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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on February 23 of 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-38 have been added. Claims 1, 3 and 21-38 are still pending in this application, with only claim 1 being independent.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 23 of 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat. 12,276,390 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Applicant’s terminal disclaimer has over come the rejection of claims 1-20 based on the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting, as detailed in sections 4-26 of the previous Office Action (mailed November 21, 2025); therefore, the cited double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because it appears to be narrative in form using overly intricate, verbose, and redundant language which might be considered unclear as it reintroduces previously defined elements. In addition, note that the recitation “the open front” lacks proper antecedent basis (the claim previously define both an “open face” and an “open front face”).
The cited deficiencies do not amount to indefinitiveness under 35 U.S.C 112(b), since, in light of the originally filed descriptions and drawings, the subject matter the applicant intended to define is readily apparent. However, appropriate correction is required to place the claims in proper form for allowance (see proposed claim amendment, below).
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 1. An illumination assembly configured for providing auxiliary illumination for use with a vehicle, the illumination assembly comprising:
a housing defining an interior with an open front face;
a frame provided at the open front face;
a lens cover coupled to the open front face and at least partially overlying the frame;
a forward illuminator configured to emit a trajectory of light in a forward direction; and
a downward illuminator configured to emit a trajectory of light in a downward direction.
CLAIM 21. The illumination assembly of claim 1, is configured to emit the trajectory of light in the downward direction from the bottom face.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 35 is indefinite as the characteristics of the trajectory of light a downward illuminator must project to “enable inspection” of a vehicle could not be readily ascertained. The claim, or even the originally filed description, fails to provide any guidance informing one skilled in the art at, the time of applicants effective filing date, of the differences between a regular downward illuminator and a “downward illuminator” configured to enable inspection of a vehicle.
The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, any “downward illuminator” as inherently configured to enable inspection of a vehicle.
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, 23, 32, 33, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORAZEM (U.S. Pat. 10,308,170) in view of DEERING (Chinese Pat. Doc. CN 112082136 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, ORAZEM discloses an illumination assembly 102 (as seen in Figure 5) configured for providing auxiliary illumination (as seen in Figure 5) for use with a vehicle 10A (as seen in Figure 5), the illumination assembly 102 including a housing 102 (body including elements 110,112 and 114, as seen in Figure 7) defining an interior (inside of element 102, as seen in Figure 7) with an open face (face of element 102 including elements 110 and 112, as seen in Figure 7); the illumination assembly 102 providing a forward illuminator 112 (as seen in Figure 7) configured to emit a trajectory of light in a forward direction (see lines 48-51 of column 5); and a downward illuminator 110 (as seen in Figure 7) configured to emit a trajectory of light in a downward direction (see lines 43-47 of column 5).
ORAZEM fails to explicitly disclose the illumination assembly 102 including a frame provided at the open face; a lens cover coupled to the open face and at least partially overlying the frame.
However, DEERING discloses an illumination assembly 20 (as seen in Figures 1 and 2) including housing 24 (as seen in Figures 1 and 2) defining an interior (interior of element 24, as seen in Figure 2) with an open face (front face of element 24, as seen in Figure 2), a frame 68 (as seen in Figure 2) provided at the open face (as seen in Figure 2); a lens cover 32 (as seen in Figures 1 and 2) coupled to the open face (as seen in Figures 1 and 2) and at least partially overlying the frame 68 (as seen in Figures 1 and 2). Also, note Figures 37 and 41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the Prior Art illumination assembly 20 of DEERING with the patented illumination assembly 102 of ORAZEM, according to known methods taught by ORAZEM and DEERING, to yield the predictable result of providing a headlight including a housing with frame for attachment of a lens, as taught by DEERING (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 23, ORAZEM individually disclose, or suggest in combination with DEERING, all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), except the forward illuminator 112 and the downward illuminator 110 being configured to emit different respective colors of illumination.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of different colored illuminators, specifically for providing auxiliary illumination in vehicles, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply include configure the forward illuminator 112 and the downward illuminator 110 in the illumination assembly 102 of ORAZEM (as previously modified by DEERING), to obtain the predictable result of enabling the illumination assembly 102 to provide illumination is a plurality of desired colors. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 32, ORAZEM individually disclose, or suggest in combination with DEERING, all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), further disclosing the downward illuminator 110 is configured to emit a trajectory of light produced by at least one of a modulated laser or a static aperture (the open face in the open frame 68 of DEERING is a static aperture, as seen in Figure 2 of DEERING).
Regarding dependent claim 33, ORAZEM individually disclose, or suggest in combination with DEERING, all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), with ORAZEM further disclosing a lighting control system 162 (as seen in Figure 16) configured to operably control at least one of ON/OFF light emission control of the downward illuminator 110 (see lines 20-24 of column 9) or illumination intensity control of the downward illuminator 110.
Regarding dependent claim 35 (as best understood), ORAZEM individually disclose, or suggest in combination with DEERING, all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), with ORAZEM further disclosing the downward illuminator 110 is further configured to emit a trajectory of light in a downward direction (see lines 43-47 of column 5) configured to provide illumination to enable inspection of the vehicle (inherent, as any downward trajectory of light could enable inspection of a vehicle).
Regarding dependent claim 36, ORAZEM individually disclose, or suggest in combination with DEERING, all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), with ORAZEM further disclosing a controller module 104 (as seen in Figure 16) configured to operably control at least one of the forward illuminator 112 or the downward illuminator 110 based on an operating state of the vehicle (element 104 enables user’s control based vehicle status, as evidenced in lines 47-60 of column 9).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORAZEM (U.S. Pat. 10,308,170) in view of DEERING (Chinese Pat. Doc. CN 112082136 A), further in view of MENZE (U.S. Pat. 6,154,122).
ORAZEM individually disclose, or suggests in combination with DEERING (as previously detailed), all the limitations of the claim, except the illumination assembly 102 being mounted to a plow assembly 100.
However, MENZE discloses an illumination assembly 20 (as seen in Figure 1) for providing auxiliary illumination for a vehicle 22 (as seen in Figure 1), the illumination assembly 20 mounted to a plow assembly 10 (as seen in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the illumination assembly 102 of ORAZEM, as previously modified by DEERING, mounted directly to the plow assembly 100, as taught by MENZE, to provide increased lighting in the area of the plow, and the area being plowed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 22, 24-31, 34, 37 and 38 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed February 23 of 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 3 as being unpatentable over ORAZEM (U.S. Pat. 10,308,170) in view of DEERING (Chinese Pat. Doc. CN 112082136 A), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically a downward illuminator configured to emit a trajectory of light in a downward direction. The applicant further argues that auxiliary headlight 110 (cited by the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed “downward illuminator”) is designed to illuminate the ground surface upon which the vehicle travels in place of vehicle headlight 114, not provide a trajectory of light in the downward direction. The applicant even further argues that the auxiliary headlight 110 and the auxiliary supplemental light 112 (cited by the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed “forward illuminator”) are shown by ORAZEM in Figure 7 as both facing in a common and forward direction.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3, the applicant present no arguments, except stating that such claim depends from independent claim 1, and would be allowable when/if the independent claim is allowed. Applicant’s failure to distinctly and specifically traverse such rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), has been interpreted as an admission that the individual features added by claim 3 fails to further distinguish the subject matter defined by the independent claims over the Prior Art already made of record.
In response to applicant’s arguments that ORAZEM (U.S. Pat. 10,308,170) failed to disclose individually, or even suggest in combination with DEERING (Chinese Pat. Doc. CN 112082136 A), a downward illuminator configured to emit a trajectory of light in a downward direction, the applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004).
In this case, as clearly disclosed by ORAZEM and admitted by the applicant, illuminator 110 (i.e., the claimed “downward illuminator”) is designed to illuminate the ground surface upon which the vehicle travels (see lines 43-47 of column 5). That is, at least a portion of light emitted by the illuminator 110 must necessarily be directed in a downward trajectory (i.e., towards the ground surface). The illuminator 110 was considered as reasonable anticipating the claimed “downward illuminator configured to emit a trajectory of light in a downward direction”, as such illuminator 110 does indeed projects light in a downward direction towards the ground upon which the vehicle travel (see lines 43-47 of column 5).
Regarding applicant’s argument that ORAZEM discloses the auxiliary headlight 110 and the auxiliary supplemental light 112 as both facing in a common and forward direction, the applicant is advised that such analysis constitutes a leap from that explicitly shown of Figure 7, as, while the front end of both elements 110 and 112 are shown, the internal structure (e.g., positioning and relative arrangement of reflectors, lenses and other light modifiers, with respect to the light sources) of such illuminators is unknown; any reasonable conclusions of the trajectory of the projected light is precluded. Even if applicant’s unreasonable conclusion was taken as fact, and auxiliary headlight 110 and the auxiliary supplemental light 112 are considered as both facing in a common and forward direction, that would not negate the possibility of auxiliary headlight 110 being configured to project light in a downward trajectory, it would only mean that auxiliary supplemental light 112 also projects light forward and downward to the ground (as disclosed by ORAZEM in lines 43-47 of column 5, as previously detailed).
Conclusion
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights