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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 07 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 11 have been amended. Claims 8 and 15 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 7, and 11 being independent.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohno (US 2015/0078027 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ohno discloses a lamp for a vehicle (Figs. 2A-21), comprising: one total internal reflector (TIR) (3) having a light-receiving end (31 and/or 33) and a planar front surface (3a) opposite the light-receiving end (as shown in Figs. 2A-21), wherein the planar front surface is a light-exiting surface through which an illumination pattern exits the one TIR (as shown in Figs. 2A-21), wherein the one TIR is configured to produce the illumination pattern (e.g., 15A-15B) that is non- symmetrical about a z-axis (as shown in Figs. 2A-21, 15A-15B, or 20A-20C) that is perpendicular to and passes through an optical center of the planar front surface (as shown by the light rays in Figs. 2A-22) and is produced using no secondary reflectors, secondary lenses or other secondary optics (as shown in Figs. 2A-22).
Regarding claim 9, Ohno discloses (Figs. 2A-21) a width of the illumination pattern is greater than a height of the illumination pattern (e.g., as shown in Figs. 15A-15B, or 20A-20C).
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 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (US 2,254,961 A), in view of Chiu (US 2017/0343176 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence teaches or suggests a lamp for a vehicle (Figs. 21-22), comprising: a unitary molded body (Fig. 21) comprising: one total internal reflector (TIR) having a light-receiving end (an end on the side of the light source shown in Fig. 21) and a front surface opposite the light-receiving end (as shown in Figs. 21-22), wherein the light-receiving end and the front surface together define boundaries of the one TIR as a single unitary optic (as shown in Figs. 21-22); wherein the one TIR is configured to produce an illumination pattern having a height on a y-axis and a width on an x-axis (a height on a y-axis in the vertical direction on Fig. 21, and a width on an x-axis direction into and out of the page in Fig. 21, or in a plane parallel to 22 ahead of the lens in the light emission direction), wherein the illumination pattern is non-symmetrical about a z-axis (as indicated by the light rays in Fig. 21, said resulting pattern emits light downward for use in vehicle roadway lighting, and thus, is not rotationally symmetric about the z-axis, e.g., through a 180 degree rotation thereabout), which is perpendicular to the front surface and passes through an optical center of the front surface (as shown in Fig. 21, i.e., the line intersecting the lens forms the z-axis), and is produced using no secondary reflectors, secondary lenses or other secondary optics (there are no other secondary lenses, reflectors, or optics aside from those of the TIR of the unitary molded body which affect the light output therefrom).
Lawrence does not explicitly teach an integral attachment portion.
Chiu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) an integral attachment portion (an edge of the light emitting surface 11, or an edge of 12 adjacent 20, as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Lawrence and incorporated the teachings of an integral attachment portion, such as taught or suggested by Chiu, 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 yield the predictable result of improving, or otherwise increasing, the marketability or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to attach the unitary molded body to a lamp, vehicle, or light source).
Regarding claim 2, Lawrence teaches or suggests (Figs. 21-22) the light-receiving end of the one TIR is contoured to have a first shape along the x-axis and a second shape along the y-axis (as shown in Figs. 21-22), the first shape being different than the second shape (e.g., a first shape being circular in the x-y plane, and a second same being annular in the x-y plane).
Regarding claim 19, Lawrence teaches or suggests (Figs. 21-22) the front surface of the one TIR is planar (as shown in Figs. 21-22, said front surface has a planar portion, and is thus planar. Additionally, the claim does not require that the entirety of the front surface be planar).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence, in view of Chiu, and in further view of Eichler (US 5,961,206 A).
Regarding claims 3-5, neither Lawrence nor Chiu explicitly teach that the width of the illumination pattern is greater than the height of the illumination pattern (as recited in claim 3); wherein the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of greater than 1000 and the height of the illumination pattern has a spread of less than 100 (as recited in claim 4); wherein the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200 (as recited in claim 5).
Eichler teaches or suggests (Fig. 9) the width of the illumination pattern is greater than the height of the illumination pattern (as shown in Fig. 9); wherein the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of greater than 1000 (as shown in Fig. 9) and the height of the illumination pattern has a spread of less than 100 (a spread at various positions of the Isolux lines 39 are less than 10 degrees in the vertical direction, as shown in Fig. 9); wherein the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200 (as shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Lawrence and incorporated the teachings of the width of the illumination pattern is greater than the height of the illumination pattern (as recited in claim 3); wherein the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of greater than 1000 and the height of the illumination pattern has a spread of less than 100 (as recited in claim 4); wherein the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200 (as recited in claim 5), such as taught or suggested by Eichler, 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 yield the predictable result of providing a beam suited for vehicular lighting applications.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Lawrence, Chiu, and Eichler teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1300.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Lawrence and formed the width of the illumination pattern with a spread of equal to or greater than 1300, in order to improve, or otherwise increase, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment which can illuminate a wider area in front of the lens or vehicle to which it is installed).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno, in view of Eichler.
Regarding claim 10, Ohno does not explicitly teach that the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200.
Eichler teaches or suggests (Fig. 9) the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200 (as shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ohno and incorporated the teachings of the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200, such as taught or suggested by Eichler, 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 yield the predictable result of providing a beam suited for vehicular lighting applications.
Claims 11-13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (JP 2021197252 A, herein referred to as: Iwasaki).
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki teaches or suggests a high beam or low beam headlight (Figs. 1-34), comprising: a unitary molded body (4) comprising: one total internal reflector (TIR) (40 or 50) having a light-receiving end (facing a respective light source, as shown in Figs. 4 and 6) and a front surface (a front emission surface through which light emits) opposite the light-receiving end (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6); and an integral attachment portion (at an edge thereof, coupled to 3, as shown in Figs. 4 and 6), wherein the one TIR is configured to produce an illumination pattern having a height on a y-axis and a width on an x-axis (as shown in Figs. 3, 5, 7, 11-13, 16-18, 21-23, 28-31, and 33-34, e.g., all of the TIR lenses are configured to produce an illumination pattern having a height on a y-axis and a width on an x-axis), wherein the illumination pattern is non-symmetrical about a z-axis (all of the above-cited patterns are non-symmetrical about a z-axis) which is perpendicular to the front surface (all of the light emission directions of the lenses are perpendicular to the front surface, hence, so is the z-axis of each respective lens) and passes through an optical center of the front surface (as indicated by the light rays shown emanating from the lenses in Figs. 1-34, all of the z axis pass through an optical center of the front surface of the respective lenses), and is produced using no secondary reflectors, secondary lenses or other secondary optics (each beam pattern produced by each single lens only is produced using only the lens itself, and no secondary reflectors, secondary lenses or other secondary optics); a light source (41 or 51) for the one TIR (as shown in Figs. 1-34); an imaging lens (10, or 20, or 30, or 60 or 70) having a convex light-receiving surface and a planar front surface opposite the convex light-receiving surface (as shown in Figs. 1-34 for 60, 70; and as noted in the corresponding description for the imaging lenses of 10, 20, 30, e.g. “...the irradiation lens 12 is a convex lens based on a cylindrical lens, the entrance surface 13 and the emission surface 14 may be a flat surface or a concave surface, and are not limited to the configuration of the first embodiment...the irradiation lens 22 is a convex lens based on a cylindrical lens, the incident surface 23 and the exit surface 24 may be a flat surface or a concave surface, and the configuration is not limited to the first embodiment...the irradiation lens 32 is a convex lens based on a cylindrical lens, the entrance surface 33 and the emission surface 34 may be a flat surface or a concave surface, and the configuration is not limited to the first embodiment...”); and an imaging lens light source (21, 31, 61, or 71, respectively).
Iwasaki teaches or suggests all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the one TIR and the imaging lens together produce a complete high beam or low beam illumination pattern meeting vehicle lighting requirements.
Iwasaki alternatively teaches or suggests the one TIR and the imaging lens together produce a complete high beam or low beam illumination pattern meeting vehicle lighting requirements (“...In Example 1, five low beam units (10 to 50 in Example 1) form a passing irradiation pattern LP, and two high beam units (60, 70 in Example 1) form a traveling irradiation pattern HP. Is forming. However, the vehicle lamp 1 may be any as long as it forms a desired light distribution pattern (irradiation pattern combining them), and is not limited to the configuration of the first embodiment. Further, even in the case of forming the passing irradiation pattern LP and the traveling irradiation pattern HP, the number of low beam units and high beam units may be appropriately set, and is not limited to the configuration of the first embodiment...Further, in the first embodiment, three first units (10 to 30) are provided and two second units (40, 50) are provided. However, the number of the first unit and the second unit may be appropriately set, and is not limited to the configuration of the first embodiment. Further, although the second unit is provided with a plurality of emission surface portions (44a to 44c, 54a to 54d) on the emission surface (44, 54), if a plurality of emission surface portions having different optical settings are provided, the second unit may be provided. The number and optical settings may be appropriately set, and are not limited to the configuration of the first embodiment...”, reasonably implies to one skilled in the art that the number of lamps in the depicted embodiment are exemplary, and can be reduced or otherwise altered so as to produce a headlamp with the desired beam pattern functions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Iwasaki and incorporated the teachings of the one TIR and the imaging lens together produce a complete high beam or low beam illumination pattern meeting vehicle lighting requirements, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Iwasaki, 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) and since it has been held by the courts that the omission of an element if the function of the element is not desired requires only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of providing a beam suited for the desired vehicular lighting applications or functions.
Regarding claim 12, Iwasaki teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-34) the imaging lens (10, or 20, or 30, or 60 or 70) is aligned to produce an illumination hot spot (Figs. 3, 5, 7 or LP1, LP2, Lp3, or at least a portion at a bottom there in Figs. 29-31, HP6) in the illumination pattern produced by the one TIR (LP4 and LP5, additionally, each pattern has a hot spot, as shown in Figs. 3, 5, 7, 11-13, 16-18, 21-23, 28-31, and 33-34).
Regarding claim 13, Iwasaki teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-34) the imaging lens is integral with the unitary molded body (as shown in Figs. 1-34), the imaging lens positioned adjacent to the one TIR (as shown in Figs. 1-34).
Regarding claim 16, Iwasaki teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-34) a width of the illumination pattern is greater than a height of the illumination pattern (as shown in Figs. 13 and 23).
Regarding claim 18, Iwasaki teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-34) the imaging lens (10, or 20, or 30, or 60 or 70) is aligned to produce an illumination hot spot (Figs. 3, 5, 7 or LP1, LP2, Lp3, or at least a portion at a bottom there in Figs. 29-31, HP6) in the illumination pattern produced by the one TIR (LP4 and LP5) proximate the z-axis (as shown in Figs. 3, 5, 7, 13, 23, and 29-31, referencing the horizontal “H” in the cited illumination patterns).
Regarding claim 20, Iwasaki teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-34) the front surface of the one TIR is planar (as dependent upon the region or TIR, e.g., for TIR 50, region 54d is flat or planar in one example: “...in the first embodiment, the OH emission surface portion 54d is made substantially flat...”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, in view of Kanayama et al. (US 2015/0323147 A1, herein referred to as: Kanayama).
Regarding claim 14, Iwasaki teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-34) the imaging optic positioned adjacent to the unitary molded body (as shown in Figs. 1-34).
Iwasaki does not explicitly teach the imaging lens is positioned within an imaging optic that is separate from the unitary molded body.
Kanayama teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-31) placing various lenses separately from one another and adjacent to one another (as shown in Figs. 1-31 and as described in paragraph [0078], i.e., the lenses can be formed integrally or separately from one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Iwasaki and incorporated the teachings of the imaging lens is positioned within an imaging optic that is separate from the unitary molded body, such as taught or suggested by Kanayama, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to increase the marketability and/or customizability of the device (i.e., by providing an embodiment by which one or more of the lamps can be placed or organized in the headlamp adjacent on another to suit the specific lighting requirements or demand of the application).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, in view of Eichler.
Regarding claim 17, Iwasaki does not explicitly teach that the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200.
Eichler teaches or suggests (Fig. 9) the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200 (as shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Iwasaki and incorporated the teachings of the width of the illumination pattern has a spread of equal to or greater than 1200, such as taught or suggested by Eichler, 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 yield the predictable result of providing a beam suited for vehicular lighting applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights