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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-18, and 20-24 is/are pending. Claim(s) 8, 10-12, and 19 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 21-24 is/are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “unity” which should be changed to -- unitary --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-2, 5 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (JP 2015133219) in view of Jun (US 2024/0198889).
Claim 1: Ishikawa teaches an apparatus, comprising: a carrier (26, figs. 1 and 2) configured to hold a first projector module, (22A, figs. 1 and 2), a second projector module, (22B, figs. 1 and 2), and the carrier (26) comprising a bezel (16, figs. 1 and 2) configured to surround the first projector module (bottom 32), the second projector module (middle 32), wherein the carrier (16, 26) is at least partially surrounded by a fourth projector module (14, 32, 36, figs. 1 and 2).
However, Ishikawa fails to teach a third projector module for a vehicle, and the bezel configured to surround the first projector module, the second projector module, and the third projector module, the carrier is configured to move in response to a change in ride height of the vehicle.
Jun teaches a first projector module (110, fig. 1), a second projector module (120, fig. 1), a third projector module (130, fig. 1) for a vehicle (see abstract), a carrier (211, 212, 213, fig. 1) comprising a bezel (220, figs. 1 and 5) configured to move (position adjustment, see para [0044]) (220 moves according to adjustment bolt, see para [0047]) in response a change in ride height of the vehicle (individually aim the position of each module, see para [0064]).
Therefore, in view of Jun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third projector module for a vehicle where the bezel configured to surround the first projector module, the second projector module, and the third projector module and configuring the carrier to move in response to a change in ride height of the vehicle, in order to increase the light output and adjust the light output of the lamp.
Claim 2: Ishikawa in view of Jun teaches the carrier (26; Ichikawa) comprises a single-piece carrier (26; Ichikawa) and is configured to be positioned in a head lamp housing (12, figs. 1 and 2; Ichikawa), and the fourth projector module (14, 32, 36; Ichikawa) at least partially surrounds the bezel (16; Ichikawa), the first projector module (22A; Ichikawa), the second projector module (22B), and the third projector module (130, fig. 1; Jun).
Claim 5: Ishikawa teaches a first lens (lens of 20A, fig. 1) configured to cover the first projector module (20A); a second lens (lens of 20B, fig. 1) configured to cover the second projector module (20B).
However, Ishikawa fails to teach a third lens configured to cover the third projector module.
Jun teaches a third lens (reflector and 400 corresponding to 130, fig. 1) configured to cover the third projector module (130).
Therefore, in view of Jun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third projector module with a third lens configured to cover the third projector module, in order to increase the brightness of the apparatus.
Claim 24: Ishikawa teaches the first projector module (22A) is positioned in a first opening of the carrier (opening in front of 26 corresponding to 22A, fig. 1), and the first opening comprises a first dimension (opening direction in fig. 1) and a second dimension (opening direction in fig. 2).
However, Ishikawa is silent about the second dimension being at least two times greater than the first dimension.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the opening where the second dimension being at least two times greater than the first dimension to adjust the light output through the opening, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (JP 2015133219) in view of Jun (US 2024/0198889) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Wasilewski et al. (US 2017/0174121) (hereinafter Wasilewski).
Claim 3: Ishikawa teaches the first projector module (22A) and the second projector module (22B) combine to provide a first light intensity in a first mode of operation (combined high and low beam projection).
However, Ishikawa in view of Jun fails to teach he first projector module, the second projector module, and the third projector module combine to provide a second light intensity in a second mode, the second light intensity greater than the first light intensity
Wasilewski teaches the first projector module (top 20A, fig. 2), the second projector module (bottom 20A, fig. 2), and the third projector module (top 20B, fig. 2) combine to provide a second light intensity in a second mode (lights 20A and 20B can be activated to adjust light intensity, see para [0041]), the second light intensity greater than the first light intensity (lights 20A and 20B can be activated to adjust light intensity, see para [0041]).
Therefore, in view of Wasilewski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third projector module where the first projector module, the second projector module, and the third projector module combine to provide a second light intensity in a second mode, the second light intensity greater than the first light intensity, in order to increase the brightness of the apparatus.
Claim 4: Ishikawa teaches the second projector module (22B) is adjacent to the first projector module (22A).
However, Ishikawa fails to teach the second projector module is positioned between the first projector module and the third projector module, and the second projector module is adjacent to the first projector module and the third projector module.
Jun teaches the second projector module (120) is positioned between the first projector module (110) and the third projector module (130), and the second projector module (120) is adjacent to the first projector module (110) and the third projector module (130).
Therefore, in view of Jun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third projector module where the first projector module, the second projector module, and the third projector module combine to provide a second light intensity in a second mode, the second light intensity greater than the first light intensity, in order to increase the brightness of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has/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.
The examiner notes that the Jun reference reads upon the newly amended limitations since the carrier of Jun is capable of moving in response to a ride height of the vehicle and the claims do not recite the corresponding structure as to how the carrier is configured to change in ride height of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-10, 13-16, and 22-23 are allowed.
Claims 17-18 and 20-21 would be allowable if amended to overcome the claim objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest the carrier is movable with respect to the fourth projector module, and based on movement of the carrier, the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are movable relative to the fourth projector module with respect to claim(s) 6,
A head lamp, comprising: a housing configured to receive: a unitary carrier configured to hold a first projector module and a second projector module, and a third projector module that surrounds the first projector module and the second projector module; and a transparent cover coupled with the housing, wherein: the transparent cover overlays the unitary carrier and the third projector module, the unitary carrier is movable with respect to the third projector module, thereby causing movement of the first projector module and the second projector module, and based on the movement of the unitary carrier, the first projector module defines an adaptive driving projector module with respect to claim 9,
A vehicle, comprising: a head lamp, comprising: a unitary carrier configured to hold a first projector module, a second projector module, and a third projector module, and a fourth projector module that surrounds the first projector module, the second projector module, and the third projector module; and a transparent cover that overlays the unitary carrier and the fourth projector module, wherein the unity carrier is configured to move in response to a change in movement of the vehicle with respect to claim 17, as specifically called for in the claimed combinations.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 is/are dependent upon claim(s) 6, 9 and 17 and is/are therefore allowable
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baker et al. (US 2023/0371155) discloses changing a ride height, Lim et al. (US 2018/0043818) discloses changing an optical axis height.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875