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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 28 March 2025 has been entered. No claims have been amended. Claims 10-14, 17-18, and 28 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-9, 15-16, and 19-27 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 15, and 19 being independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “...second high-beam light source unit includes a plurality of light source units, and the high-beam lens portion includes a plurality of high-beam lens portions corresponding to the plurality of light source units...,” as recited in claim 27, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation recites: “...either a first high-beam light source unit that include...or a second high-beam light source unit...,” which renders the claim indefinite. While the claim recites the first and second high-beam light source units in the alternative, the limitations that follow positively refer to both. Thus, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations are to include said light source units in the alternative, or collectively. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as require both first and second high-beam light source units as follows: --... and a second high-beam light source unit...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24-27 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 24.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation recites: “...the second high-beam light source unit includes a plurality of light source units, and the high-beam lens portion includes a plurality of high-beam lens portions corresponding to the plurality of light source units...,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is referring to the lens portions of the light source units of the second high beam light source unit, or of portions of the first and second light source units or first high-beam light source unit previously recited. For purposes examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: --...the second high-beam light source unit includes a plurality of light source units, and the high-beam lens portion includes a plurality of high-beam lens portions corresponding to the plurality of light source units of the second high-beam light source unit...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US 2023/0250932 A1, herein referred to as: Inoue).
Regarding claim 15, Inoue discloses a vehicle lamp (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a low-beam light source unit (30, 40); a high-beam light source unit (20); and a projection lens (50) that projects light from each of the light source units to form a required light distribution (as shown in Figs. 3-4), wherein in the projection lens (50), a low-beam lens portion (52) that projects light from the low-beam light source unit (30, 40) to form a low-beam light distribution (e.g., as described in paragraphs [0019]) and a high-beam lens portion (51) that projects light from the high-beam light source unit (20) to form a high-beam light distribution (e.g., as described in paragraph [0021]) are integrally formed (as shown in Fig. 1), a front surface of the projection lens (a front surface of 51 or 52) is formed as a uniform curved surface or flat surface (as shown in Fig. 1, each of said surfaces is observed as a smooth continuous surface and are thus uniform), and a rear surface of the projection lens is formed such that at least one of the lens portions has a different curved surface (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue discloses a vehicle lamp (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a low-beam light source unit (30, 40); a high-beam light source unit (20); and a projection lens (50) that projects light from each of the light source units to form a required light distribution (as shown in Figs. 3-4), wherein a low-beam lens portion (52) that projects light from the low-beam light source unit (30, 40) to form a low-beam light distribution (e.g., as described in paragraphs [0019]) and a high-beam lens portion (51) that projects light from the high-beam light source unit (20) to form a high-beam light distribution (e.g., as described in paragraph [0021]) are integrally formed (as shown in Fig. 1), the light source units are capable of having different structures (as shown in Fig. 1, furthermore, one skilled in the art would recognize these are not the only structures that can be utilized for each of the light source units), and a front surface of the projection lens (a front surface of 51 or 52, or the front surfaces of 51 and 52, collectively) has the same lens shape regardless of a difference in the light source units (the shape of the lens does not change, regardless of a difference in the light source units as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4. The Examiner notes that the claim does not require the front surface to be formed by the entire front surface, nor does the front surface need to be continuous across the entire front surface).
Regarding claim 20, Inoue discloses (Figs. 1-4) the front surface of the projection lens (a front surface of 51 or 52, or the front surfaces of 51 and 52, collectively) is formed as a uniform curved surface or flat surface (as shown in Fig. 1, each of said surfaces of 51 or 52 is observed as a smooth continuous surface and are thus uniform), and a rear surface of the projection lens is formed with different curved surfaces corresponding to the disposed light source units (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4).
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2023/0250932 A1, herein referred to as: Inoue), in view of Kurosu et al. (US 2019/0086052 A1, herein referred to as: Kurosu).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches or suggests a vehicle lamp (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a low-beam light source unit (30, 40); a high-beam light source unit (20); and a projection lens (50) that projects light from each of the light source units to form a required light distribution (as shown in Figs. 3-4), wherein in the projection lens (50), a low-beam lens portion (52) that projects light from the low-beam light source unit (30, 40) to form a low-beam light distribution (e.g., as described in paragraphs [0019]) and a high-beam lens portion (51) that projects light from the high-beam light source unit (20) to form a high-beam light distribution (e.g., as described in paragraph [0021]) are integrally formed (as shown in Fig. 1).
Inoue does not explicitly teach that the high-beam light source unit includes a correction optical part that reduces lens aberration.
Kurosu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) the high-beam light source unit (303) includes a correction optical part (24) that reduces lens aberration (e.g., paragraphs [0050]- [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the high-beam light source unit includes a correction optical part that reduces lens aberration, such as taught or suggested by Kurosu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or appearance of the device (e.g., by reducing aberration induced by the projection lens).
Regarding claims 2-3, Inoue does not explicitly teach that the correction optical part includes an optical member that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the light source unit and incident on the high-beam lens portion (as recited in claim 2); wherein the correction optical part includes a lens having a positive refractive power (as recited in claim 3).
Kurosu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) the correction optical part (24) includes an optical member (S4) that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the light source unit (as shown in Figs. 1-15) and incident on the high-beam lens portion (22); wherein the correction optical part includes a lens having a positive refractive power (S4 has positive refractive power, also see claim 1: “...a lens surface on the side of the light source unit of the light-source-side synthetic resin has a positive power...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the correction optical part includes an optical member that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the light source unit and incident on the high-beam lens portion (as recited in claim 2); wherein the correction optical part includes a lens having a positive refractive power (as recited in claim 3), such as taught or suggested by Kurosu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or appearance of the device (e.g., by reducing aberration induced by the projection lens).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) a front surface (the claim does not specify if the “a front surface” is the entire front surface, or just one portion of the front surface which may form the front surface, such as in a projection lens formed with integral surface structures for multiple light sources and beam patterns, thus, 51 or 52 forms a front surface) of the projection lens (50) is formed as a uniform curved surface (as shown in Fig. 1, each of said surfaces is observed as a smooth continuous surface and are thus uniform), and a rear surface of the projection lens (a rear surface being formed by the light incident surface of 50 entirely, or one of the incident surfaces opposite the front surface of 51 or 52, respectively) is formed such that the high-beam lens portion and the low-beam lens portion have different curved surfaces (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue does not explicitly teach that the correction optical part of the high-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction.
Kurosu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) the correction optical part (24) of the high-beam light source unit is configured as a lens (24) having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (as shown in Fig. 4, additionally, the symmetry of lens 24 in general implies it has both vertical and horizontal [positive] refractive power).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the correction optical part of the high-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, such as taught or suggested by Kurosu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or appearance of the device (e.g., by reducing aberration induced by the projection lens).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) the front surface (the front surface of 51 or 52) of the projection lens (50) is a curved surface that is curved in both the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) a front surface (a front surface formed by 51 and 52, collectively) of the projection lens (50) is configured such that the high-beam lens portion (51) and the low-beam lens portion (52) have different curved surfaces (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Kurosu, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Kronberger et al. (US 2021/0317965 A1, herein referred to as: Kronberger).
Regarding claim 4, neither Inoue nor Kurosu explicitly teach that the correction optical part includes a reflector that converges and reflects light.
Kronberger teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-8) the correction optical part (230 and/or 240) includes an optical member (230 and/or 240) that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the light source unit (110) and incident on the lens portion (both 230 and 240 reduce the beam angle by condensing light emitted from 110 by reflection), and wherein the correction optical part includes a reflector that converges and reflects light (both 230 and 240 reduce the beam angle by condensing light emitted from 110 by reflection, and see paragraph [0009], “...due to the use of reflective components for the reflector and collimator, chromatic aberration is additionally avoided...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the correction optical part includes a reflector that converges and reflects light, such as taught or suggested by Kronberger, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or appearance of the device (e.g., by reducing aberration induced by the projection lens).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Kurosu, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Tatsukawa (US 2015/0138822 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue does not explicitly teach that the low-beam light source unit includes a concentration low-beam light source unit that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution and a diffusion low-beam light source unit that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region, a lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and a lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction.
Tatsukawa teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5D) the low-beam light source unit (Fig. 1) includes a concentration low-beam light source unit (10a) that illuminates a central region (Ra) including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution (as shown in Fig. 4) and a diffusion low-beam light source unit (10b and/or 10c) that illuminates a wide region (Rb and/or Rc) wider than the central region (as shown in Fig. 4), a lens portion (20a) of the concentration low-beam light source unit (Fig. 1) is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (as shown in Fig. 1, said lens has a surface symmetry which induces refractive power in both the horizontal and vertical directions), and a lens portion (20b, 20c, also note alternatively 60b, 80b) of the diffusion low-beam light source unit (Fig. 1) is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction (as noted in paragraph [0029], and as shown in Figs. 5B and 5D, said lenses 20b and 20c can be cylindrical and follow a straight line, and thus, possess refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction as the lenses are designed to confine light in the vertical to a region ahead of the vehicle, but spread light in the horizontal direction to make a wide beam profile shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the low-beam light source unit includes a concentration low-beam light source unit that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution and a diffusion low-beam light source unit that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region, a lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and a lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction, such as taught or suggested by Tatsukawa, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a low-beam light source unit which can produce a desired illumination pattern for vehicular applications).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Tatsukawa.
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) the high-beam lens portion (51) is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, said lens has a surface symmetry which induces refractive power in both the horizontal and vertical directions).
Inoue does not explicitly teach that the low-beam light source unit includes a concentration low-beam light source unit that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution and a diffusion low-beam light source unit that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region, a lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and a lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction.
Tatsukawa teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5D) the low-beam light source unit (Fig. 1) includes a concentration low-beam light source unit (10a) that illuminates a central region (Ra) including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution (as shown in Fig. 4) and a diffusion low-beam light source unit (10b and/or 10c) that illuminates a wide region (Rb and/or Rc) wider than the central region (as shown in Fig. 4), a lens portion (20a) of the concentration low-beam light source unit (Fig. 1) is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (as shown in Fig. 1, said lens has a surface symmetry which induces refractive power in both the horizontal and vertical directions), and a lens portion (20b, 20c, also note alternatively 60b, 80b) of the diffusion low-beam light source unit (Fig. 1) is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction (as noted in paragraph [0029], and as shown in Figs. 5B and 5D, said lenses 20b and 20c can be cylindrical and follow a straight line, and thus, possess refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction as the lenses are designed to confine light in the vertical to a region ahead of the vehicle, but spread light in the horizontal direction to make a wide beam profile shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the low-beam light source unit includes a concentration low-beam light source unit that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution and a diffusion low-beam light source unit that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region, a lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and a lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit is configured as a lens having a refractive power in the vertical direction and no refractive power in the horizontal direction, such as taught or suggested by Tatsukawa, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a low-beam light source unit which can produce a desired illumination pattern for vehicular applications).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Myojin et al. (JP 2014086306 A, herein referred to as: Myojin).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Inoue teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) rear surfaces of the low-beam lens portion and the high-beam lens portion are formed as different curved surfaces (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4); or wherein the front surface (the front surface of 51 or 52) of the projection lens is formed as a uniform curved surface or flat surface (as shown in Fig. 1, each of said surfaces is observed as a smooth continuous surface and are thus uniform).
Inoue does not explicitly teach that front surfaces of the low-beam lens portion and the high-beam lens portion are formed as the same curved surface or flat surface, and rear surfaces of the low-beam lens portion and the high-beam lens portion are formed as different curved surfaces (as recited in claim 21); or wherein the low-beam light source unit includes a concentration low-beam light source unit that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution and a diffusion low-beam light source unit that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region, and a rear surface of a low-beam lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit and a rear surface of a low-beam lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit are formed as different curved surfaces (as recited in claim 22).
Myojin teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) front surfaces of the low-beam lens portion (18A1 to 18A4) and the high-beam lens portion (18B1 to 18B3) are formed as the same curved surface or flat surface (as shown in Figs. 1-3), and rear surfaces of the low-beam lens portion and the high-beam lens portion are formed as different curved surfaces (as shown in Fig. 1); or wherein the low-beam light source unit (18A1 to 18A4) includes a concentration low-beam light source unit (for producing P1Lo) that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution (as shown in Fig. 4a) and a diffusion low-beam light source unit (for producing P2Lo, P3Lo, and/or P4Lo) that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region (as shown in Fig. 4A), and a rear surface of a low-beam lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit and a rear surface of a low-beam lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit are formed as different curved surfaces (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of front surfaces of the low-beam lens portion and the high-beam lens portion are formed as the same curved surface or flat surface, and rear surfaces of the low-beam lens portion and the high-beam lens portion are formed as different curved surfaces (as recited in claim 21); or wherein the low-beam light source unit includes a concentration low-beam light source unit that illuminates a central region including a hot zone of the low-beam light distribution and a diffusion low-beam light source unit that illuminates a wide region wider than the central region, and a rear surface of a low-beam lens portion of the concentration low-beam light source unit and a rear surface of a low-beam lens portion of the diffusion low-beam light source unit are formed as different curved surfaces (as recited in claim 22), such as taught or suggested by Myojin, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a low-beam light source unit which can produce a desired illumination pattern for vehicular applications), and/or improving the appearance of the device or reducing the complexity of manufacturing the device (e.g., by forming the front surface as a single curved surface, for appearance or to ease removal from a mold).
Claims 23-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Myojin and Ishida (JP 2016039021 A).
Regarding claim 23, as is best understood, Inoue does not explicitly teach that the high-beam light source unit includes a first high-beam light source unit that includes a plurality of light-emitting elements, and projects light emitted from each of the light-emitting elements with a required light distribution by the high-beam lens portion, and a second high-beam light source unit that projects light emitted from one light-emitting element and converged and reflected by a reflector with a required light distribution by the high-beam lens portion, and front surfaces of high-beam lens portions of the first high-beam light source unit and the second high-beam light source unit are formed as the same curved surface or flat surface.
Myojin teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the high-beam light source unit (18D) includes a first high-beam light source unit (e.g., an 18D forming P1Hi and P2Hi) that includes a plurality of light-emitting elements (corresponding to each respective 18D forming P1Hi and P2Hi), and projects light emitted from each of the light-emitting elements with a required light distribution by the high-beam lens portion (as shown in Figs. 4, 13a, and 13b), and a second high-beam light source unit (e.g., an 18D forming P3Hi, or the largest width high-beam pattern in Fig. 4b) that projects light emitted from one light-emitting element and converged and reflected by a reflector with a required light distribution by the high-beam lens portion (as shown in Figs. 4, 13a, and 13b), and front surfaces of high-beam lens portions of the first high-beam light source unit and the second high-beam light source unit (e.g., the front surface of 20) are formed as the same curved surface or flat surface (as shown in Figs. 13a and 13b. Additionally, Myojin teaches that lighting units are limited and may be combined as desired so long as the high and low beam conditions are satisfied: “...first lamp unit and the second lamp unit may use different optical systems. For example, the first lamp unit may be a projector type [for example, refer to the first lamp units 18C .sub.1 to 18C .sub.4 ], and the second lamp unit may be a direct projection type [for example, refer to the second lamp units 18B .sub.1 to 18B .sub.3...”]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the high-beam light source unit includes a first high-beam light source unit that includes a plurality of light-emitting elements, and projects light emitted from each of the light-emitting elements with a required light distribution by the high-beam lens portion, and a second high-beam light source unit that projects light emitted from one light-emitting element and converged and reflected by a reflector with a required light distribution by the high-beam lens portion, and front surfaces of high-beam lens portions of the first high-beam light source unit and the second high-beam light source unit are formed as the same curved surface or flat surface, such as taught or suggested by Myojin, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a high-beam light source unit which can produce a desired illumination pattern for vehicular applications), and/or improving the appearance of the device or reducing the complexity of manufacturing the device (e.g., by forming the front surface as a single curved surface, for appearance or to ease removal from a mold).
The combined teachings of Inoue and Myojin teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for said plurality of light-emitting elements of said first high-beam light source unit capable of selectively emitting light.
Ishida teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) said plurality of light-emitting elements of said first high-beam light source unit capable of selectively emitting light (“...the plurality of light emitting units 30 are configured so as to light individually...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of light-emitting elements of said first high-beam light source unit capable of selectively emitting light, such as taught or suggested by Ishida, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a high-beam light source unit which can produce a desired illumination pattern for vehicular applications, or with a high beam pattern to reduce glare of drivers in other vehicles).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings of Inoue, Myojin, and Ishida teach or suggest, as modified in claim 23 above, that rear surfaces of the high-beam lens portions of the first high-beam light source unit and the second high-beam light source unit are formed as different curved surfaces (as shown in Figs. 13a-13b of Ishida). Further, any rational for combining said references is the same here as set forth in claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 27, as is best understood, the combined teachings of Inoue, Myojin, and Ishida teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the second high-beam light source unit includes a plurality of light source units, and the high-beam lens portion includes a plurality of high-beam lens portions corresponding to the plurality of light source units of the second high-beam light source unit.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the second high-beam light source unit includes a plurality of light source units, and the high-beam lens portion includes a plurality of high-beam lens portions corresponding to the plurality of light source units, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to increase the brightness of the beam pattern produced thereby, and/or improve the customizability of the device (e.g., by providing an additional high beam pattern to the lighting device, or one to supplement the present high beam patterns in the event of failure).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Myojin and Ishida, as applied to claim 24 above, and in further view of Kronberger.
Regarding claim 25, neither Inoue, Myojin, nor Ishada explicitly teach the first high-beam light source unit includes a correction optical part that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the first high-beam light source unit and incident on the high-beam lens portion, and the correction optical part includes a correction lens having a positive refractive power or a correction reflector that converges light.
Kronberger teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-8) the light source unit includes a correction optical part (230 and/or 240) that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the light source unit (110) and incident on the lens portion (both 230 and 240 reduce the beam angle by condensing light emitted from 110 by reflection), and the correction optical part includes a correction lens having a positive refractive power or a correction reflector that converges light (both 230 and 240 reduce the beam angle by condensing light emitted from 110 by reflection, and see paragraph [0009], “...due to the use of reflective components for the reflector and collimator, chromatic aberration is additionally avoided...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the first high-beam light source unit includes a correction optical part that reduces an incident angle of light emitted from the first high-beam light source unit and incident on the high-beam lens portion, and the correction optical part includes a correction lens having a positive refractive power or a correction reflector that converges light, such as taught or suggested by Kronberger, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or appearance of the device (e.g., by reducing aberration induced by the projection lens). For the alternative correction lens having a positive refractive power, please see claim 4 above.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, in view of Myojin and Ishida, as applied to claim 24 above, and in further view of Ishida et al. (US 2003/0198060 A1, herein referred to as: ‘8060).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings of Inoue, Myojin, and Ishida teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the second high-beam light source unit is capable of forming an additional high-beam light distribution above the low-beam light distribution and further forming an overhead light distribution above the additional high-beam light distribution.
‘8060 teaches or suggests (Fig. 14) the second high-beam light source unit (30) is capable of forming an additional high-beam light distribution above the low-beam light distribution (Po’, reference the low beam pattern in Fig. 12) and further forming an overhead light distribution above the additional high-beam light distribution (Pa’, as shown in Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Inoue and incorporated the teachings of the second high-beam light source unit is capable of forming an additional high-beam light distribution above the low-beam light distribution and further forming an overhead light distribution above the additional high-beam light distribution, such as taught or suggested by ‘8060, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a high-beam light source unit which can produce a desired or additional high beam illumination pattern for vehicular applications).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US-20210332964-A1 to Giraud and US-20170002991-A1 to Yagi, pertinent to the projection lens and corrective lens features, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
