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
Claims 12-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/5/2025.
Furthermore, claim 7 is elected instead of 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7, 9-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein positions of facets belonging to at least one of both opposing areas…” The opposing areas are undefined. The Examiner suggests setting forth a clear indication of the “opposing areas” in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “both opposing areas … include a first area… a second area”. The limitation appears to be setting forth that one opposing area has a first and second area and the other opposing area has a first and second area, but the Examiner is unclear as the claim further recites “the first area” and “the second area” as singular. The Examiner suggests defining the “both opposing areas” as “a first area” and “a second area” in claim 1.
The claim further recites that “light emitted… are emitted by crossing each other…” It is unclear what structure causes the light to cross one another and where the claim requires the light to cross, i.e. it is unclear if it is within the optical member or after emission. The Examiner suggests reciting the structure that causes the light to cross and that the light beams “converge”.
All other claims rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of facets recede rearward… such that a step formed between adjacent facets is directed rearwards”. A “step” does not have a direction such as “forwards” or “rearwards” but is only a designation that there is a difference between each facet. The Examiner is unclear if the step is intended to designate a structural relationship or not.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun (U.S. 12,078,310) in view of Jun (U.S. 12,092,282)
Regarding claim 1, Mun teaches a lamp for a vehicle (see fig. 1-3), comprising:
at least one light source (light source 100); and
at least one optical member (inner lens 200, MFL lens 300) disposed in front of the at least one light source to allow light emitted from the at least one light source to be irradiated therethrough in a forward direction to form a beam pattern (see col. 9 lines 17-29, low beam pattern),
wherein the at least one optical member includes a plurality of facets (see fig. 2, facets of emission face, 321, 322, 310) arranged in a predetermined direction to constitute a light emission surface of the at least one optical member,
wherein the light is emitted from the light emission surface in the forward direction,
wherein a center line (line perpendicular to center line CL in figure 3, see annotated figure 1) vertically extends in a perpendicular manner to an optical axis of the at least one optical member, and
wherein positions of facets belonging to at least one of both opposing areas with respect to the center line of the light emission surface among the plurality of facets recede rearward as the positions thereof are arranged away from the center line to a side, such that a step is formed between adjacent facets (see fig. 2, both sides recede).
Mun does not specifically teach that the step between adjacent facets is directed rearward.
Jun teaches that the step between adjacent facets is directed rearward (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used rearward steps of Lee along with the rear curvature of Mun to form the facets to have the same length to emission from the focal point to provide consistent irregularities and enable each facet to emit parallel light see (see col. 4 lines 32-40).
Furthermore, Mun teaches that the peripheral facets may be formed at different distances with respect to the focal point to adjust the light distribution, see col. 11 lines 8-28, see col. 9 lines 53-64.
PNG
media_image1.png
571
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
271
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mun teaches that an edge area of each facet that forms the step among the plurality of facets includes a curved shape having a predetermined curvature (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Mun teaches that the beam pattern is formed such that the light is irradiated below a cut-off line (low beam), wherein the cut-off line includes a first line and a second line, which extend and are arranged in a left-right direction, and wherein the first line is disposed higher than the second line (step formed in cut off, standard low beam has the first and second cut off line, see col. 9 lines 32-38).
Regarding claim 4, Mun teaches that the first line corresponds to a driving lane of the vehicle, and the second line corresponds to an opposite lane to the driving lane (definition of low beam light distribution).
Regarding claim 5, Mun teaches that the both opposing areas with respect to the center line of the light emission surface include: a first area through which light for forming the first line is emitted; and a second area through which light for forming the second line is emitted, and wherein the light emitted from the first area and the light emitted from the second area are emitted by crossing each other such that an arrangement direction of the first line and the second line is opposite to an arrangement direction of the first area and the second area (cross each other at CF, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Mun teaches that positions of facets belonging to the first area of the light emission surface among the plurality of facets recede rearward as the positions thereof are arranged away from the center line to a side, such that a step formed between adjacent facets is directed rearward (see fig. 2, both sides are formed rearward).
Regarding claim 7, Mun teaches that positions of facets belonging to the second area of the light emission surface among the plurality of facets recede rearward as the positions thereof are arranged away from the center line to a side, such that a step formed between adjacent facets is directed rearward (see fig. 2, both sides are formed rearward).
Regarding claim 9, Mun teaches that the positions of the plurality of facets recede rearward as the positions thereof are arranged away from a position of the facet disposed at a center of the light emission surface toward both opposing sides, such that a step formed between the adjacent facets is directed rearward (see fig. 2, each facet curves rearward).
Regarding claim 11, Mun teaches that the at least one optical member includes: a light guiding lens (lens 200) disposed in front of the at least one light source; and an optical lens (300) disposed in front of the light guiding lens, and wherein the light emission surface of the at least one optical member constitutes a light emission surface of the optical lens (see fig. 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Jun in view of ‘619 (U.S. 12,203,619).
Regarding claim 10, Mun teaches that the at least one light source includes a plurality of light sources arranged in a vertical direction, and wherein the at least one optical member includes a plurality of optical members arranged in an arrangement direction of the plurality of light sources.
‘619 teaches that the at least one light source includes a plurality of light sources arranged in a vertical direction (see fig. 1), and wherein the at least one optical member includes a plurality of optical members (see fig. 1) arranged in an arrangement direction of the plurality of light sources (array of light sources each with a collimating optic and facet output lens).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used multiple light sources and corresponding optical members as taught by ‘619 to duplicate the structure of Mun to use the device of Mun as a matrix headlamp which is more capable of adapting to different lighting conditions and requirements, see col. 1-col. 2 of ‘619.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin (U.S. 12,392,467) teaches an optical member with facets extending rearward in one direction from the central axis of each lens.
The Examiner notes that neither of these prior art teaches the rearward formation of facets in both the first and second area, and suggest incorporating both claims 6 and 7 into claim 1 to overcome such.
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 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 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875