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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements has been 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) 1-5, 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida (US 2004/0223337).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a headlamp for vehicles, the headlamp comprising:
a plurality of light sources (24, 34, and 44, Paragraphs 0072, 0081, 0082, and 0085); and
a plurality of lenses (16, 20, 30, and 40, Figs. 2, 4, and 7) arranged in front of the plurality of light sources in a main radiation direction, each of the plurality of lenses having a flat light entry surface (back side of 20, 30, 40) on a side facing the plurality of light sources and having a curved light exit surface (front side of 20, 30, and 40) on a side facing away from the plurality of light sources, wherein at least two of the plurality of lenses are connected integrally to each other to produce a predetermined light distribution (the applicant is advised that it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace construction means such as fastening and welding. In re hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973) in this case they are assembled together), wherein the plurality of lenses comprise:
a plurality of front field light lenses (40, Fig. 7) to provide a partial light distribution (P3, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0082) in a front field area of a low beam distribution,
a plurality of range light lenses (20, Fig. 2) to provide a partial light distribution (P1, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0072) in a range area of the low beam distribution (Fig. 9), and
a plurality of high beam lenses (30, Fig. 4) to provide a partial light distribution (P2, Figs. 9, 10, and 11) in a long-distance area above a cut-off line of the low beam distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Ishida discloses corresponding ones of the plurality of light sources are arranged directly adjacent to the flat light entry side of the plurality of front field light lenses, the plurality of range light lenses, and the plurality of high beam lenses (Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ishida discloses the plurality of range light lenses or the plurality of front field light lenses are configured such that an edge of the plurality of light sources is reproduced to form a cut-off line of the low beam distribution (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Ishida discloses the plurality of the range light lens for suppressing light beams in an outer edge area of a light beam radiated by the plurality of light sources (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Ishida discloses a first light module (40 and 44) is provided having the plurality of front field light lenses (40, Fig. 7) and a corresponding number of the plurality of light sources (44, Fig. 7),
the plurality of front field light lenses being configured such that a first partial light distribution (P3, Fig. 9) is reproduced in the front field area of the low beam distribution, and
a focus of the first partial light distribution is arranged in a portion of the front field area, such that an oncoming lane is illuminated (Fig. 9 specifically both sides of the road are illuminated).
Regarding claim 10, Ishida discloses a second light module (20 and 24) is provided having the plurality of range light lenses (20, Fig. 2) and a corresponding number of the plurality of light sources (24, Fig. 2),
a first one of the plurality of range light lenses being configured such that a first partial light distribution thereof is reproduced in the range area of the low beam distribution, wherein an area directly below the cut-off line is illuminated (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Ishida discloses the flat light entry surface of each of the high beam lens, the first range light lens, and the second range light lens extend in a common plane (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Ishida discloses a marginal edge (top flat section of 30, Fig. 4) of one of the plurality of lenses extends to a light entry surface thereof (Fig. 4).
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) 6, 8, 9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US 2004/0223337) in view of Meyrenaud (US 2016/0076721).
Regarding claim 6, Ishida fails to explicitly teach the required limitations of the front field light lenses.
Meyrenaud teaches a first one (17, Fig. 2b which is the distribution shown in Fig. 5) of the plurality of front field light lenses is angled relative to a second one (20, Fig. 2b, which is the distribution shown in Fig. 6) of the plurality of front field light lenses;
the first one of the plurality of front field light lenses produces a first partial light distribution (Fig. 5);
the second one of the plurality of front field light lenses produces a second partial light distribution (Fig. 6); and
the second partial light distribution has a greater horizontal scattering width than the first partial light distribution (specifically the difference is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 with 5 showing 5 blocks being the distribution while Fig. 6 shows 5 and two partial blocks on each side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have modified the lighting device of Ishida as taught by Meyrenaud, in order to have angle lenses relative to each other to provide lighting device with more horizontal light distribution.
Regarding claim 8, Ishida fails to explicitly teach the light sources being angled.
Meyrenaud teaches the flat light entry surface of the first one of the plurality of front field light lenses is arranged at an acute angle relative to a vertical plane with respect to the flat light entry surface of the second one of the plurality of front field light lenses (Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 9, Ishida teaches the high beam lenses and the front field lenses being integrally connected to each other (the applicant is advised that it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace construction means such as fastening and welding. In re hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973) in this case they are assembled together).
Ishida fails to teach a high beam lens between the first and second one of the plurality of front field light lenses.
However, Examiner takes official notice in pointing out that it would have been well within one of ordinary skill in the art to have one of the plurality of high beam lenses is arranged between the first one of the plurality of front field light lenses and the second one of the plurality of front field light lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have modified the lighting device of Ishida to have a high beam lens between the first and second front field light lenses, in order to teach an order of lighting devices as needed for a given requirement given that the lighting device would work equally well with the lights in any order.
Regarding claim 11, Ishida fails to explicitly teach the required limitations of the first range light lens.
Meyrenaud teaches the plurality of range light lenses includes a first range light lens (17, Fig. 2B) and a second range light lens (20, Fig. 2B);
the first range light lens generates a first partial light distribution (Fig. 5) and the second range light lens generates a second partial light distribution (Fig. 6); and
the second partial light distribution has a greater distance to a horizontal zero line than does the first partial light distribution (Specifically the left side of Fig. 6B is lower down from the zero line than the light shown in Fig. 5B on the left side).
Regarding claim 12, Ishida fails to explicitly teach the second range light lens is configured such that a 75R light value of the low beam distribution is generated by the partial light distribution of the second range light lens.
Examiner takes official notice in pointing out that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the second range light lens is configured such that a 75R light value of the low beam distribution is generated by the partial light distribution of the second range light lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have modified the lighting device of Ishida to have the second range light lens configured such that a 75R light value of the low beam distribution is generated, in order to meet the legal requirements of the lighting device set forth by a given government.
Regarding claim 13, Ishida teaches the high beam lenses and the range light lenses being integrally connected to each other (the applicant is advised that it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace construction means such as fastening and welding. In re hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973) in this case they are assembled together).
Ishida fails to teach a high beam lens between the first and second one of the plurality of range light lenses.
However, Examiner takes official notice in pointing out that it would have been well within one of ordinary skill in the art to have one of the plurality of high beam lenses is arranged between the first range light lens and the second range light lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have modified the lighting device of Ishida to have a high beam lens between the first and second range lenses, in order to teach an order of lighting devices as needed for a given requirement given that the lighting device would work equally well with the lights in any order.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest the second one of the plurality of front field light lenses is configured to have a maximum horizontal right hand scattering angle with respect to an optical axis is greater than a maximum horizontal left hang scattering angle as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
The closest prior art, Ishida (US 2004/0223337) in view of Meyrenaud (US 2016/0076721) teaches several limitations and their specifics as rejected above.
However Ishida in view of Meyrenaud fail to disclose the second one of the plurality of front field light lenses is configured to have a maximum horizontal right hand scattering angle with respect to an optical axis is greater than a maximum horizontal left hang scattering angle and the specifics of how the left and right headlamp would be altered and the second range light lens configured such that a 75R light value of the low beam distribution is generated by the partial light distribution of the second range light lens as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant' s own disclosure, to modify the Ishida in view of Meyrenaud reference in the manner required by the claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fischer (US 2021/0239290), fisher et al. (US 2024/0247775), and Uchida et al. (US 2018/0106455) teach lenses with flat backs and curved fronts which are integrally formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875