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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,610.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 610 recites the same structure as currently claimed. The additional recitation of the focus in the claims of the current application is taught by the limitation “form an image of the second reflective surface”. Such a limitation inherently requires the focal point to be near the second reflective surface, and is further recited in claim 11.
Claims 1-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,710,153
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 153 recites the same structure as currently claimed.
The Examiner notes that the double patenting rejection is a preliminary rejection. If the application is in condition for an allowance and the double patenting rejection is still applicable then a more detailed analysis will be provided at that time.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “comprising: a first luminous subassembly includes at least a first light source…” the limitation contains a typographical error and should read “a first luminous subassembly including” or “a first luminous subassembly comprising”. Furthermore “includes” or “including” is an unclear transitional phrase, i.e. it is unclear if it is open ended (such as comprising) or close ended (such as consisting).
Claim 1 and 10 recite “the first collector and the second collector are offset…” With respect to the disclosure, the Examiner has interpreted that each collector is a curved reflective surface. The Examiner finds that claim 3 recites critical subject matter in the disclosure and should be included in the independent claims 1 and 10. I.e. the relationship between the reflectors, which the Examiner finds is critical to the operation of the invention, is not recited in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The Examiner also suggests reciting how the reflectors are connected, i.e. a curved reflective surface that is disjointed with the next, to overcome art such as Matsumoto (U.S. 8,851,726), which teaches a single reflector that may be interpreted as separate collectors.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 recites “a second luminous subassembly”, however it is not recited as being part of the second luminous unit.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the second luminous unit includes at least one additional luminous subassembly and an additional optical projection system”. It is unclear how the subassemblies are connected, and what relationship the subassembly has with the structure. The Examiner is unclear what the scope of the “second luminous unit” is with respect to the figures. The Examiner additionally does not see an additional optical projection system.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 154 (JP2016039154, lncluded on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, JP2016039154 teaches a luminous unit of a luminous module of an automotive vehicle, comprising:
a first luminous subassembly (14) comprising at least a first light source configured to emit a plurality of first light rays and a first collector (16) configured to collect and reflect the first light rays emitted by the first light source,
a second luminous subassembly (332) comprising at least a second light source configured to emit a plurality of second light rays and a second collector (334) configured to collect and reflect the second light rays emitted by the second light source (see fig.9), and
an optical projection system (12) configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical projection system comprising an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction
characterized in that the first collector and the second collector are offset with respect to one another at least along the longitudinal direction such that the first collector is arranged between the second collector and the optical system (see fig. 9) and the first collector comprising a rear end edge (rear edge of 334a) arranged between the optical projection system and an optical focus (focus F) of said optical projection system.
Regarding claim 2, 154 teaches a luminous unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical projection system is formed by a projection lens (projection lens).
Regarding claim 5, 154 teaches that the first collector and the second collector are offset with respect to one along a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see fig. 9).
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 154.
Regarding claim 4, 154 does not specifically teach that the optical focus (F) of the optical projection system is disposed at a distance less than or equal to 10 mm from the rear end edge of the first collector.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the distance between the rear end edge of the first collector and the optical focus to minimize the size of the lighting structure, which is desirable in the automotive arts. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US. 2018/0142859) in view of Bauer (U.S. 2015/0023045).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a luminous unit of a luminous module of an automotive vehicle, comprising:
a first luminous subassembly (22a and 30a) comprising at least a first light source configured to emit a plurality of first light rays and a first collector (30a) configured to collect and reflect the first light rays emitted by the first light source,
a second luminous subassembly (24a) comprising at least a second light source configured to emit a plurality of second light rays and a second collector (31Aa2) configured to collect and reflect the second light rays emitted by the second light source (see fig. 3), and
an optical system (cover 14)
characterized in that the first collector and the second collector are offset with respect to one another at least along the longitudinal direction such that the first collector is arranged between the second collector and the optical system.
Watanabe does not teach an optical projection system configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical projection system comprising an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction,
the first collector comprising a rear end edge arranged between the optical projection system and an optical focus of said optical projection system.
Bauer teaches an optical projection system (see fig. 1) configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical projection system comprising an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction,
the first collector comprising a rear end edge arranged between the optical projection system and an optical focus of said optical projection system (F2, Bauer locates the focal point of the lens behind the reflector to image the virtual light source).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a projection system as taught by Bauer in the structure of Watanabe to further create a clear light dark line with a higher amount of collimation, see p. 0015-0016 of Bauer. A projection lens such as that used in the manner of Bauer is well known in the art to further enhance the desired light distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Bauer teaches a luminous unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical projection system is formed by a projection lens (projection lens).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe teaches that the rear end edge of the first collector is in contact with a front end edge of the second collector (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches that the first collector and the second collector are offset with respect to one along a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches comprising a board (40) bearing all of the first and second light sources.
Watanabe does not specifically state that the board is a printed circuit board.
The Examiner takes official notice that printed circuit boards are well known in the art for mounting light sources such as Watanabe teaches.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a printed circuit board for the light sources to provide power and signals through integrated traces, thereby reducing manufacturing costs by preventing the need for additional wiring.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe teaches that the first luminous subassembly (22a) is configured to cooperate with the optical projection system in order to generate a first light beam with a cutoff edge formed by the imaging of the rear end edge (low beam PL is formed by reflector 30b) of the first collector, and the second luminous subassembly is configured to cooperate with the optical projection system in order to generate a second light beam (30Ba2) different than the first light beam (see p. 0085, daytime running lamp), at least a part of which is situated above the cutoff edge (shown infigure 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe teaches a luminous module (10) of a vehicle, comprising at least a first luminous unit and a second luminous unit,
the first luminous unit (22b) including a first luminous subassembly includes at least a first light source configured to emit a plurality of first light rays and a first collector configured to collect and reflect the first light rays emitted by the first light source,
a second luminous subassembly (24b) includes at least a second light source configured to emit a plurality of second light rays and a second collector configured to collect and reflect the second light rays emitted by the second light source, and
an optical system configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical system includes an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction, wherein the first collector and the second collector are offset with respect to one another at least along the longitudinal direction such that the first collector is arranged between the second collector and the optical projection system.
Watanabe does not teach an optical projection system configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical projection system comprising an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction,
the first collector comprising a rear end edge arranged between the optical projection system and an optical focus of said optical projection system.
Bauer teaches an optical projection system (see fig. 1) configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical projection system comprising an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction,
the first collector comprising a rear end edge arranged between the optical projection system and an optical focus of said optical projection system (F2, Bauer locates the focal point of the lens behind the reflector to image the virtual light source).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a projection system as taught by Bauer in the structure of Watanabe to further create a clear light dark line with a higher amount of collimation, see p. 0015-0016 of Bauer. A projection lens such as that used in the manner of Bauer is well known in the art to further enhance the desired light distribution.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe teaches that the second luminous unit comprises at least one additional luminous subassembly (see fig. 1, two instances of 22a) and an additional optical projection system (additional portion of lens 14).
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Bauer, further in view of Zhang (U.S. 12,291,142).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe does not teach that the printed circuit board has an inclination of between 5° and 15° with respect to a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction (V).
Zhang teaches that the printed circuit board has an inclination with respect to a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have angled the pcb with the light sources as taught by Zhang in the structure of Watanabe and Bauer to adjust and properly image the light sources within the reflector cups and therefore form a more collimated and clear pattern, see col. 10 of Zhang.
Zhang does not teach that the angle is of between 5° and 15°
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the angle of inclination of Zhang for precise imaging and location within the focal points of the reflectors. . “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S 11,168,858) in view of Bauer.
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches a luminous unit of a luminous module of an automotive vehicle, comprising:
a first luminous subassembly (12) comprising at least a first light source configured to emit a plurality of first light rays and a first collector (23) configured to collect and reflect the first light rays emitted by the first light source,
a second luminous subassembly (20) comprising at least a second light source configured to emit a plurality of second light rays and a second collector (22) configured to collect and reflect the second light rays emitted by the second light source (see fig. 1), and
an optical projection system (lens 16) configured to project the first light rays reflected by the first collector and the second light rays reflected by the second collector, the optical projection system comprising an optical axis parallel to a longitudinal direction (see fig. 1)
characterized in that the first collector and the second collector are offset with respect to one another at least along the longitudinal direction such that the first collector is arranged between the second collector and the optical system (see fig. 1)
Ohashi does not teach that first collector comprising a rear end edge arranged between the optical projection system and an optical focus of said optical projection system.
Bauer teaches placing the focal point behind the rear end edge of the collector (see fig. 1, F2 is behind the collector).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have placed the focal point of 25 to behind the rear edge of 23 to fully image the reflector and reduce the size of the optical system, as taught by Bauer (see p. 0024-0026)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ohashi and Bauer teaches that the optical axis (axis of upper lens 25) of the optical projection system passes substantially through the rear end edge of the first collector (axis set to image rear of reflector as taught by Bauer) and intersects the second collector (1see fig. 1, intersects front edge of 14. .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inaba (U.S. 2009/0310353), Ohashi (U.S.11,168,858); Jin (U.S. 12,000,557); teaches disjointed reflectors with separate light sources to form different headlight distributions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
