DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 11-17 have been amended, claims 18-19 have been newly added. Currently claims 1-19 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, 6-8, 10-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dressler et al. (US 20220136673 A1, hereinafter, “Dressler”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Rudy et al. (WO 2020257505 A1, hereinafter, “Rudy”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Dressler teaches a projection module (Projection headlight for vehicles, see figures 1-4) for a headlamp (headlamp, see abstract) in a motor vehicle (vehicles, see ¶ 2), the projection module (projection headlight) comprising:
at least one first light source (lower row of light sources 8, see fig 2) configured to emit light (as expected from a light source) for generating a first light distribution (high beam, see ¶ 29), wherein the at least one first light source (lower row of 8) includes at least one light-emitting diode (as 8 are designed as LED light sources, see ¶ 33);
at least one second light source (upper row of 8, see fig 1) configured to emit light (as expected from a light source) for generating a second light distribution (dipped beam, see ¶ 27), wherein the at least one second light source (upper row of 8) includes at least one light-emitting diode (as 8 are designed as LED light sources, see ¶ 33);
primary optics (1, 2) including:
a first optical waveguide (2) having at least one first light-entry surface (13) for the light from the at least one first light source (lower row of 8), and at least one first light-emitting surface (14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3);
a second optical waveguide (1) having at least one second light-entry surface (10) for the light from the at least one second light source (upper row of 8), and at least one second light-emitting surface (11.sub.1, 11.sub.2, 11.sub.3, 11.sub.4, 11.sub.5); and
a shutter (6) positioned between the first optical waveguide (2) and the second optical waveguide (1): and
secondary optics (3) through which light exiting the first (14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3) and second light-emitting surfaces (11.sub.1, 11.sub.2, 11.sub.3, 11.sub.4, 11.sub.5) of the primary optics (1, 2) passes when the projection module (projection headlight) is in use,
wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes (LEDs, see ¶ 33) of the first and second light sources (lower and upper rows of 8) are configured to emit light with a luminance (necessarily occurring as light sources emit certain amount of luminance), and
wherein the shutter (6) includes a reflective surface (reflective material coated on 6, see ¶ 41) positioned to reflect the light from the at least one second light source (upper row of 8) exiting the second optical waveguide (1) via the at least one second light-emitting surface (11.sub.1, 11.sub.2, 11.sub.3, 11.sub.4, 11.sub.5).
Dressler does not explicitly a luminance of more than 400 cd/mm2.
Rudy teaches a projection module (high-luminous-flux laser-based white light source, see figures 1-75) for a headlamp (automobile headlights, see ¶ 31) having one or more of the light-emitting diodes (high luminance of the laser based light sources, see ¶ 520); wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes (high luminance of the laser based light sources, see ¶ 520) in the light sources are configured to emit light with a luminance (expected from a light source);
the luminance of more than 400 cd/mm2 (greater than 500 cd/mm2, see ¶ 520).
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 light source of Rudy into the teachings of Dressler in order to provide the device with a more power light source and replace an older technology and less powerful light source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve light output of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Dressler teaches wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in the light sources (8) of the first and second light sources (upper and lower row of 8s) emit light with a luminance (as expected from light sources).
Dressler does not explicitly teach a luminance of more than 420 cd/mm2.
Rudy teaches wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes (high luminance of the laser based light sources, see ¶ 520) in the light sources are configured to emit light with a luminance of more than 400 cd/mm2 (greater than 500 cd/mm2, see ¶ 520).
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 light source of Rudy into the teachings of Dressler in order to provide the device with a more power light source and replace an older technology and less powerful light source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve light output of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Dressler teaches wherein there is a length (LP) (as seen in fig 6) of the primary optics (1, 2) from the at least one first light-entry surface (13) on the first optical waveguide (2) to the at least one first light-emitting surface (14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3) on the first optical waveguide (2).
Dressler does not explicitly teach a length (LP) is between 17 mm and 30 mm.
Regarding at least one light-emitting surface on the first optical waveguide is between 17 mm and 30 mm, the applicant is respectfully advised that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to size the first optical waveguide disclosed by Dressler according to inner space of the headlamp and/or light module, including a light-emitting surface of the first optical waveguide between 17 mm and 30 mm, since the one of ordinary skill would have recognized that waveguide sizing as being one of the many strategies available in the prior art for providing effective illumination forward with smaller components, selection of a specific one over another being an obvious matter of meeting the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 6, Dressler teaches wherein a size of the primary optics (1, 2) is between 3 cm3 and 7 cm3.
Regarding the size of the primary optics, being between 3 cm3 and 7 cm3, the applicant is respectfully advised that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to size the primary optics as disclosed by Dressler according to inner space of the headlamp, including a light entry surface between 3 cm3 and 7 cm3, since the one of ordinary skill would have recognized that optics sizing as being one of the many strategies available in the prior art for providing effective illumination forward with smaller components, selection of a specific one over another being an obvious matter of meeting the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 7, Dressler teaches wherein the primary optics (1, 2) comprise a monolithic optical component (as seen in fig 6, and disclosed in ¶ 12), wherein the monolithic optical component (1, 2) contains includes both the first and second optical waveguides (1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Dressler teaches wherein the secondary optics (3) comprise a projection lens (see plano convex lens in fig 6), wherein the projection lens (3) has a third light-entry surface (flat surface 4, see fig 6) for the light exiting the first and second light-emitting surfaces (11.sub.1, 11.sub.2, 11.sub.3, 11.sub.4, 11.sub.5) of the primary optics (1, 2) and a third light-emitting surface (convex surface 5, see fig 6) for the light entering through the third light-entry surface (4).
Regarding claim 10, Dressler teaches wherein the first light distribution (high beam) is a high beam light distribution (see ¶ 29) or part thereof, and/or the second light distribution (dipped beam) is a low beam light distribution (see ¶ 27) or part thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Dressler teaches wherein there is a length (LG) (see length between 1,2 and 3) of the optics in the projection module (projection headlamp) formed by the primary optics (1, 2) and secondary optics (3), from the first and second light-entry surfaces (10, 13) of the primary optics (1, 2) to a third light-emitting surface (convex surface 5, see fig 6) of the secondary optics (3).
Dressler does not explicitly teach a length (LG) is between 40 mm and 70 mm.
Regarding the light-emitting surface of the secondary optics, being between 40 mm and 70 mm, the applicant is respectfully advised that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to size the light-emitting surface of the secondary optics of Dressler according to inner space of the headlamp and/or light module, including a length of between 40 mm and 70 mm, since the one of ordinary skill would have recognized that optics sizing as being one of the many strategies available in the prior art for providing effective illumination forward with smaller components, selection of a specific one over another being an obvious matter of meeting the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 12, Dressler teaches wherein the projection module (projection headlamp) contains includes more than one first light source (as the lower row of 8s has multiple LEDs) and/or more than one second light source (as the upper row of 8s has multiple LEDS).
Regarding claim 13, Dressler teaches wherein the first optical waveguide (2) has more than one first light-entry surface (se plurality of 13s, better seen in fig 2) and/or
the second optical waveguide (1) has more than one second light-entry surface (se plurality of 11s, better seen in fig 5).
Regarding claim 14, Dressler teaches wherein each of the first light sources (lower row of 8s) has a dedicated first light-entry surface (dedicated 13) on the first optical waveguide (2), such that the light from the first light sources (lower row of 8s) passes through the dedicated first light-entry surfaces (13) on the first optical waveguide (2), and/or
each of the second light sources (upper row of 8s) has a dedicated second light- entry surface (see dedicated 10 per light source) on the second optical waveguide (1), such that the light from the second light sources (upper row of 8s) enters the dedicated second light-entry surfaces (10) on the second optical waveguide (1).
Regarding claim 15, Dressler teaches wherein the first optical waveguide has a single first light-emitting surface for the light entering through multiple first light-entry surfaces (10), and/or
the second optical waveguide (1) has numerous separate multiple second light-emitting surfaces (11.sub.1, 11.sub.2, 11.sub.3, 11.sub.4, 11.sub.5), each of which is dedicated to one of the at least one second light-entry surface (see multiple 10s) such that the light entering the at least one second light- entry surface (10s) exits the second optical waveguide (1) through these the dedicated light- emitting surfaces (11.sub.1, 11.sub.2, 11.sub.3, 11.sub.4, 11.sub.5).
Regarding claim 16, Dressler teaches wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes of the first and second light source (upper and lower row of 8s) emit light with a luminance (as expected from a light source).
Dressler does not explicitly teach a luminance between 430 cd/mm2 and 450 cd/mm2.
Regarding the luminance between 430 cd/mm2 and 450 cd/mm2, the applicant is respectfully advised that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to select a light- emitting diodes in the light sources emit light with a luminance of between 430 cd/mm2 and 450 cd/mm2 instead of a higher luminance as disclosed by Fadel as modified by Rudy, since the one of ordinary skill would have recognized such luminance selection as being one of the many structures available in the prior art for providing effective illumination forward, selection of a specific one over another being an obvious matter of meeting the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 18, Dressler teaches wherein an outer edge (front diaphragm edge 7, see fig 2) of the shutter (6) is configured to generate a light/dark boundary (light-dark boundary HDG) of the second light distribution (dipped beam, see ¶ 27).
Regarding claim 19, Dressler teaches wherein: the first optical waveguide (2) is longer (evident from fig 3) than the second optical waveguide (1), and the outer edge of the shutter (6) is positioned proximate the at least one first light-emitting surface (14.sub.1, 14.sub.2, 14.sub.3) of the first optical waveguide (2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dressler et al. (US 20220136673 A1, hereinafter, “Dressler”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Rudy et al. (WO 2020257505 A1, hereinafter, “Rudy”, previously cited by the Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fadel et al. (US 20130201712 A1, hereinafter, “Fadel”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 3, Dressler teaches wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes in the light sources of the first and second light sources (lower row of 8) emit light with a luminous flux (as expected from a light source).
Dressler does not explicitly teach a luminous flux of 200 lm to 300 lm.
Fadel teaches a projection module (least one light module 12, see figures 1-7) for a headlamp (headlight 10, see fig 1) including: at least one first light source (first row 18 of semiconductor light sources, see fig 1) configured to emit light for generating a first light distribution (section 48 illumination, see fig 3a), wherein the at least one first light source contains at least one light-emitting diode (semiconductor light sources 18.1,..., 18.5); at least one second light source (second row 20 of semiconductor light sources, see fig 1) configured to emit light for generating a second light distribution (section 54 illumination, see fig 3d), wherein the at least one second light source contains at least one light-emitting diode (semiconductor light sources 20.1,..., 20.5); wherein one or more of the light- emitting diodes (18.1,..., 18.5 or 20.1,..., 20.5) in the light sources (18, 20) emit light with a luminous flux (as expected from a light source);
the luminous flux of 200 Im to 300 Im (around 250 lumens of luminous flux, see ¶ 73).
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 light source that provides a luminous flux as taught by Fadel into the teachings of Dressler in order to a light source for short to medium distances. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because light sources with that 200-300 lm are readily available.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dressler et al. (US 20220136673 A1, hereinafter, “Dressler”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Rudy et al. (WO 2020257505 A1, hereinafter, “Rudy”, previously cited by the Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deckers et al. (CN 114127926 A, hereinafter, “Deckers”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 4, Dressler teaches wherein one or more of the light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in the light sources (plurality of LEDs, see ¶ 33) of the first and second light sources (upper and lower row of 8) have an active light-emitting surface (outer surface of each LED),
Dressler does not explicitly teach wherein a size of which the active light-emitting surface is between 0.40 mm2 and 0.70 mm2.
Deckers teaches a projection module (illumination device, see figures 1-8) for a headlamp (especially for automobile head illumination, see ¶ 4 of contents of the invention) having one or more of the light-emitting diode (light emitting diode (LED)) having a size (see figure 5);
wherein the size of which is between 0.40 mm2 and 0.70 mm2 (0.5 mm2 to 1 mm2 in size, see ¶ 6 of contents of the invention).
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 light source of Deckers into the teachings of Dressler, 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 make this modification to reduce the light emitting elements footprint.
Claims 9 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dressler et al. (US 20220136673 A1, hereinafter, “Dressler”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Rudy et al. (WO 2020257505 A1, hereinafter, “Rudy”, previously cited by the Examiner) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Melzner et al. (US 8931939 B2, hereinafter, “Melzner”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Dressler does not teach wherein the projection lens is a Fresnel lens; and
wherein the projection lens has at least one Fresnel structure on the third light-entry surface and/or the third light-emitting surface.
Melzner teaches a projection module (LED Luminaire, Particularly LED Headlight, see figure 12) for a headlamp (headlight, see abstract) including primary optics (collimation optics 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, see fig 12) and secondary optics (field optics 5, see fig 12), the secondary optics comprising a projection lens (Fresnel lens 5);
wherein the projection lens (5) is a Fresnel lens (as clearly seen in fig 12); and
wherein the projection lens (5) has at least one Fresnel structure on the light-entry surface and/or the light-emitting surface (on the light emitting surface).
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 projection lens as taught by Melzner into the teachings of Dressler to provide an improved light efficiency in a spot position as well as in a flood position of the light distribution by retaining the evenness of the illumination in the light field. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enhance light redirection forward.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/23/2025 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
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 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