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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 is acknowledged. Species A is directed to all claims, claims 1-8.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the election does not eliminate any claims for examination. This is not found persuasive because while the species restriction may not apply to current claims, the election limits later amendments. Applicant’s argument that the election renders no claims withdrawn is not a valid argument for why the species restriction was in fact improper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2025 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al (US 2023/0417384 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Woo et al disclose an automotive vehicle headlamp module designated to illuminate a road, the headlamp module comprising lighting units (110), each lighting unit comprising at least one lens (130) configured to generate light, each lighting unit comprising a light exit area, the lens being disposed in the lighting unit in such a way that a height of the lens is greater than a width of the lens. (All Figures; see at least [0040] onward)
In regard to claim 2, Woo et al disclose each lighting unit is configured to generate a light pattern on different parts of the road, the lighting units being stacked above one another in a vertical direction when the headlamp module is mounted on a vehicle. (This is inherent based on design. Only some of each LED’s field is cross.)
In regard to claim 3, Woo et al disclose each lighting unit is configured to generate a light pattern on a same part of the road, the lighting units being stacked above one another in a vertical direction when the headlamp module is mounted on a vehicle. (Again, some of these distributions will cross, some of it will not.)
In regard to claim 4, Woo et al disclose the headlamp module is configured to be inclined relative to a vertical axis of an automotive vehicle when the headlamp module is mounted on an automotive vehicle, the angle of inclination between a vertical axis of an automotive vehicle and a longitudinal axis of the lens being less than or equal to 45 degrees. (As depicted—the applicant has to realize has large 45 degrees is as an angle for automobile lighting design—that’s a huge angle, and all art the examiner can think of meets this criteria—an angle of zero relative the vertical is also an acceptable angle under BRI.)
In regard to claim 8, Woo et al disclose an automotive vehicle comprising at least one headlamp module according to claim 1. (“Automotive vehicle” is broad—a vehicle lamp is clearly implied.)
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (US 2023/0417384 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Woo et al disclose fail to disclose that conservation of lighting performance in the event of inclining of the headlamp module is achieved by movement of the focal point of the lens in a transverse direction of an automotive vehicle when the headlamp module is mounted on an automotive vehicle.
This appears to be purported merit, which is not patentable claim language.
If the matter is simply adjusting the focal point of a lens, this is a routine optimization to a PHOSITA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the focal point of the lens of Woo et al in order to optimize the resulting light distribution. This is a result effective variable.
In regard to claim 6, Woo et al fail to disclose the height of the lens is between two and four times greater than its width. Woo et al teaches a lens that is eight times greater in its height then its width.
The ratio of height to width is routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the ratio of height and width of the lens of Woo et al in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
In regard to claim 7, Woo et al fail to disclose the height of the lens is substantially equal to 75mm (3.0 in) and its width is substantially equal to 25mm (1.0 in).
However, the Federal Circuit 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. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the size of the light source of Wood et al in order to make a compact device with an optimized light distribution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jung et al (US 2025/0334241 A1) disclose a vehicle lamp.
Jung et al (US 2025/0164092 A1) disclose a vehicle lamp.
Wu (US 2024/0418332 A1) disclose a vehicle light.
Bae et al (US 2024/0183508 A1) disclose a lamp module.
Yan et al (US 2016/0033101 A1) disclose a vehicle lamp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875