DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivas (U.S. 11,585,513) in view of Dunn (U.S. 12,022,635, filed 3/14/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Rivas teaches a lighting device (see fig. 1) for vehicles, the lighting device comprising:
a housing with an opening (body 5);
a lens (lens 9) that covers the opening in the housing;
a light source unit (see fig. 3a, led circuit boards 614) inside the housing,
the light source containing:
a plurality of light sources (leds) for generating a predefined light distribution (headlamp distribution, low beam or high beam see col. 18 lines 22-43), and
a control unit (led driver) configuredfor generating a control signal for controlling the light source (see col. 2 line 41)
wherein the control signal switches off the light source unit (vehicle turned off).
Rivas does not teach that sections of the light sources in the light source unit are successively switched off and/or dimmed over the course of an anti condensation period, wherein during the anti condensation period, no condensation accumulates on the inner surface of the lens.
Dunn teaches that sections of the light sources in the light source unit are successively switched off and/or dimmed over the course of an anti condensation period, wherein during the anti condensation period, no condensation accumulates on the inner surface of the lens (see col. 4, “restricting the ability to turn off or reduce power to the lighting elements, combination thereof, or the like. Modified operations may reduce, prevent, control, and/or eliminate the formation of condensation within the display assembly by … increasing power to lighting elements (e.g., turning on, increasing power, preventing dimming”; see col. 12 lines 1-2 “reduce local dimming, and/or reduce dynamic dimming of the illumination device”) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prevent the light sources of Rivas from dimming or deactivating entirely as taught by Dunn to prevent the rapid temperature change of the light housing which generates condensation, and without the use of an additional heater, see col. 4 lines 35-45 of Dunn.
Dunn does not teach that antic condensation period is at least two hours.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the length of time for the anticondensation period. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examine finds that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the duration to prevent excessive energy consumption while removing all condensation
The Examiner notes that claims 1-9 are apparatus claims. Limitations such as “successively switched off”, “anticondensation period of at least two hours” “no condensation accumulates on the inner surface of the lens”, are functional limitations. A functional limitation is a feature that is limited by “what it does rather than by what it is" In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). Although functional language does not render a claim improper, the prior art is only required to teach structure capable of performing the function as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Dunn teaches that the switch-off protocol switches off and/or dims the light sources successively during the anti-condensation period, during which the temperature (TIN) inside the housing remains higher than the condensation temperature (TTAU) (see col. 2 lines 38-67, maintains internal chamber above dewpoint).
Regarding claim 3, Dunn teaches that the switch-off signal causes the temperature (TIN) on the inner surface of the lens to be higher than the condensation temperature (TTAU) by at least 2 Kelvin (2-5 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dunn and Rivas does not teach that the control signal causes the light sources in the light source unit to be switched off successively.
The Examiner finds that the function of dimming or of successively switching off light sources is equivocal in the art to dimming the light sources.
A prior art element may be found to be equivalent even if the structure is not identical. Factors that establish a prima facie case of equivalence are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
With respect to claim 4, the switch off protocol is not used for illumination or a specific light distribution, but rather to introduce power into the light sources so that the waste heat is used to prevent condensation. The light emitted is immaterial. Therefore, whether the wattage is provided in low amounts to all of the light sources, or in higher amounts to select light sources does not affect the operation of the device as the wattage is the same either way.
Regarding claim 5, Dunn teaches that the control protocol causes at least some of the light sources to dim during the anti-condensation period (tA) to obtain a predefined, lower brightness (“dimming” see col. 4 lines 7-19).
Regarding claim 6, Dunn does not specifically teach that the light sources are controlled such that the brightness (B) of the light source unit during the anti-condensation period (tA) decreases linearly or in increments.
The Examiner finds that a continuous decrease of power during the switch off process would occur as Dunn teaches a calculated dewpoint temperature and maintains a specific spread with said dewpoint temperature. As the temperature of the device cools, the difference between the internal and external temperature of the device is reduced, lowering the dewpoint continuously.
However, it is unclear if Dunn teaches that said decrease is linearly or in increments.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the method of decreasing the brightness to be linear or incremental. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examiner finds that the manner in which the anticondensation period is implemented is an obvious optimization depending on the dewpoint temperature. However, it is immaterial as Dunn teaches maintaining the system above the dew point to prevent condensation. Finding the optimum equation, i.e. linear or otherwise is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 7, Dunn does not specifically teach that the anti-condensation period (tA) lasts at least two hours.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the length of time for the anticondensation period. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examine finds that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the duration to prevent excessive energy consumption.
Regarding claim 8, Dunn does not teach that the light sources are controlled such that the decrease in the brightness (B) follows a parabolic curve during the anti- condensation period (tA).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the method of decreasing the brightness to be parabolic. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examiner finds that the manner in which the anticondensation period is implemented is an obvious optimization depending on the dewpoint temperature. However, it is immaterial as Dunn teaches maintaining the system above the dew point to prevent condensation. Finding the optimum equation, i.e. parabolic or otherwise is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 9, Rivas teaches that the light sources are controlled at a start (ti) of the anticondensation period (tA) to generate the low beam light distribution (see col. 18, low beam setting).
Regarding claim 10, Dunn teaches a method for controlling a light source unit that contains numerous light sources (backlight unit light source), the method comprising the step of: successively switching off and/or dimming (dimming, see col. 12) at least some of the light sources in the light source unit, such that the brightness (B) of the light source unit decreases during the anticondensation period (tA), until the brightness (B) reaches a full blackout at an end (t2) of the anticondensation period (tA) (see col. 4 lines 9-13, reduces ability to turn off or reduce the power to the lighting elements to prevent temperature dropping below dew point).
Dunn does not specifically teach a continuous decrease during the switch off process.
The Examiner finds that a continuous decrease of power during the switch off process would occur as Dunn teaches a calculated dewpoint temperature and maintains a specific spread with said dewpoint temperature. As the temperature of the device cools, the difference between the internal and external temperature of the device is reduced, lowering the dewpoint continuously.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the method of decreasing the brightness to be linear or incremental. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examiner finds that the manner in which the anticondensation period is implemented is an obvious optimization depending on the dewpoint temperature. However, it is immaterial as Dunn teaches maintaining the system above the dew point to prevent condensation. Finding the optimum equation, i.e. linear or otherwise is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 11, Dunn teaches that when the brightness (B) of the light source unit during the anticondensation period (tA) is reduced, the decrease in temperature on the inner surface of the lens and/or inside the housing is small enough that the temperature on the inner surface of the lens and/or the temperature (TIN) inside the housing remains higher than the dew point temperature (Dunn maintains temperature above dew point)).
Regarding claim 12, Dunn does not teach that the brightness (B) of the light source unit decreases linearly during a anticondensation period (tA) of at least two hours.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the length of time for the anticondensation period. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examine finds that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the duration to prevent excessive energy consumption.
Regarding claim 13, Dunn does not teach that the decrease in the brightness (B) of the light source unit follows a parabolic curve during a anticondensation period (tA) of at least 1 hour.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the length of time for the anticondensation period. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. The Examine finds that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the duration to prevent excessive energy consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that asserts “Dunn teaches away from the present disclosure of preventing condensation of a lighting device by only describing the increase in power of the lights therein rather than the removal of power”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner finds that such a reading of Dunn is too narrow, and also does not anticipate one of ordinary skill in the art. Dunn teaches a variety of different modified operations and manners of preventing condensation. Dunn specifically teaches increasing or decreasing power to the lighting elements to prevent condensation.
Dunn sets forth that normal operations are to decrease illumination levels which result in lowering the dewpoint. The modified operation replaces the normal operation and may “[restrict] the ability to turn off or reduce power to the lighting elements” (see col. 4 lines 10-15). Restricting the ability to reduce power to the lighting elements results in the lighting elements power being lowered, but at a slower rate or maintaining above a threshold. This is specifically set forth in col. 12 lines 1-2 “the modified operating mode(s) may comprise commands to… reduce local dimming, and/or reduce dynamic dimming of the illumination device”.
Additionally, Dunn specifically teaches reducing power if operational temperatures exceed maximum operating temperatures, “If the maximum operating temperature is reached or exceeded at one or more of the sensors, power to the backlight may be reduced until temperatures fall below the maximum operating temperatures.” see col. 5 lines 24-28. I.e. Dunn teaches that power may be increased or maintained, but that once temperature is above the safe operating temperature or the condensation point, the power is then reduced, shown in figures 4-8.
In conclusion, the Examiner finds that Dunn sets forth a structure that prevents condensation by providing adjusted power to the lighting units after the vehicle is deactivated. This specifically includes “reduc[ing] local dimming, and/or reduc[ing] dynamic dimming”, but the Examiner additionally finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the process may apply increasing or reducing power depending on the desired temperature or maximum operating temperature. In light of one of ordinary skill in the art, one would find it obvious to implement the teachings of Dunn to slowly dim the light of Rivas to prevent condensation.
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 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