DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/9/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 2008/0062712 A1) in view of Valcamp et al (US 2008/0316759 A1) or Potter et al (US 2018/0347781 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Woodward discloses a headlight assembly for a vehicle, comprising:
a spread pattern light source (24) including a first plurality of pixel light sources;
a first lens (32) assembly overlying the spread pattern light source and configured to project the light from the spread pattern light source over a first field of view;
a spot pattern light (28) source including a second plurality of pixel light sources; and
a second lens (36) assembly overlying the spot pattern light source and configured to project the light from the spot pattern light source over a second field of view smaller than the first field of view and overlapping the first field of view,
PNG
media_image1.png
448
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly each have substantially identical constructions (this is broad under BRI—those lens look pretty darn similar, they’re just of different size but of “substantially identical construction”). (Figure 1; see at least [0016] onward)
Woodward fail to disclose that the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly each have identical optical components including identical numbers of lens elements with identical sizes and shapes.
Both Valcamp et al (Figure 20) and Potter et al (Figure 6B) first and second lens assemblies with identical optical components including identical numbers of lens elements with identical sizes and shapes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lenses of Woodward in the manner taught by both Valcamp et al and Potter et al in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
In regard to claim 11, Woodward discloses a lighting system for a vehicle, comprising:
two headlight assemblies (this is implied in the reference—cars are mandated in the USA to have a right and left headlamp assemblies), with each of the headlight assemblies including:
a spread pattern light source (24) including a first plurality of pixel light sources;
a first lens (32) assembly overlying the spread pattern light source and configured to project the light from the spread pattern light source over a first field of view;
a spot pattern light (28) source including a second plurality of pixel light sources; and
a second lens (36) assembly overlying the spot pattern light source and configured to project the light from the spot pattern light source over a second field of view smaller than the first field of view and overlapping the first field of view,
wherein the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly each have substantially identical constructions (this is broad under BRI—those lens look pretty darn similar, they’re just of different size but of “substantially identical construction”). (Figure 1; see at least [0016] onward)
Woodward fail to disclose that the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly each have identical optical components including identical numbers of lens elements with identical sizes and shapes.
Both Valcamp et al (Figure 20) and Potter et al (Figure 6B) first and second lens assemblies with identical optical components including identical numbers of lens elements with identical sizes and shapes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lenses of Woodward in the manner taught by both Valcamp et al and Potter et al in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
In regard to claim 2 and 12, Woodward discloses the spread pattern light source and the spot pattern light source are operable together in a high-beam mode to generate a combined high-beam projection pattern.
In regard to claim 3 and 13, Woodward discloses the first plurality of pixel light sources define a first aspect ratio and the second plurality of pixel light sources define a second aspect ratio different than the first aspect ratio. (As depicted, these are different aspect ratios—see pixel pattern in Figure 1.)
In regard to claim 4 and 14, Woodward discloses the first aspect ratio of the spread pattern light source is greater than the second aspect ratio of the spot pattern light source. (As depicted, the size of the spread light source is bigger than the spot light source.)
In regard to claim 5 and 15, Woodward fails to disclose the first aspect ratio of the spread pattern light source is 4:1 and the second aspect ratio of the spot pattern light source is one of 3:1 or 2:1.
However, determining the optimal aspect ratio is routine experimentation. The age of the reference must be considered as well—this is from 2008. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the aspect ratios of the spot and spread lamps in order to optimize the resulting distribution.
This is a result-effective variable.
In regard to claim 6, 7, 16, and 17, Woodward fails to disclose that the lamps have 1000 pixels. However, this is a mere duplication of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to maximize the number of pixel light sources in order to achieve the brightness distribution possible.
In regard to claim 8, 9, 18, and 19, Woodward fails to disclose the first field of view has a width of about 32-degrees and the second field of view has a width of about 16-degrees.
However, optimizing field of view is routine optimization, especially on a such an old reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the field of field in order to optimize the resulting distribution.
This is a result-effective variable.
In regard to claim 10 and 20, Woodward fails to disclose a controller in communication with each of the spread pattern light source and the spot pattern light source and configured to communicate pattern data thereto to adjust an illumination pattern produced by the combination of the spread pattern light source and the spot pattern light source.
However, the Examiner takes notice that controllers for independent control of pixel light sources are notoriously old and well-known, and considering the age of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a controller to effect the independent illumination of each light source in order to provide a plurality of distributions.
In regard to claim 21, the combination of Woodward, Valcamp et al and Potter et al teach that the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly are identical and interchangeable.
In regard to claim 22, Woodward inherently discloses the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly each include a lens barrel having a generally tubular shape (these lenses are not floating in space, they require a lens barrel) and which is configured to hold a corresponding set of the lens elements, and wherein the lens barrels in each of the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly are identical (identical is broad here—they would both be tubular in shape—the court has established that differences in size are still considered identical).
Potter et al further teaches a lens barrel in Figure 6B—the limitation of “generally tubular” renders the claim broad. The lens barrel of Potter et al can said to be “generally tubular”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant failed to considered the teachings of all the references made of notice in the non-final mailed 12/03/2025—both Valcamp et al (US 2008/0316759 A1) or Potter et al (US 2018/0347781 A1) were known the to applicant at that time, and both teach plural identical lenses. It would have been obvious to use identical lenses in order to shape the resulting distribution. As such, in the spirit of compact prosecution, this action is first action Final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights