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 .
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, 2, 9, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenhahn et al. (7,988,345) in view of Owada (2014/0313762).
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 19, Rosenhahn teaches a vehicular lamp (1/20), comprising: a plurality of light emitting devices (101-103) including a first light emitting device (103) and a second light emitting device (102); and a plurality of optical systems including a first optical system (112 and 3/23) and a second optical system (111 and 4/24), wherein the first optical system is configured to output light having a first light distribution based on light incident thereon from the first light emitting device (Figs. 1 and 4), the second optical system is configured to output light having a second light distribution based on light incident thereon from the second light emitting device (Figs. 1 and 4), a light emitting area of the first light emitting device is different from a light emitting area of the second light emitting device (Figs. 1 and 4), and a light distribution angle of the first light distribution is different from a light distribution angle of the second light distribution (Figs. 1 and 4).
Rosenhahn does not explicitly teach a first light emitting device and a second light emitting device and being individually drivable (claim 1); wherein the plurality of light emitting devices are arranged in a grid form, and the plurality of optical systems are arranged in a grid form (claim 13); wherein, in a top view, a shape of a light emitting surface of the first light emitting device is rectangular, and a shape of a light emitting surface of the second light emitting device is square (claim 19).
As for claim 1, Owada also drawn to vehicular lamps, teaches a first light emitting device (18A) and a second light emitting device (18B) and being individually drivable (paragraph 67).
As for claim 13, Owada teaches wherein the plurality of light emitting devices are arranged in a grid form, and the plurality of optical systems are arranged in a grid form (Figs. 5-7).
As for claim 19, Owada teaches wherein, in a top view, a shape of a light emitting surface of the first light emitting device is rectangular, and a shape of a light emitting surface of the second light emitting device is square (paragraph 156; *note that squares are rectangular).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of present invention, to use the individual drivability, grid forms, and light emitting surface shape of Owada in the vehicular lamp of Rosenhahn, in order to provide a more efficient high and low beam distribution (paragraph 67; *note that not illuminating the high beam will require less energy than blocking the high beam with a baffle) and to vertical and horizontal orientation for greater light distribution and since the court held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As for claim 2, Rosenhahn teaches wherein the light emitting area of the first light emitting device is larger than the light emitting area of the second light emitting device (Fig. 1), and the light distribution angle of the first light distribution is wider than the light distribution angle of the second light distribution (Fig. 1).
As for claim 9, Rosenhahn teaches further comprising: a third light emitting device (101); and a third optical system (110 and 5/25) configured to output light having a third light distribution based on light incident thereon from the third light emitting device (Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the light emitting area of the first light emitting device, the light emitting area of the second light emitting device, and a light emitting area of the third light emitting device are different from one another (Figs. 1 and 4), and the light distribution angle of the first light distribution, the light distribution angle of the second light distribution, and a light distribution angle of the third light distribution are different from one another (Figs. 1 and 4).
Rosenhahn does not explicitly teach a third light emitting device that is individually drivable (claim 9).
As for claim 9, Owada also drawn to vehicular lamps, teaches a third light emitting device (18B in 10L) being individually drivable (paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of present invention, to use the individual drivability of Owada in the vehicular lamp of Rosenhahn, in order to provide a more efficient high and low beam distribution (paragraph 67; *note that not illuminating the high beam will require less energy than blocking the high beam with a baffle).
As for claim 18, Rosenhahn teaches wherein an aspect ratio of a light emitting surface of the first light emitting device is greater than an aspect ratio of a light emitting surface of the second light emitting device (Figs. 2 and 4; *note that 3/23 and 4/24 are shown to have the same width in Fig. 2 and 3/23 has much greater height in Fig. 4).
Claims 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenhahn and Owada as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Dassanayake et al. (7,540,638).
With respect to claims 10, 15, and 16, Rosenhahn and Owada teach all of the claimed element, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching wherein the light emitting area of the second light emitting device is larger than the light emitting area of the third light emitting device, and the light distribution angle of the second light distribution is wider than the light distribution angle of the third light distribution (claim 10); further comprising: a control unit configured to determine the light emitting device that is to be caused to emit light from among the plurality of light emitting devices (claim 15); a sensor configured to acquire information about an external environment; and a control unit configured to determine the light emitting device that is to be caused to emit light from among the plurality of light emitting devices based on the information acquired by the sensor (claim 16).
As for claim 10, Dassanayake also drawn to vehicular lamps, teaches wherein the light emitting area of the second light emitting device is larger than the light emitting area of the third light emitting device, and the light distribution angle of the second light distribution is wider than the light distribution angle of the third light distribution (Fig. 3).
As for claim 15, Dassanayake teaches further comprising: a control unit (130) configured to determine the light emitting device that is to be caused to emit light from among the plurality of light emitting devices (column 7, lines 5-12).
As for claim 16, Dassanayake teaches a sensor configured to acquire information about an external environment; and a control unit configured to determine the light emitting device that is to be caused to emit light from among the plurality of light emitting devices based on the information acquired by the sensor (column 5, lines 4-14; *note that external environment sensors are very common control sensors on vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the light emitting area, the light distribution, control unit, and sensor of Dassanayake in the vehicular lamp of Rosenhahn, in order to provide down the road illumination and peripheral and foreground illumination (Abstract of Dassanayake).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 are 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.
With respect to claims 3-8, 14, and 17, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the first optical system includes a first lens and a second lens, the second optical system includes a third lens and a fourth lens, the first lens is configured to form a first virtual light source image between the first lens and the second lens based on the light incident from the first light emitting device, the second lens is configured to output light incident thereon from the first virtual light source image, the third lens is configured to form a second virtual light source image between the third lens and the fourth lens based on the light incident thereon from the second light emitting device, and the fourth lens is configured to output light incident thereon from the second virtual light source image; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 3.
As for claims 11 and 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the third optical system includes a fifth lens and a sixth lens, the fifth lens is configured to form a third virtual light source image between the fifth lens and the sixth lens based on the light incident thereon from the third light emitting device, and the sixth lens is configured to project light incident thereon from the third virtual light source image; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 9-11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Han (2023/0258311); see Fig. 3
Natsume (2002/0034078); see Fig. 3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOSEPH CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-0959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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 J CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights