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 amendment filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claim 25 has been added. Claims 13-25 are still pending in this application, with claim 13 being independent.
The rejections of Claims 15-17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 13-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202022100173 (previously listed on the IDS filed 4/3/2025, see previously attached machine translation, hereinafter “DE”) in view of Schmidt et al. (DE 10101789, previously listed on the IDS filed 4/3/2025, see previously attached machine translation, hereinafter “Schmidt”).
Regarding claim 13, DE teaches a vehicle lighting device (motor vehicle headlight 1; see Figs. 1-2; Abstract; para. [0001]-[0002], [0024]-[0026], [0030]-[0033]) comprising a housing comprising a first housing part and a second housing part (primary housing part 3 comprises a first primary housing area 3a and a second primary housing area 3b; see Fig. 1; Abstract; para. [0024]-[0027]); and a closure plate unit comprising a one-piece closure plate which has a first region, which is optically transmissive at least in sections, and a second region, which is optically nontransmissive, opaque, or translucent (a closing disc or end plate 5 is connected to a front side of the housing 3 and comprises a first area 5a through which light can be transmitted essentially unimpeded, and a second area 5b which is described as essentially not optically relevant, which means the second area is transmissive to light and therefore at least translucent; see Figs. 1-2; Abstract; para. [0007], [0025]-[0033]), wherein the first housing part defines a first inner region covered by the first region of the closure plate and the second housing part defines a second inner region covered by the second region of the closure plate (the first housing part 3a is covered by the first region 5a of the closure plate 5, and the second housing part 3b is covered by the second region 5b of the closure plate; see Figs. 1-2; para. [0025]-[0029]), and wherein a premade break point is provided at a boundary between the first region of the closure plate and the second region of the closure plate (a taper 8 designed as a predetermined breaking point is provided between the first housing part 3a and the second housing part 3b of the housing 3, and between the first region 5a and the second region 5b of the closure plate 5; see Fig. 1; para. [0017], [0026]).
However, the teachings of DE fail to specifically disclose the premade break point is disposed on the closure plate.
Schmidt teaches a vehicle lighting device (a lighting device forming a headlight of a motor vehicle; see Fig. 2; Abstract; para. [0001], [0006], [0012]-[0013]) comprising a housing (housing 110; see Fig. 2; para. [0006], [0012]); and a closure plate unit comprising a one-piece closure plate which has a first region, which is optically transmissive at least in sections, and a second region (a translucent disk 114 made of plastic is disposed over a light exit aperture 12 of the housing 110 and comprises a first region 113 and a surrounding edge 115; see Fig. 2; para. [0006], [0012]-[0013]), wherein the closure plate has a premade break point at a boundary between the first region of the closure plate and the second region of the closure plate (the closure plate 114 has a predetermined breaking point 130 disposed at a location between the first region 113 and the second region 115 of the closure plate; see Fig. 2; para. [0012]-[0013]).
Therefore, in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle lighting device of DE by forming the premade break point on the closure plate unit. One would have been motivated to modify the known vehicle lighting device of DE by forming the premade break point on the closure plate unit, as taught by Schmidt, in order to ensure the closure plate separates at the first and second regions in the event of a collision to better absorb energy and dampen the impact from the collision (see Schmidt, par. [0010] for the motivation, along with par. [0013], which notes all the designs described for the predetermined breaking point 30 are also provided for the predetermined breaking point 130 on the plate 114).
However, regarding claim 14, the teachings of DE fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the closure plate unit has a supporting structure between the housing and the closure plate, and wherein the premade break point is formed at least partially in the supporting structure.
Schmidt teaches wherein the closure plate unit has a supporting structure between the housing and the closure plate, and wherein the premade break point is formed at least partially in the supporting structure (the surrounding edge 115 of the closure plate 114 supports the closure plate against the housing 110, and the premade break point 130 is formed at the boundary between the surrounding edge region and the first region 113 of the closure plate; see Fig. 2; para. [0012]-[0013]).
Therefore, in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle lighting device of DE by providing the closure plate unit with a supporting structure between the housing and the closure plate and forming the premade break point at least partially in the supporting structure. One would have been motivated to modify the known vehicle lighting device of DE by providing the closure plate unit with a supporting structure between the housing and the closure plate and forming the premade break point at least partially in the supporting structure, as taught by Schmidt, in order to ensure the closure plate separates from the housing in the event of a collision.
However, regarding claim 15, the teachings of DE fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the supporting structure is injection-molded onto the closure plate, and/or wherein the supporting structure comprises a first connecting portion connecting the first region of the closure plate to the first housing part and a second connecting portion, which is separate from the first connecting portion, connecting the second region of the closure plate to the second housing part.
Schmidt teaches wherein the supporting structure is injection-molded onto the closure plate, and/or wherein the supporting structure comprises a first connecting portion connecting the first region of the closure plate to the first housing part and a second connecting portion, which is separate from the first connecting portion, connecting the second region of the closure plate to the second housing part (the premade breaking point 130 between the first region 113 of the closure plate 114 and the supporting region 115 is formed of injection molded plastic; see Fig. 2; para. [0006], [0009], [0012]-[0013]; the Examiner notes that since par. [0013] states the predetermined breaking point 130 is formed according to the same designs as the predetermined breaking point 30 of Schmidt’s first embodiment, the predetermined breaking point 130 is also formed via injection molding).
Therefore, in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle lighting device of DE by injection-molding the supporting structure onto the closure plate, and/or wherein the supporting structure comprises a first connecting portion connecting the first region of the closure plate to the first housing part and a second connecting portion, which is separate from the first connecting portion, connecting the second region of the closure plate to the second housing part, since it has been held by the courts that patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is disclosed, or suggested, by the Prior Art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). One would have been motivated to modify the known vehicle lighting device of DE by injection-molding the supporting structure onto the closure plate, and/or wherein the supporting structure comprises a first connecting portion connecting the first region of the closure plate to the first housing part and a second connecting portion, which is separate from the first connecting portion, connecting the second region of the closure plate to the second housing part, as taught by Schmidt, in order to utilize a conventional process to cheaply and efficiently produce the closure plate without increasing costs.
However, regarding claim 16, the teachings of DE fail to specifically disclose wherein the premade break point is formed at least partially in the closure plate, and/or wherein an outer surface of the closure plate is formed seamlessly at least at the boundary between the first region and the second region.
Schmidt teaches wherein the premade break point is formed at least partially in the closure plate, and/or wherein the premade break point is formed seamlessly on an outside at least at the boundary between the first region and the second region (the premade break point 130 is formed in the closure plate 114; see Fig. 2; par. [0012]).
Therefore, in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle lighting device of DE by forming the premade break point at least partially in the closure plate, and/or wherein the premade break point is formed seamlessly on an outside at least at the boundary between the first region and the second region. One would have been motivated to modify the known vehicle lighting device of DE by forming the premade break point at least partially in the closure plate, and/or wherein the premade break point is formed seamlessly on an outside at least at the boundary between the first region and the second region, as taught by Schmidt, in order to ensure the closure plate separates at the first and second regions in the event of a collision to better absorb energy and dampen the impact from the collision (see Schmidt, par. [0010] for the motivation, along with par. [0013], which notes all the designs described for the predetermined breaking point 30 are also provided for the predetermined breaking point 130 on the plate 114).
Regarding claim 17, DE teaches wherein the premade break point is formed as a material thinning or wall thickness discontinuity, or wherein the premade break point is formed as a notch that narrows in a direction of an outer surface of the closure plate opposite to the housing (the premade break point 8 is formed as a tapered section and is therefore a material thinning and wall thickness discontinuity; see Fig. 1; para. [0017], [0026]).
However, regarding claim 18, the teachings of DE fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the closure plate unit or the closure plate is formed as a plastic molded part, and/or wherein the closure plate has a joint-free layer on an outside, and the joint-free layer forms a lens at least in the first region.
Schmidt teaches wherein the closure plate unit or the closure plate is formed as a plastic molded part, and/or wherein the closure plate has a joint-free layer on an outside, and the joint-free layer forms a lens at least in the first region (the closure plate 114 is made of translucent plastic; see Fig. 2; par. [0012]).
Therefore, in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle lighting device of DE by forming the closure plate unit or the closure plate as a plastic molded part, and/or wherein the closure plate has a joint-free layer on an outside, and the joint-free layer forms a lens at least in the first region, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to modify the known vehicle lighting device of DE by forming the closure plate unit or the closure plate as a plastic molded part, and/or wherein the closure plate has a joint-free layer on an outside, and the joint-free layer forms a lens at least in the first region, as taught by Schmidt, in order to ensure the closure plate unit or closure plate is formed of a suitably resilient material to protect the contents of the housing, since plastics translucent or transparent materials are notoriously well-known in the art as cheap, easy to form, and optically advantageous materials..
Regarding claim 19, DE teaches wherein the first region of the closure plate is transparent (the first region 5a of the closure plate 5 is an area through which light can be transmitted essentially unimpeded, which means this region is transparent; see Figs. 1-2; Abstract; para. [0007], [0025]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 20, DE teaches wherein the closure plate has a light guide, which is formed as a two-dimensional light guide, and wherein the light guide is adapted to couple light propagating through the light guide out such that the light emerges at a light exit face of the closure plate in a direction of surroundings of the vehicle lighting device (the closure plate 5 has a light guide arranged essentially along an optically relevant area 5c thereof through which light is emitted outside the lighting device 1; see Fig. 2; Abstract; para. [0017], [0031]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 22, DE discloses wherein the first housing part and the second housing part are spaced apart from one another, and/or wherein the first housing part and the second housing part are connected firmly to one another via the closure plate unit (the first housing part 3a and the second housing part 3b are spaced from each other by a rear wall 3c which connects the regions together along with the closure plate 5; see Fig. 1; para. [0024]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 23, DE teaches a motor vehicle comprising the vehicle lighting device according to claim 13, wherein the vehicle lighting device is formed as a front lamp (motor vehicle headlight 1; see Figs. 1-2; Abstract; para. [0001], [0024]).
Regarding claim 24, DE implicitly teaches a method for producing the vehicle lighting device according to claim 13 (motor vehicle headlight 1; see Figs. 1-2; Abstract; para. [0001]-[0002], [0024]-[0026], [0030]-[0033]).
However, the teachings of DE fail to disclose or fairly suggest the method comprises performing an injection-molding process in which the premade break point is formed off-tool.
Schmidt teaches a method for producing the vehicle lighting device, the method comprising performing an injection-molding process in which the premade break point is formed off-tool (the premade breaking point 130 is formed by injection molding a plastic material; see Fig. 2; para. [0006], [0009], [0012]-[0013]; the Examiner notes that since par. [0013] states the predetermined breaking point 130 is formed according to the same designs as the predetermined breaking point 30 of Schmidt’s first embodiment, the predetermined breaking point 130 is also formed via injection molding).
Therefore, in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of DE by performing an injection-molding process in which the premade break point is formed off-tool. One would have been motivated to modify the known method of DE by performing an injection-molding process in which the premade break point is formed off-tool, as taught by Schmidt, in order to utilize a conventional process to cheaply and efficiently produce the closure plate without increasing costs.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE (DE 202022100173) in view of Schmidt (DE 10101789) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 2025/0224091, hereinafter “Mori”). The teachings of DE modified by Schmidt have been discussed above.
However, the teachings of DE modified by Schmidt fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the second region of the closure plate is provided with a film that is, at least in portions, optically nontransmissive or translucent.
Mori teaches a vehicle lighting device (a lamp device 10 which is mounted on a vehicle such as an automobile; see Figs. 1-3; Abstract; para. [0030]-[0035], [0049]-[0050]) comprising a housing comprising a first housing part and a second housing part (a lamp housing 11C which comprises a base 12 having a first region containing a light source unit 14 and a second region containing an obstacle detection unit 20; see Figs. 1-3; para. [0033]-[0036], [0038]-[0044]); and a closure plate unit comprising a one-piece closure plate (a translucent cover or front cover 13 is mounted to the front surface or front side of the housing 12 to close a lamp body space 11K within the housing; see Figs. 1-3; para. [0033]-[0035], [0037], [0041], [0044], [0047]-[0050]) which has a first region, which is optically transmissive at least in sections (a part of the closure plate 13 which faces the light source unit 14 in the first region of the housing 12 transmits visible light; see Figs. 1-3; par. [0049]), and a second region, which is optically nontransmissive, opaque, or translucent (a portion 21S of the closure plate 13 which faces the obstacle detection unit 20 is configured to transmit electromagnetic waves sent out by the obstacle detection device 23 and to be non-translucent or semi-translucent to visible light; see para. [0035], [0037], [0041], [0044]-[0050]); wherein the second region of the closure plate is provided with a film that is, at least in portions, optically nontransmissive or translucent (a film made of a non-translucent material may be attached to the second region 21S of the closure plate 13 where the obstacle detection unit 20 faces; see para. [0044], [0050]).
Therefore, in view of Mori, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle lighting device of DE, as modified by Schmidt by providing the second region of the closure plate with a film that is, at least in portions, optically nontransmissive or translucent. One would have been motivated to further modify the known vehicle lighting device of DE by providing the second region of the closure plate with a film that is, at least in portions, optically nontransmissive or translucent, as taught by Mori, in order to prevent portions of the interior of the closure plate from being visible from the outside (see Mori, para. [0049]-[0050] for the motivation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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 21, the claim is considered to recite allowable subject matter for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 25 on pgs. 14-15 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to DE (DE 202022100173) that “the Office Action appears to misinterpret the second area 5b of the closure plate 5 as the optically relevant area 5c” and “Instead, ZKW Group discloses that the second area 5b of the closure plate is essentially optically irrelevant, such that the second area 5b of the closure plate 5 is not “optically nontransmissive, opaque or translucent” as recited in amended claim 13” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant is respectfully advised that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). See also In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Amended Claim 13 recites that the closure plate comprises “a second region, which is optically nontransmissive, opaque or translucent” in lines 4-5 thereof. Accordingly, in order to meet this limitation, the Prior Art must teach or suggest a closure plate having a second region which is either optically nontransmissive (i.e. opaque), or translucent.
In this case, DE’s second area 5b and optically relevant area 5c have not been misinterpreted or mixed up at all, and the rejections of Claim 13 and 19 in Sections 12 and 18 on pgs. 5-6 and 12 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/9/2026 intentionally references the second area 5b of the closure plate 5. DE specifically describes in par. [0007] that “the second area of the end plate can be essentially not optically relevant”, which means that the second area 5b is not completely optically irrelevant like the first area 5a (which transmits light essentially unimpeded), and not optically relevant like the optically relevant area 5c, and instead falls somewhere in between as far as its optical properties. Since par. [0007] of DE mentions the optically relevant area 5c forms exactly one beam of light, this means that the “essentially not optically relevant” second area 5b must also be capable of forming at least one beam of light, and is therefore transmissive to light (i.e., translucent).
Therefore, DE teaches “a closure plate which has … a second region, which is optically nontransmissive, opaque or translucent” as recited in amended Claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fruhauf et al. (US 12,492,794, hereinafter “Fruhauf”) and Lang et al. (US 2025/0243982, hereinafter “Lang”) each disclose a vehicle lighting device comprising a housing comprising a first housing part and a second housing part; and a closure plate unit comprising a one-piece closure plate which has a first region which is optically transmissive at least in sections, and a second region which is optically nontransmissive, opaque, or translucent, wherein the first housing part defines a first inner region covered by the first region of the closure plate and the second housing part defines a second inner region covered by the second region of the closure plate; and wherein the second region of the closure plate is provided with a film that is, at least in portions, optically nontransmissive or translucent. However, both of these references were published after the effective filing date of the claimed invention and are therefore disqualified as Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and Fruhauf was effectively filed after the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is therefore also disqualified as Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) . Additionally, Lang is by the same inventor and assignee as the instant application, and is therefore disqualified as Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
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 WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights