses adjacent to each other, thereby preventing light from being irradiated in the unnecessary or unintended direction through the step).
Regarding claim 2, Eckstein teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the light source unit (the light source unit of either 1101-1103) is disposed such that an optical axis thereof is tilted in at least one direction with respect to a central axis of the optical path adjustment unit (for the optical path adjustment unit of either of the remaining units of 1101-1103, as the claim does not particularly specify which of the light source units or which of the optical path adjustment units of the previously recited plurality thereof is being referred to).
Regarding claim 3, Eckstein teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the plurality of lamp modules are disposed such that a first side thereof is disposed further forward than a second side thereof in at least one direction (as shown in Fig. 11, as the claim does not particularly specify what the first side or second side are, and if they are the same or not for each optical module).
Regarding claims 4-5, Eckstein does not explicitly teach that the light source units of the plurality of lamp modules are installed on a common substrate (as recited in claim 4); wherein the common substrate is tilted in at least one direction such that a first side thereof is disposed further forward than a second side thereof (as recited in claim 5).
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of the light source units of the plurality of lamp modules are installed on a common substrate (as recited in claim 4); wherein the common substrate is tilted in at least one direction such that a first side thereof is disposed further forward than a second side thereof (as recited in claim 5), 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 Larson, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the complexity in assembling the device (i.e., by providing a feature to position all of the lamp modules).
Regarding claim 12, as is best understood, Eckstein does not explicitly teach that at least some of the plurality of apertures are arranged along a left-right direction and interconnected to form a horizontal slit.
Choi teaches or suggests (Figs. 5, 7, and 9) at least some of the plurality of apertures are arranged along a left-right direction and interconnected to form a horizontal slit (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5, forming the apertures of Eckstein as that shown in Fig. 5 of Choi results in at least some of the plurality of apertures are arranged along a left-right direction and interconnected to form a horizontal slit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of at least some of the pluralities of apertures are arranged along a left-right direction and interconnected to form a horizontal slit, such as taught or suggested by Choi, in order to reduce the cost of complexity of manufacturing or assembling the device (e.g. easing alignment of the apertures with the MLA), and/or providing the desired emission pattern from the device (e.g., an elongated beam pattern for low beam or fog light illumination patterns).
Regarding claim 14, as is best understood, Eckstein teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the overlapping area is an area where an incident lens array, which is defined by incident lenses that are arranged in a left-right row, overlaps with an emission lens array, which is defined by emission lenses that are arranged in a left-right row (each respective incident lens of the array and respective emission lens of the array overlaps with one another, and defined by incident and emission lenses in a left-right row, as shown in Figs. 1-11. The Examiner notes that the claim does not explicitly recite that one incident or emission array is offset in any particular direction relative to the other. However, for offsetting explicitly in a left right direction relative to one another, see the prior art noted in the conclusion section below).
Regarding claim 15, Eckstein teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) when the optical unit, which is tilted in at least one direction relative to the front-rear direction, is viewed from the front-rear direction, the overlapping area corresponds to an area where the incident lens array and the emission lens array overlap (as outlined in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, as is best understood, Eckstein teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) a bottom edge of each of the plurality of apertures is disposed at or near a rear focus of a corresponding emission lens among the plurality of emission lenses (as shown in Figs. 5-6, e.g., near a focus of the emission lens), and wherein a top edge of each of the plurality of apertures is disposed at or below a top edge of the overlapping area (as shown in Figs. 5-6, e.g., the top edge in each case is below a top edge of the overlapping area, as specifically set forth for an offset or staggered arrangement shown in Fig. 6).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckstein, in view of Choi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0207257 A1, herein referred to as: ‘7257).
Regarding claim 6, Eckstein teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) wherein the optical path adjustment unit (103, 907-909) includes an incident part (above 101, or 901-903), into which the light emitted from the light source unit is incident (as shown in Figs. 1-11), and an emission part (the surface opposite to said incident part), through which the light incident into the incident part is emitted (as shown in Figs. 1-11).
Eckstein does not explicitly teach that the light incident into the incident part is formed into parallel light and emitted through the emission part (i.e., Eckstein does suggest collimation with minimal divergence, but not explicitly parallel light).
‘7257 teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) the optical path adjustment unit (120) includes an incident part (the surface facing the light source 110), into which the light emitted from the light source unit is incident (as shown by the arrangement of 110 and 120 in Figs. 1-15), and an emission part (the surface opposite said incident part, which transmits light to 200), through which the light incident into the incident part is emitted (as shown by the arrangement of elements in Figs. 1-15), and wherein the light incident into the incident part is formed into parallel light and emitted through the emission part (as described in paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of the light incident into the incident part is formed into parallel light and emitted through the emission part, such as taught or suggested by ‘7257, in order to improve the performance and/or efficiency of the device (e.g., further reducing the cross talk between adjacent MLA modules).
Regarding claim 8, Eckstein does not explicitly teach that the emission part includes a plurality of emission surfaces having different curvatures.
‘7257 teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) the emission part includes a plurality of emission surfaces having different curvatures (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of the emission part includes a plurality of emission surfaces having different curvatures, such as taught or suggested by ‘7257, in order to improve the performance and/or efficiency of the device (e.g., further reducing the cross talk between adjacent MLA modules).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckstein, in view of Choi and ‘7257, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Dong (US 2024/0151378 A1).
Regarding claim 7, neither Eckstein, Choi, nor ‘7257 explicitly teach that the incident part includes: a first incident surface formed to be convex toward the light source unit; a second incident surface that protrudes toward the light source unit from a periphery of the first incident surface; and a reflective surface that reflects light incident on the second incident surface toward the emission part.
Dong teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-1C’) the incident part includes: a first incident surface (in front of 142) formed to be convex toward the light source unit (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C’); a second incident surface (the incident surface below said first incident surface, as shown in Figs. 1A-1C’) that protrudes toward the light source unit from a periphery of the first incident surface (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C’); and a reflective surface (the outer sidewall of 160) that reflects light incident on the second incident surface toward the emission part (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of the incident part includes: a first incident surface formed to be convex toward the light source unit; a second incident surface that protrudes toward the light source unit from a periphery of the first incident surface; and a reflective surface that reflects light incident on the second incident surface toward the emission part, such as taught or suggested by Dong, in order to improve the efficiency of the device (i.e., by providing feature to increase collection of light emitting from the light sources).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckstein, in view of Choi and ‘7257, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Dong and Chen et al. (US 2010/0165636 A1, herein referred to as: Chen).
Regarding claim 9, Eckstein does not explicitly teach that the emission part includes: a first emission surface formed to be convex toward the front; and a second emission surface formed with a substantially flat shape around the first emission surface, a first incident surface which is formed in the incident part and convex toward the light source unit.
Dong teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-1C’) the emission part includes: a first emission surface formed to be convex toward the front (the center of the emission surface, as shown in Figs. 1A-1C’); and a second emission surface formed with a substantially flat shape around the first emission surface (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C), a first incident surface (the incident surface above 142), which is formed in the incident part and convex toward the light source unit (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of the emission part includes: a first emission surface formed to be convex toward the front; and a second emission surface formed with a substantially flat shape around the first emission surface, a first incident surface which is formed in the incident part and convex toward the light source unit, such as taught or suggested by Dong, in order to improve the efficiency of the device (i.e., by providing feature to increase collection of light emitting from the light sources).
The combined teachings of Eckstein, Choi, ‘7257, and Dong teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the first emission surface has a greater curvature than a first incident surface.
Chen teaches or suggests the first emission surface has a greater curvature than a first incident surface (as shown in Fig. 3 and as described in paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Eckstein and incorporated the teachings of the first emission surface has a greater curvature than a first incident surface, such as taught or suggested by Chen, in order to improve, or otherwise increase, collimation of light by the optical path adjustment unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references failed to disclose, or merely suggest, “...wherein the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses are arranged in a staggered, non-coaxial manner such that the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses define an overlapping area where at least one incident lens overlaps with at least one emission lens along a direction of light emission, and a non-overlapping area, where the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses do not overlap along the direction of light emission, and wherein each of the plurality of apertures is formed in the overlapping area...” pages 6-8 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, while it might be evident, by comparing the patented structure of Eckstein and Choi with the instant specification and drawings, that Applicant's invention is different from the Prior Art made of record, that is not the test for patentability. Rather, it is the language of the claims what defines the meets and bounds of the instant invention. In this case, In the instant case, the claims do not define a particular direction or manner by which the incident lenses and emission lenses are offset relative to one another. Thus, as noted in the rejection above, both Eckstein and Choi reasonably depict stagger or offset in a vertical direction between the incident and emission lenses which defines a staggered, non-coaxial arrangement such that the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses define an overlapping area where at least one incident lens overlaps with at least one emission lens along a direction of light emission, and a non-overlapping area, where the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of emission lenses do not overlap along the direction of light emission, and wherein each of the plurality of apertures is formed in the overlapping area. Therefore, the combined teachings of Eckstein and Choi reasonably teach or suggests the above-cited claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US 2021/0381673 A1 to Lee, pertinent to an arrangement of lenses being offset or staggard in a left-right direction relative to one another, Fig. 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875