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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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
“lens optical axis parallel to the optical axis of projection” and “the reflected light rays form a beam oriented in a main direction of reflection coincident with the lens optical axis” of claims 1 and 11 must be shown.
Claim 12 is also not shown, the Examiner finds no embodiments in the figures that have any two devices in a symmetric arrangement relative to a median vertical plane of the vehicle parallel to the optical axis of projection, the Examiner also indicates below that such an arrangement directly contradicts the independent claim from which it depends.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 3 clearly shows nonparallel and noncoincident arrangements. It appears that the application has support in the drawings that the vertical optical axis of the lens is parallel to the vertical optical axis of projection as shown in figure 6, and that the vertical aspect of the reflected beam is coincident with the lens vertical optical axis. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations in light of such below.
The term “parallel” requires that the lines are nonintersecting and nondiverging in three dimensional space. Coincident requires that the axes are aligned in all directions, not just from a specific cross section. The disclosure appears to set forth the recited relationship in a vertical cross section (shown in figure 6), but shows the antithesis of the recited relationship in the horizontal cross section.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “configured to project an output light beam along an optical axis of projection intended to be directed horizontally from the rear to the front of the vehicle in a functional position of the device in the vehicle”.
The limitation “intended to be directed” has unclear metes and bounds. It is either directed or it is not directed. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “directed horizontally”.
“configured to project… in a functional position of the device in the vehicle” is an incorrect recitation. The Examiner is unclear what the “functional position” requires as it recites no limitations to such. The limitation additionally has grammatical errors and is unclear.
The term “horizontally” means “parallel to the ground” and the limitation “from the rear to the front of the vehicle” has been interpreted that the axis is centered on the direction of forward travel, i.e. the axis of symmetry of the vehicle. Figure 2 clearly shows that the lenses (23) do not teach an optical axis parallel to the optical axis of projection, specifically they are not parallel to the optical axis of projection as defined in the horizontal plane.
It is unclear if “from the rear to the front of the vehicle” or “horizontally” are intended to have different meanings.
The lenses may recite an optical axis aligned on a horizontal plane or that the lenses have an optical axis that is parallel in a vertical cross section, but the Examiner sees no support for an optical axis parallel in 3-dimensional space in the horizontal plane.
The reflective surface of each collector is additionally not coincident with the lens optical axis in the horizontal plane. As above, the Examiner sees support for a recitation in the vertical cross section, or with respect to the vertical optical axis, but not the horizontal axis.
The limitation “making an angle” has been interpreted as “to move, turn, or slope something in a direction that is not straight or level”.
The claim recites “at least one of the angles ... is nonzero”. The previous limitations “making an angle to a horizontal plane… making an angle to a horizontal plane” would, by common meaning of the term “angle” require a nonzero angle. Additionally the limitation recites “allows the main direction of emission of the light sources to be directed toward the interior of the vehicle…” requires a nonzero angle.
If Applicant wishes to recite that either angle is zero, the Examiner suggests including such language in the claims. However, the recited angles are included in the disclosure as critical to the operation of the device.
The Examiner additionally interprets that the limitations “first offset” and “second offset” are nonzero offsets.
Furthermore the Examiner does not see support in the drawings or the disclosure for either of the angles or either of the offsets to be zero. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “wherein both of the angles are nonzero”.
The limitation “directed toward the interior of the vehicle”, the limitation “interior of the vehicle” is unclear. In light of the disclosure, the Examiner assumes that the “interior of the vehicle” is set forth to mean the center axis of the vehicle, i.e. the light is directed inward.
Claim 11 recites similar language as claim 1 with objections.
Claim 11 further recites “the carrier plane making an angle y to a horizontal plane… and making and angle w to a horizontal plane…” A plane cannot have two different angles with respect to another plane.
Claim 4 recites “the projecting lens is symmetric about its optical axis.” The disclosure does not support that the lens has rotational symmetry, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the projecting lens is symmetric about the optical axis in a vertical cross section.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 directly contradicts the claim that precedes it.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the two devices are symmetric relative to a median vertical plane of the vehicle parallel to the optical axis of projection”. If both devices are arranged on one side of the vehicle and both of the devices are directed to the interior of the vehicle, then both devices cannot be symmetric about a vertical plane parallel to the optical axis of projection.
I.e. both must be oriented with an angle with respect to the optical axis and therefore cannot be symmetric about a plane parallel to said optical axis.
With respect to Applicant’s disclosure, figure3, 9, and 10 all fail to set forth this relationship, there is no line of symmetry for any of these figures as the lens arrangement and luminous modules themselves are tilted. There is no vertical line that can be drawn with any two devices being symmetrical.
The Examiner has interpreted the limitation to read “wherein the two devices are placed relative to a median vertical plane…”
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 1-4, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (U.S. 11,280,464) in view of Nishi (U.S. 2019/0093873).
Regarding claim 1, Giraud teaches a luminous device of a motor vehicle, the luminous device being configured to project an output light beam along an optical axis of projection intended to be directed horizontally from the rear of the front of the vehicle in a function position of the device in the vehicle, in which functional position the device equips one side of a front face of the vehicle with a view to projecting toward in front of the vehicle (headlight), the luminous device comprising:
a plurality of juxtaposed luminous modules (see fig. 12) each including at least one light source (light source 104), one collector (collector 106) equipped with a reflective surface, and one projecting lens (110), the reflector surface being configured to reflect, toward the projecting lens, light rays generated by the light source (see fig. 5), and
a carrier (not shown) on which all of the light sources are arranged in a carrier plane, the carrier plane making an angle y to a horizontal plane, about a tilt axis Y that is horizontal and perpendicular to the optical axis of projection (see fig. 22, angled with tilt axis), and making an angle w to a horizontal plane, about the optical axis of projection;
the projecting lens of each luminous module has a lens optical axis parallel to the optical axis of projection (see fig. 23), and
the reflective surface of each collector is configured so that the reflected light rays form a beam oriented in a main direction of reflection coincident with the lens optical axis (see fig. 23), and
the light sources are arranged on the carrier with a first offset (see fig. 13) along the optical axis of projection, and with a second offset in a vertical direction Z (see fig. 23), when the device is in the functional position, and
at least one of the angles y and w is nonzero, the angle y being contained in a first angular sector that allows the main direction of emission of the light sources to be directed toward in front of the vehicle in the functional position (directed forwards), and the angle w is directed in a second angular sector that allows the main direction of emission of the light sources to be directed towards the interior of the vehicle in the functional position (see fig. 20, 22).
Giraud does not specifically set forth a carrier, wherein the carrier makes an angle y to a horizontal plane.
Nishi teaches a carrier, wherein the carrier makes an angle y to a horizontal plane (see fig. 3, light source 112 is mounted on substrate 111 with an angle with respect to the horizontal plane).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a substrate to mount the light sources of Giraud in a manner that provides both power and heat dissipation, as is taught by Nishi. The Examiner finds that the recitation of an angle with the horizontal plane is dependent on the optical set up, but achieves a predictable outcome with respect to the les.
Regarding claim 2, Giraud and Nishi does not specifically teach that the first angular sector is between 0 and 12.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the first angular sector to achieve a desired and predictable luminance distribution. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 3, Giraud and Nishi does not specifically teach that the second angular sector is between 0 and 6 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the second angular sector to achieve a desired and predictable luminance distribution. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 4, Giraud teaches that for each luminous module module, the projecting lens is symmetric about its optical axis (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Giraud teaches that, for each luminous module, the reflective surface includes a rear edge in the vicinity of which a focal point of the projecting lens is located (focal point 10.3).
Regarding claim 10, Giraud teaches that the device is configured to produce an output light beam of low-beam type (low beam, see col. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Giraud teaches a vehicle comprising two devices, the two devices each being located on one side of the vehicle and so as to project a light beam toward in front of the vehicle (see fig. 22)
wherein each of the two devices include a plurality of juxtaposed luminous modules each including at least one light source (light sources),
one collector equipped with a reflective surface (406) and one projecting lens (410), the reflective surface being configured to reflect, toward the projecting lens, light rays generated by the light source, and a carrier on which all of the light sources are arranged in a carrier plane,
the carrier plane making an angle y to a horizontal plane, about a tilt axis Y that is horizontal and perpendicular to the optical axis of projection (angled with respect to central axis, see fig. 22), and
making an angle q to a horizontal plane, about the optical axis of projection,
the projecting lens of each luminous module has a lens optical axis parallel to the optical axis of projection (see fig. 23), and
the reflective surface of each collector is configured so that the reflected light rays form a beam oriented in a main direction of reflection coincident with the lens optical axis, and
the light sources are arranged on the carrier with a first offset along the optical axis of projection, and with a second offset in a vertical direction Z,
when the device is in the functional position, and
at least one of the angles y and w is non- zero, the angle y being contained in a first angular sector that allows the main direction of emission of the light sources to be directed toward in front of the vehicle in the functional position, and
the angle g is directed in a second angular sector that allows the main direction of emission of the light sources to be directed toward the interior of the vehicle in the functional position.
Giraud does not specifically set forth a carrier, wherein the carrier makes an angle y to a horizontal plane.
Nishi teaches a carrier, wherein the carrier makes an angle y to a horizontal plane (see fig. 3, light source 112 is mounted on substrate 111 with an angle with respect to the horizontal plane).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a substrate to mount the light sources of Giraud in a manner that provides both power and heat dissipation, as is taught by Nishi. The Examiner finds that the recitation of an angle with the horizontal plane is dependent on the optical set up, but achieves a predictable outcome with respect to the lens.
Regarding claim 12, Giraud teaches that the two devices are placed relative to a median vertical plane of the vehicle parallel to the optical axis of projection (see fig. 23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Claim 5 recites, inter alia, “the light sources are arranged on the carrier such that the first offset progresses monotonically along the optical axis of projection, and such that the second offset progresses monotonically in the vertical direction Z, when the device is in the functional position. “
The prior art does not teach the recited relationship in light of the structures of claim 1, specifically the tilt and horizontal plane angles. Prior art that teaches the progression of the offset, i.e. that it increases or decreases, does not teach it in light of the angles and structures set forth.
Giraud does not teach a second offset that progresses. Furthermore, the first offset does not progress monotonically.
Yasuda (U.S. 7,618,174) teaches a monotonic progression, however it does not teach the second offset progressing in the recited manner.
The recitation of the offset progressions is not obvious in view of the prior art. Such a modification would substantially change the effects and resulting optical layout of the prior art.
Claims 6-8 are indicated allowable based off their dependence from claim 5.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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 Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights