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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 7/31/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 2, the reference character “12” is shown directly below the reference character “16” but with no lead lines pointing to what this “12” is intended to label (circled in the annotated Fig. 2 below on pg. 3 of the instant Office Action).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of the instant application, annotated to show the extra reference numeral “12”
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “31a” and “13” in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “A luminous device for an automotive vehicle comprising housing” in lines 1-2 of the claim is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --A luminous device for an automotive vehicle comprising a housing-- to correct the typographical error.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rays emitted by the at least one light source” in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --so that
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the path of the first light beam” in line 18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the path of the second light beam” in lines 19-20 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a path of the second light beam-- to establish proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the provision of a low-beam function” in line 3 of the claim is awkwardly phrased. Additionally, the term “the provision” lacks proper antecedent basis. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the provision of a high-beam function” in line 4 of the claim is awkwardly phrased. Additionally, the term “the provision” lacks proper antecedent basis. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a direction-indicator-light, daytime-running light or position-light signaling function” in lines 2-3 of the claim is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a direction-indicator-light, daytime-running light, or position-light signaling function-- to add the missing comma.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the shape of a cone” in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a shape of a cone-- to establish proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the general shape of a prism” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the intended scope is clear, this does not create an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “and in that the first-type micro-optics” in line 3 of the claim (the top of pg. 5) is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --and .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "and on the other side" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what this side is another side of, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has treated the claim as reciting that the signaling device is on another side of the housing, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --and the housing comprises on another side thereof-- or similar language for more clarity and to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependence on indefinite Claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a second lighting module” in line 3 of the claim (at the top of pg. 5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is referring to the same second lighting module previously defined in Claim 1, or to an additional second lighting module independent and distinct from the second lighting module recited in Claim 1, rendering the exact scope of the claim unascertainable. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has treated this limitation as referring to the same second lighting module of Claim 1, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “A luminous device for an automotive vehicle comprising a housing closed by a closing outer lens, the housing being configured to house on one side a lighting device including at least two lighting modules of which a first lighting module is capable of generating a first lighting beam and a second lighting module is capable of generating a second lighting beam, the first lighting beam being different from the second lighting beam and the two lighting beams being directed toward the closing outer lens so as to contribute respectively to a first lighting function with an upper cutoff and a second lighting function with no upper cutoff via a first portion of the closing lens, and on the other side a signaling device including at least one light source, wherein the signaling device further includes a light curtain, arranged facing the at least one light source so that rays emitted by the at least one light source can propagate therein, and arranged between the lighting modules and the closing outer lens, the light curtain including micro-optics configured to decouple the rays emitted by the at least one light source and direct them into a signaling beam outside the light curtain, toward the closing outer lens so as to generate a signaling function via a second portion of the closing outer lens at least partially overlapping the first portion of the closing outer lens, the micro-optics includes two different types of micro-optics with micro-optics of a first type which are arranged in a first zone facing the first lighting module so as to be in a path of the first lighting beam and with micro-optics of a second type which are arranged in a second zone facing the second lighting module so as to be in a path of the second lighting beam” (emphasis added).
The closest Prior Art, Potter (US 2022/0170606) and Baker et al. (US 2019/0024868), each disclose a vehicle lamp comprising at least one lighting module positioned on one side of the housing directing light towards the closing outer lens to form a first lighting function with an upper cutoff (i.e., a low-beam function) and a second lighting function with no upper cutoff (i.e., a high-beam function) via a first portion of the closing lens, and a signaling device positioned on another side of the housing including at least one light source and a light curtain arranged facing the at least one light source so that rays emitted by the at least one light source propagate therein, the light curtain arranged between the lighting modules and the closing outer lens to provide a signaling beam outside the light curtain. However, each of these references lack the teaching of the light curtain including micro-optics which decouple the rays emitted by the at least one secondary light source to form the signaling beam via a second portion of the closing outer lens which at least partially overlaps the first portion of the outer lens, let alone micro-optics that include two different types of micro-optics with each of the two types facing a different one of the lighting modules forming the first and second lighting functions, as required by Claim 1. While Schuster et al. (DE 10101795, previously listed on the IDS filed 7/31/2025) teaches a vehicle lamp including a light curtain comprising micro-optics which decouple the rays emitted by at least one secondary light source to form a signaling beam, the micro-optics including first and second types of micro-optics, Schuster lacks the teaching of the two types of micro-optics each facing a different one of the at least one lighting module which provides the first and second lighting functions, as required by Claim 1.
Accordingly, although luminous devices for automotive vehicles are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim1.
Claims 2-13 depend on Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Puente et al. (US 2013/0141928) teaches a luminous device for an automotive vehicle comprising a housing closed by an outer lens and housing on one side a lighting device generating a first lighting beam with a first lighting function having an upper cutoff and a second lighting function having no cutoff, and a signaling device on another side of the housing which comprises at least one light source and a light curtain which faces the at least one light source to allow rays from the at least one light source to propagate therein, the light curtain including micro-optics to decouple the light propagating within the light curtain into being emitted as a signaling beam outside the light curtain. Mochizuki (US 2016/0146441) teaches a luminous device for an automotive vehicle comprising a housing closed by an outer lens and housing on one side a lighting device generating a first lighting beam with a first lighting function having an upper cutoff and a second lighting function having no cutoff, and a signaling device on another side of the housing which comprises at least one light source and a light curtain which faces the at least one light source to allow rays from the at least one light source to propagate therein and produce a signaling beam outside the light curtain.
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
