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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0265734, hereafter referred to as ‘Kanayama.’ Regarding claim 1, Kanayama discloses a vehicle headlamp 1B (figures 12-16) comprising: a light source 11 configured to emit light; a reflector 60A configured to reflect the light emitted from the light source 11; a shade 70B configured to block a portion of the light reflected by the reflector 60A; and a projection lens 30A configured to project the light reflected by the reflector, wherein the shade 70B is provided with a control end located on a side of the light source (see control end of shade which is located on a side of the light source in figures 13-14), the control end includes a reflective control surface 75B facing vertically upward (see figures 13-14), subjected to a reflective treatment (para. #’s 233-234) and having a focal point of light positioned thereon or in a vicinity thereof (see paragraph numbers 225-277 and figures 13-14) focal point is in the vicinity of the reflective control surface), and a sloped surface (see sloped surface of the shade 70B which extends downwardly from the location of detail 73B in figures 13-14) subjected to a reflective treatment (para. #’s 232-235, 255-256, 275) and continuous with an edge of the reflective control surface on the side of the light source (see figures 13-14), and the sloped surface is inclined with respect to the reflective control surface to be gradually displaced downward as a distance from the reflective control surface toward the light source increases (see figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 2, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 1, wherein the control end is formed with a tip surface (80A, 72B) continuous with an edge of the sloped surface on the side of the light source and oriented in a direction different from that of the sloped surface (see figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 3, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 2, wherein the shade 70B is made of a transparent material, and enables light to enter the control end from the tip surface 80A (see transparent material of shade including tip in paragraph numbers 162, 167, 175-176, 183, 193-194, 237 and 262-263) light enters transparent tip portion [80A, 72B] of the shade).
Regarding claim 4, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 1, wherein the edge of the sloped surface on the side of the light source is aligned with a lower edge of the control end (see figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 5, Kanayama discloses a vehicle headlamp 1B (figures 12-16) comprising: a light source 11 configured to emit light; a reflector 60A configured to reflect the light emitted from the light source; a shade 70B configured to block a portion of the light reflected by the reflector (para. #’s 225-276) and a projection lens 30A configured to project the light reflected by the reflector, wherein the shade 70B is provided with a control end located on a side of the light source (see control end of shade which is located on a side of the light source in figures 13-14), the control end includes a reflective control surface 75B facing vertically upward (see figures 13-14) subjected to a reflective treatment (para. #’s 233-234) and having a focal point of light is positioned thereon or in a vicinity thereof (see paragraph numbers 225-276 and figures 13-14, focal point is in the vicinity of the reflective control surface), and a tip surface 81A (tip 80A, includes tip surfaces 81A and 82A, the tip surface 81A, 72B is formed to directly face rearward, see figures 13-14) and enables incidence of light in a direction different from the reflective control surface (see figures 13-14 and paragraph numbers 225-276, light enters transparent tip portion 81A, 72B of the shade) and the shade is made of a transparent material (see paragraph numbers 237 and 262-263).
Regarding claim 6, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 2, wherein the tip surface (81A, 72B) is formed to directly face rearward (see figures 13-14, the tip surface 81A, 72B is formed to directly face rearward).
Regarding claim 7, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 2, wherein the control end further includes a lower surface continuous with a lower edge of the tip surface (see lower surface of tip surface in figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 8, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 7, wherein the reflective treatment is not applied to the tip surface and the lower surface (see para. #’s 168, 244, 262 and 275).
Regarding claim 9, the vehicle headlamp according to claim 1, wherein the shade 70B further includes an inclined portion that is displaced upward to a rear (see figures 13-14), and the control end protrudes rearward from a rear end of the inclined portion (see figures 13-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanayama. Regarding claim 10, Kanayama discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that a metal is formed on the surfaces of the reflective control surface and the sloped surface for the reflective treatment.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to use metal for the reflective control and sloped surfaces of Kanayama since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using well known reflective materials for efficiently reflecting light from the headlamp of Kanayama.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully requests clarification as to which portions in Figures 13-14 of Kanayama are considered to correspond to the 'sloped surface’ recited in claim 1. As shown in figures 13-14, Kanayama discloses a sloped surface of the shade 70B which extends downwardly from the location of detail arrow 73B.
pplicant’s argument that “Applicant believes that Kanayama fails to disclose, for example, that "the control end includes a reflective control surface facing vertically upward,... and the sloped surface is inclined with respect to the reflective control surface to be gradually displaced downward as a distance from the reflective control surface toward the light source increases," as specifically recited in amended claim 1” is not found persuasive. See figures 13-14, Kanayama discloses a control end includes a reflective control surface 75B facing vertically upward,... and the sloped surface 73B is inclined with respect to the reflective control surface to be gradually displaced downward as a distance from the reflective control surface toward the light source increases (see figures 13-14).
Applicant’s argument that “Kanayama fails to disclose, for example, "a reflective control surface facing vertically upward" and "a tip surface that is formed to directly face rearward," as specifically recited in amended claim 5” is not found persuasive. Kanayama discloses a reflective control surface 75B facing vertically upward (sees figures 13- 14)" and "a tip surface 81A, 72B that is formed to directly face rearward (figures 13-14).
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 THOMAS M SEMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-2381. The examiner can normally be reached flexing generally from 7 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. M-F.
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.
/THOMAS M SEMBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875