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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/12/2025 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
The applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 3/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Lamberterie et al (US 2019/0079217 A1).
In regard to claim 1, De Lamberterie et al disclose a headlight for a motor vehicle, comprising;
at least one light source (2);
an optical system (1, 3, 4) with a plurality of optical components, which is configured to shape the light emitted by the at least one light source and to project it into the space outside of the motor vehicle in such a way that a dipped beam distribution of the headlight is produced, which has a light-dark boundary and light components arranged above this light-dark boundary in order to implement an overhead sign (OS) function (see [0095]-[0097], [0102], [0103]); and
at least one refractive structure (13 and 14), which is arranged on at least one of the optical components and has a plurality of structural elements (23), the refractive structure being configured to deflect light passing through the optical component into a region above the light-dark boundary in order to implement the OS function, wherein characterized in that at least one of the structural elements is annular or partially annular ([0079]-[0080]). (Figures 1-7; see at least [0049] onward)
In regard to claim 2, De Lamberterie et al disclose the structural elements of the refractive structure are annular or partially annular. (Figure 1-3, 6 and 7; see at least [0080])
In regard to claim 3, De Lamberterie et al disclose the annular or partially annular structural elements are arranged coaxially or concentrically to one another. (Figure 1-3, 6 and 7; see at least [0080])
In regard to claim 4, De Lamberterie et al disclose a first of the annular or partially annular structural elements has a smaller diameter than a second of the annular or partially annular structural elements. (Figure 1-3, 6 and 7; see at least [0080])
In regard to claim 5, De Lamberterie et al disclose at least one of the structural elements is designed partially annular in a manner such that it extends over less than 360 degrees in the circumferential direction over a sector of a circle. (Figure 1)
In regard to claim 6, De Lamberterie et al disclose the structural elements of the at least one refractive structure have a width (b) of between 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm. (See [0080])
In regard to claim 7, De Lamberterie et al disclose at least one of the optical components is designed as a lens, in particular as includes an aspherical lens, the refractive structure being integrated into the aspherical lens. (Figure 1-3)
In regard to claim 8, De Lamberterie et al disclose at least one of the optical components is designed as a lens having a Fresnel structure, the refractive structure being integrated into the Fresnel structure. (See [0055])
In regard to claim 9, De Lamberterie et al disclose the Fresnel structure comprises annular steps, each of which has a useful flank and an interference flank, the useful flank being that region of the step which is set up for light to pass through it, and wherein the interference flank is that region of the step which is not set up for light to pass through it, with both the useful flanks and the interference flanks of the Fresnel structure including an angle of incidence with the optical axis of the lens. (Figure 6 and 7; see [0067]-[0073])
In regard to claim 10, De Lamberterie et al disclose the integration of the refractive structure into the Fresnel structure leads to a partial change in the angle of incidence of the interference flanks of the Fresnel structure, and wherein the useful flanks of the Fresnel structure are not changed by the integration of the refractive structure into the Fresnel structure. (Figure 6 and 7; see [0067]-[0073])
In regard to claim 11, De Lamberterie et al disclose the headlight comprises a primary optical system and a secondary optical system, wherein the primary optical system is set up configured to shape the light emitted by the at least one light source in such a way that an extended light distribution is produced, and wherein the secondary optical system 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 of the headlight. (See Figure 4)
In regard to claim 12, De Lamberterie et al disclose the secondary optical system has a projection lens. (See [0082]-[0089])
In regard to claim 13, De Lamberterie et al disclose the refractive structure is arranged on the projection lens of the secondary optical system. (See Figures 1-4, 6, and 7)
In regard to claim 14, De Lamberterie et al disclose the refractive structure is integrated into the coupling side or the decoupling side of the projection lens of the secondary optical system. (See [0054]-[0055])
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lamberterie et al (US 2019/0079217 A1).
In regard to claim 15, De Lamberterie et al disclose the refractive structure is arranged on the optical component and is set up configured to deflect light passing through the optical component into a region above the light-dark boundary in order to implement the OS function.
De Lamberterie et al fail to disclose a method of manufacture including injection molding.
However, injection molding is notoriously old and well-known for making optical components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to for the optical components by injection molding in order to make the device using a low cost means.
Moreover, the limitations of “manufactured from plastic by injection molding”, are product-by-process limitations. Patentability for such limitations is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. See MPEP 2113
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kloos et al (US 2025/0084975 A1) disclose a headlamp.
Kloos et al (US 2025/0075869 A1) disclose a projection headlamp.
Fischer et al (US 2025/0067410 A1) disclose a headlamp.
Bungenstock et al (US 2024/0117949 A1) disclose a Fresnel projection lens.
Sugihara et al (US 2024/0003510 A1) disclose a vehicle lamp.
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