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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment submitted 12 March 2025 has been entered. Currently Claims 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Specification
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 or similar is suggested: HEADLIGHT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING A REFRACTIVE STRUCTURE TO INFLUENC GRADIENT OF LIGHT-DARK BOUNDARY IN DIPPED BEAM DISTRIBUTION.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Lamberterie (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0079217).
.Regarding Claim 1, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1-6, 5a headlight for a motor vehicle, comprising at least one light source 2, an optical system with a plurality of optical components 1, 3, 4, which is set up configured to shape the light emitted by the at least one light source 2 and to project it into the space outside of the motor vehicle in such a manner that a dipped beam distribution F (Fig 5) of the headlight which has a light-dark boundary is produced C1 and at least one refractive structure 1 which is arranged on at least one of the optical components and has a plurality of structural elements (the prism ei has a ridge 23 Para 0079), the at least one structure 23 being set up configured to influence the gradient of the light intensity of the dipped beam light distribution in the region of the light-dark boundary C1, characterized in that wherein the structural elements 23 of the at least one refractive structure 1 have a width (b) of between 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm (para 0080).
Regarding Claim 2, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1 and 6-7, the headlight 5 according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the structural elements 23 is annular or partially annular (each ridge e1 has a ridge 23, Paras 0079-0080).
Regarding Claim 3, Lamberterie discloses in Figure 1, the headlight according to claim 2, wherein the annular or partially annular structural elements 23 are arranged coaxially or concentrically to one another.
Regarding Claim 4, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1-7, the headlight 5 according to claim 2 wherein a first of the annular or partially annular structural elements 23 has a smaller diameter than a second of the annular or partially annular structural elements 23.
Regarding Claim 5, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1-7, the headlight according to claim 2 wherein at least one of the structural elements 23 is designed partially annular in a manner such that it extends over less than in the circumferential direction, in particular extends only over a sector of a circle.
Regarding Claim 6, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1-3, the headlight according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the optical components 1 is designed as a lens 1, in particular as an aspherical lens, the refractive structure being integrated into the aspherical lens.
Regarding Claim 7, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1-7, the headlight according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the optical components is designed as a lens 1 having a Fresnel structure , the refractive structure ei or 23 being integrated into the Fresnel structure (Para 0050 and 0079).
Regarding Claim 8, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 1-7, the headlight according to claim 7, wherein the Fresnel structure comprises annular steps , each of which has a useful flank (11) and an interference flank, the useful flank being that region of the step which is set up for light to pass through it, and the interference flank being that region of the step which is not set up for light to pass through it, with the useful flanks of the Fresnel structure including a plane perpendicular to the optical axis X of the lens 1 at an angle of incidence having a value between 0.10 and 5.00 (Para 0067-0073).
Regarding Claim 10 Lamberterie discloses in Figures 4-5, and the headlight according to claim 1 wherein the headlight comprises a primary optical system and a secondary optical system (4), in particular wherein the primary optical system 3 is set up configured to shape the light emitted by the at least one light source 2 in such a way that an extended light distribution is produced, and wherein the secondary optical system 1 is set up configured to convert the extended light distribution produced by the primary optical system into a light distribution corresponding to the dipped light distribution Z1 of the headlight 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 4-5, the headlight according to claim 10, wherein the secondary optical system 1 has a projection lens (Para 0082-0089).
Regarding Claim 12, Lamberterie discloses the headlight according to claim 11, wherein the refractive structure 23 is arranged on the projection lens 1 of the secondary optical system.
Regarding Claim 13, Lamberterie discloses in Figures 4-5, the headlight according to claim 12, wherein the refractive structure 23 is integrated into the coupling side or the decoupling side of the projection lens 1 of the secondary optical system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberterie (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0079217).
Lamberterie does not explicitly discloses a method of manufacturing an optical component for the headlight according to claim 1 wherein the refractive structure 23 is arranged on the optical component and is set up configured to influence the gradient of the light intensity of the dipped beam distribution Z1 in the region of the light-dark boundary C1, characterized in that wherein the optical component is manufactured from plastic by injection molding, wherein the refractive structure is also produced during the injection molding wherein design data of the optical component to be manufactured are used for injection molding, which design data are generated in an iterative procedure with regard to the shape and the arrangement of the structural elements of the refractive structure 23, in particular wherein in an iteration step in the design data the shape or and/or the arrangement of at least one of the structural elements 23 is changed and wherein in a subsequent iteration step it is determined in a simulation whether an optical component manufactured in accordance with these design data fulfills the legal requirements for the dipped beam distribution (22), in particular in the region of the light-dark boundary C1.
Skirha discloses a lens that is injection molded (Col 3, lines 55-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use injection molding with the fabrication of lenses for vehicles. The claim would have been obvious because the technique injection molding was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Skirha. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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: \
Regarding Claim 9, the closest prior art does not teach or suggest alone or in combination the integration of the refractive structure into the Fresnel structure leading to a partial change in the angles of incidence (a}of the useful flanks (11) of the Fresnel structure wherein the angles of incidence of the interference flanks of the Fresnel structure are not changed by the integration of the refractive structure into the Fresnel structure (9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
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, Jong-Suk (James) 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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
