DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed 8/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/18/2026 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 2022/0034470 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Chen et al disclose a luminous module for producing a beam configured to contribute to the formation of a low beam, comprising a light source capable of emitting light rays, and a single-piece optical component having:
an entrance dioptric interface intended to receive light rays from the light source (51 and 52),
a collimation member (12) configured to produce a reflection, within the optical component, of light rays that are received by the entrance dioptric interface,
a folder (20 and 22) including a crest line (22b) having two cutoff lines that join at an inflection point, and
an exit dioptric (31) interface through which the beam is projected, wherein the collimation member includes a first portion configured to reflect a first part of the light rays toward a first zone of the crest line that does not includes the inflection point, and a second portion configured to reflect a second part of the light rays toward a second zone of the crest line that is separate from the first zone and includes the inflection point (some rays from the collimator will go towards the first zone and some will go toward the second zone—the limitation of “zones” is broad under BRI—these zones may be arbitrary). (Figure 1; see at least [0044] onward)
In regard to claim 2, Chen et al disclose the first portion and/or the second portion includes a plurality of sectors that are spaced apart from one another. (The limitations of “portions” and “sectors” is broad—they may be arbitrarily defined under BRI.)
In regard to claim 3, Chen et al disclose the plurality of sectors of the first portion includes two lateral sectors that are disposed on either side of a central sector of the collimation member. (Again, “portions” and “sectors” are broad under BRI. They Examiner may arbitrarily define portions and sectors. This needs to be narrowed somehow.)
In regard to claim 4, Chen et al disclose the two lateral sectors and the central sector are disposed on a surface of the collimation member that is situated above an optical axis of the optical component.
In regard to claim 5, Chen et al disclose the second portion includes the central sector.
In regard to claim 6, Chen et al disclose the collimation member includes a complementary sector configured to reflect a third part of the light rays toward the entire crest line. (Again, this is broad. The collimator can be sliced into sectors that reflect a third part of the light that hits the crest line.)
In regard to claim 7, Chen et al disclose the entrance dioptric interface includes a central portion configured to transmit light rays toward the second zone of the crest line.
In regard to claim 9, Chen et al disclose the inflection point is situated on the optical axis of the optical component. (This is broad and poorly defined. There is some line that crosses the inflection point and the optical axis. It appears also that this is directly taught.)
In regard to claim 11, Chen et al disclose the light source is configured to emit the light rays along the optical axis of the optical component, the entrance dioptric interface , the collimation member and the exit dioptric interface being aligned along the optical axis.
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) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2022/0034470 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Chen et al fail to disclose in a direction of the optical axis of the optical component, the distance separating the folder and the exit dioptric interface is equal to the focal distance of the exit dioptric interface.
However, this is an optimization of the focal length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the focal length of the waveguide in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
In regard to claim 10, Chen et al disclose at least one of the two cutoff lines is curvilinear.
Where this is argued, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a curvilinear cutoff line in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to arguments teaching of a “high beam” versus the limitation of a “low beam”, these limitations are not well defined by either the prior art or the claim. All that is required under BRI is a beam. If the applicant presses to appeal, the Examiner simply reopen into a 103 obvious argument that a PHOSITA knows how to shape beam path.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In terms of the collimator, which is argued to not be taught, this isn’t true. It’s right there. (11) and (12) point to it. That is a collimator.
In regard to a folder, what is a folder? The applicant is arguing that it isn’t taught but recites no limitations that limit the scope of its definition. That center section (2) clearly folds and have an intersection line.
The applicant’s problem is broadness. Amendments that clearly define the scope of their invention would advance prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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