DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 13-15, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 817 (WO 2014207817, included on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, 817 teaches a light module, in particular for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a light source capable of emitting light rays (20);
a collector (reflector 3) with a reflective surface configured to collect and reflect the light rays emitted by the light source into a light beam along an optical axis of the module (see fig. 5,);
an optical system configured to project the light beam (lens 4);
wherein the optical system is configured to form an image of the reflective surface of the collector (see fig. 11)
wherein the reflective surface of the collector includes a rear edge with a kink (34), tehe light image formed having a corresponding kinked horizontal cutoff (see fig. 5, protruding surface 34 forms upper cutoff of PL and PR).
Regarding claim 2, 817 teaches that the collector is configured so that the light rays reflected from a rear portion of the reflective surface of said collector are parallel to the optical axis or have an angle of inclination (a) smaller than or equal to 25, in a vertical plane with respect to said axis (see fig. 5, orientation results in near parallel reflection).
Regarding claim 3, 817 teaches that the light source is configured to emit the light rays in a main direction between 65 and 115 with respect to the optical axis (emits light rays perpendicular to optical axis).
Regarding claim 4, 817 teaches that the reflective surface of the collector has a parabolic or elliptical profile (half parabolic).
Regarding claim 6, 817 teaches that said module further comprises a screen (shade portion 53, see fig. 3) located in front of the light source, with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam along the optical axis, and facing the reflective surface of the collector, so as to collect the light rays emitted forward by the light source and not reflected by said surface (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, 817 teaches that the screen is opaque so as to absorb the collected light rays (see fig. 3)
Regarding claim 13, 817 teaches that the reflective surface of the collector is concave and has a front edge and a rear edge (see fig. 5) , with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam, said front edge (lower edge) delimiting a lower portion of the light image formed and said rear edge (upper edge 31) delimiting an upper portion of said image, when the module is oriented in the mounted position (illustrated in figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 14, 817 teaches that light rays reflected by the reflective surface along the rear edge are parallel to the optical axis or have an angle of inclination (a) smaller than or equal to 250, in a vertical plane with respect to said axis (see fig. 5, near parallel)
Regarding claim 15, 817 teaches that reflective surface of the collector comprises two lateral edges on either side of the optical axis and in the continuation of the rear edge, said lateral edges being in a horizontal plane when the module is oriented in the mounted position (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, 817 teaches that the reflective surface of the collector comprises two lateral edges on either side of the optical axis, said lateral edges intersecting with the rear edge, the light image formed having corresponding lateral cutoffs (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, 817 teaches a light device for a motor vehicle, comprising a plurality of light modules combined so as to form, together, a lighting or signaling beam; wherein at least one of the light modules is as claimed in claim 1 (one of multiple headlights).
Regarding claim 20, 817 teaches wherein: for at least one of the light modules the reflective surface of the collector is concave and has a front edge and a rear edge, with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam, said front edge delimiting a lower portion of the light image formed and said rear edge delimiting an upper portion of said image, when the module is oriented in the mounted position. for at least one other of said modules , the light rays reflected by the reflective surface along the rear edge are parallel to the optical axis or have an angle of inclination (a) smaller than or equal to 25°, preferably smaller than or equal to 100 in a vertical plane with respect to said axis, and the lighting beam having a kinked horizontal cutoff (see fig. 5, ).
Regarding claim 21, 817 teaches that for at least two of the modules the reflective surface of the collector is concave and has a front edge and a rear edge, with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam (see fig. 5), said front edge delimiting a lower portion of the light image formed and said rear edge delimiting an upper portion of said image, when the module is oriented in the mounted position, the optical system of each of said at least two modules being common (see fig. 2, 3; multiple headlights).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao (U.S. 11,137,126, published as wo2018/114506 on 6/28/2018, all references made to the US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 23, Cao teaches a light module, comprising:
a light source (light source 10) capable of emitting light rays:
a collector (optics 30) with a reflective surface configured to collect and reflect the light rays emitted by the light source into a light beam along an optical axis of the module (see fig. 4); and
an optical system (lens 20) configured to project the light beam;
wherein the optical system is configured to form an image of the reflective surface of the collector, and wherein the optical system has a focal point located at a level of the reflective surface of the collector and in proximity to the reflective surface of the collector (reflective surface of 30 is formed on the focal surface 201 of the lens 20).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 817 (Wo 2014207817) in view of Ishida (U.S. 10,895,357).
Regarding claim 8, 817 does not teach that the optical system is a projecting lens.
Ishida teaches that the optical system is a projecting lens (projecting lens 12).
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 projecting lens as taught by Ishida instead of the light distribution lens taught by 817 to provide a simpler optic that is less expensive to produce. The Examiner further notes that the projection lens of Ishida may be used to cast a longer throw distance and form a more efficient optical system as known in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 19, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa (U.S. 2015/0138822) in view of 817.
Regarding claim 1, Tatsukawa teaches a light module, in particular for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a light source capable of emitting light rays (see fig. 3b, light source);
a collector (reflector 26a) with a reflective surface configured to collect and reflect the light rays emitted by the light source into a light beam along an optical axis of the module (see fig. 3b, Ax);
an optical system configured to project the light beam (lens 20a);
wherein the optical system is configured to form an image of the reflective surface of the collector (see p. 0023).
Tatsukawa does not teach that the reflective surface of the collector includes a rear edge with a kink, the light image formed having a corresponding kinked horizontal cutoff.
817 teaches that the reflective surface of the collector includes a rear edge with a kink, the light image formed having a corresponding kinked horizontal cutoff (see fig. 5, protruding surface 34 forms horizontal cutoff of PL and PR).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have placed a rear edge kink as taught by 817 into the reflector of Tatsukawa to provide supplemental light distribution patterns as taught by 817, thereby increasing the range of the lighting device.
Regarding claim 5, Tatsukawa teaches that the optical system has a focal point (lens focal point is Fa) located on the optical axis at the level of the light source, in front of or behind said source with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam along the optical axis (forms image for lens).
Regarding claim 7, Tatsukawa teaches that the screen is opaque so as to absorb the collected light rays (shaper 28a shields the light rays and prevents them from being redirected, i.e. absorbs the light, see fig. 3b).
The Examiner notes that Tatsukawa does not explicitly teach that the screen is opaque, however as it is recited to shield a portion of the light to form the cutoff line, the Examiner finds that it is inherently opaque. A nonabosorbing structure would redirect light and therefore not form a cutoff line as the light would be emitted in a stray fringe.
Alternatively the Examiner takes official notice that using an opaque light shaper is well known in the art and that It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time that the invention was filed, to have used an opaque screen to form a cutoff without stray light emission.
Regarding claim 19, Tatsukawa teaches a light device for a motor vehicle, comprising a plurality of light modules combined so as to form, together, a lighting or signaling beam; wherein at least one of the light modules is as claimed in claim 1 (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Tatsukawa teaches wherein: for at least one of the light modules the reflective surface of the collector is concave and has a front edge and a rear edge (see fig. 1), with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam, said front edge delimiting a lower portion of the light image formed and said rear edge delimiting an upper portion of said image, when the module is oriented in the mounted position. for at least one other of said modules , the light rays reflected by the reflective surface along the rear edge are parallel to the optical axis or have an angle of inclination (a) smaller than or equal to 25°, preferably smaller than or equal to 100 in a vertical plane with respect to said axis, and the lighting beam having a kinked horizontal cutoff (see fig. 3b, near parallel cut off).
Regarding claim 21, Tatsukawa teaches that for at least two of the modules the reflective surface of the collector is concave and has a front edge and a rear edge, with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam, said front edge delimiting a lower portion of the light image formed and said rear edge delimiting an upper portion of said image, when the module is oriented in the mounted position, the optical system of each of said at least two modules being common (see fig. 1, 3b multiple light sources for projection system).
Regarding claim 22, Tatsukawa teaches that the common optical system has a focal point line located behind, with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam, the collectors of the light modules that number at least two (see fig. 1, has 3 focal points for each module collector).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (U.S. 8,419,247) in view of 817.
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches a light module, in particular for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a light source capable of emitting light rays (see fig. 2, light source);
a collector (reflector 34, 32) with a reflective surface configured to collect and reflect the light rays emitted by the light source into a light beam along an optical axis of the module (Ax);
an optical system configured to project the light beam (other reflectors, 64 and 41);
wherein the optical system is configured to form an image of the reflective surface of the collector (B2 B3).
Uchida does not teach that the reflective surface of the collector includes a rear edge with a kink, the light image formed having a corresponding kinked horizontal cutoff.
817 teaches that the reflective surface of the collector includes a rear edge with a kink, the light image formed having a corresponding kinked horizontal cutoff (see fig. 5, protruding surface 34 forms horizontal cutoff of PL and PR).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have placed a rear edge kink as taught by 817 into the reflector of Uchida to provide supplemental light distribution patterns as taught by 817, thereby increasing the range of the lighting device.
Regarding claim 9, Uchida teaches that the optical system comprises a mirror (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Uchida teaches that the mirror of the optical system is a first mirror (64), said system comprsing a second mirror (41) behind the first mirror, with respect to a general direction of propagation of the light beam, and at a distance from said axis, the first mirror being configured to reflect the light beam toward the second mirror, and the second mirror being configured to reflect said beam reflected by the first mirror, in a direction parallel to the optical axis (see fig. 2, reflects in direction parallel to Ax).
Regarding claim 11, Uchida teaches that the first mirror is planar (planar surface see fig. 2) or has a concave profile in a horizontal plane when the module is oriented in the mounted position (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Uchida teaches that the mirror or the second mirror has a parabolic profile in a vertical plane when the module is oriented in the mounted position (second mirror is parabolic, see 41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 recites, inter alia, wherein the reflective surface of the first collector has a rear edge with a kink,
the first image formed having a corresponding kinked horizontal cutoff; and
… wherein the second optical system is configured to form a second image of the reflective surface of the second collector, and wherein the reflective surface of the second collector has a rear edge in a horizontal plane, the second image formed having a corresponding flat horizontal cutoff.
The prior art teaches a lighting module as claimed with the horizontal kink in a lighting module, however the prior art does not teach said horizontal kink used with an additional lighting module that has a flat reflector and flat cutoff. The prior art that teaches said horizontal kink would not be obvious to modify to use multiple lighting modules that additionally have flat cutoffs as the module of 817 and similar prior art are taught to create the entire luminance profile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 has withdrawn the indication of allowability of the subject matter of claim 17 and so this action is nonfinal.
Conclusion
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875