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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ [0031] line 4, the first elements are given the reference number 13, which is already given to the positioning elements
in ¶ [0034] both the holding means and the lens holder have the same reference number “8”. The list of reference numbers states that the lens holder should have the reference number 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: LIGHTING DEVICE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH LENS HOLDER
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a holding means, wherein the holding means is configured to hold the first lens and the second lens.” The “holding means” is interpreted under 112(f) as having the corresponding structure in the specification or equivalent (¶ [0007] cup shaped element).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “positioning elements” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
No structure is recited in the Specification for the positioning elements. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as any element that is capable of performing the recited function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mochizuki, US 2024/0052988 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki discloses “A lighting device for a motor vehicle, the lighting device comprising: an imaging component having an active surface on which light-emitting diodes or laser diodes are arranged in a matrix for a targeted generation of pixels of a light distribution (LED array 32, Fig. 3; ¶ [0044]);
projection optics, the projection optics being configured to project light emanating from the active surface toward an exterior of the motor vehicle, the projection optics comprising a first lens (80, Fig. 4), a second lens (70, Fig. 4), and a third lens (60, Fig. 4), wherein the light emanating from the active surface first passes through the third lens, then through the second lens, and then through the first lens (seen in Fig. 4); and a lens holder (54, Fig. 3-4), wherein the lens holder is suitable and configured to hold at least the third lens (seen in Fig. 4), wherein the lighting device comprises a holding means (90, Fig. 3-4), wherein the holding means is configured to hold the first lens and the second lens (seen in Fig. 3-4).”
Regarding claim 2, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the imaging component is a solid-state LED array (¶ [0044]).”
Regarding claim 3, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the holding means is a one-piece component and is cup-shaped (seen in Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the holding means is disposed between the first lens and the second lens (seen in Fig. 3-4; the cover surrounds the space between the first and second lens) .”
Regarding claim 6, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the holding means is configured as an aperture diaphragm, wherein the aperture diaphragm is configured to limit light projected by the projection optics toward the exterior of the motor vehicle (seen in Fig. 4, the holding means covers the edge of the lens).”
Regarding claim 7, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the third lens is configured to produce light with an approximately parallel beam path, such that the third lens is configured as a collimator (¶ [0073]; seen in Fig. 4).”
Regarding claim 8, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “including a heat sink arranged on the imaging component (a heat sink arranged on the imaging component (20, Fig. 3).”
Regarding claim 9, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “ the holding means includes positioning elements for fastening a diaphragm (92, Fig. 3, the securing portions are capable of fastening a diaphragm).”
Regarding claim 10, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “ the holding means is a plastic injection-molded component formed of a thermoset or thermoplastic material (¶ [0069] “resin”).”
Additionally, the limitation has been considered but not given any patentable weight. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 11, Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “ A motor vehicle comprising the lighting device of claim 1 (¶ [0040] “vehicle lamp”).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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:
Claim 5 recites, inter alia, a lighting device for a motor vehicle, the lighting device comprising: an imaging component having an active surface on which light-emitting diodes or laser diodes are arranged in a matrix for a targeted generation of pixels of a light distribution; projection optics, the projection optics being configured to project light emanating from the active surface toward an exterior of the motor vehicle, the projection optics comprising a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens, wherein the light emanating from the active surface first passes through the third lens, then through the second lens, and then through the first lens; and a lens holder, wherein the lens holder is suitable and configured to hold at least the third lens, wherein the lighting device comprises a holding means, wherein the holding means is configured to hold the first lens and the second lens and “the holding means has first recesses for fastening the first lens on a side of the holding means facing away from the imaging component; and the holding means has second recesses for fastening the second lens on a side of the holding means facing the imaging component.”
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al., US 2024/0344680 A1 discloses a lens holder for a second and third lens
Abe, US 2016/0097504 A1 discloses a lens holder
Anzai, US 2014/0029287 A1 discloses a lens holder
Motohashi, US 2019/0086051 A1 discloses a lens holder
Sato, US 2023/0097767 A1 discloses a lens holder
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3811. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-6pm.
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 R Greece can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL CHIANG/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875