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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, lines 6-7, “the tangents of the upper zone” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 8, “the tangents of the lower zone” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikau et al. (10,900,630) in view of Hossfeld (2018/0187851).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 6, Dikau teaches a lighting module (Figs. 1 and 5) comprising: an upper row of upper light sources (column 4, lines 47-52), light rays originating from the upper row being intended to generate a first beam (Figs. 5-7), the upper light sources being aligned in a direction (Fig. 3), an upper row of upper light guide each comprising an upper entry face (4) and an upper exit face (6), the upper light guides each being separately associated with an upper light source (column 4, lines 47-52), each upper light guide conducting light rays originating from the associated upper light source from the upper entry face to the upper exit face of the upper light guide (Fig. 5), a lower row of lower light sources (Fig. 3), light rays originating from the lower row being intended to generate a second beam (12; column 4, lines 47-52), the lower light sources being aligned in the direction (Fig. 3), a lower row of lower light guides each including a lower entry face (3) and a lower exit face (5), the lower light guides each being separately associated with a lower light source (column 4, lines 47-52), each lower light guide conducting light rays originating from the associated lower light source from the lower entry face to the lower exit face of the lower light guide (column 4, lines 28-33), a primary lens (7) having an optical axis and configured to receive the light rays originating from the upper light sources and lower light sources, the primary lens comprising an exit dioptric interface (Figs. 5-7), a first plane including the optical axis and being parallel to the direction (Figs. 3 and 5) and second planes perpendicular to the direction (Figs. 3 and 5), wherein one from among the first beam and the second beam is a part high complementary high beam (12; column 4, lines 47-52) and the exit dioptric interface includes a convex upper part including a lower edge and a convex lower part including an upper edge (Fig. 5), the upper part being at least predominantly intended for the exit of the light rays originating from the upper row (Fig. 5), the lower part being at least predominantly intended for the exit of the light rays originating from the lower row (Figs. 6-7 and column 4, lines 28-33), the lower edge and the upper edge being joined by a connecting portion (Figs. 5-6).
Dikau does not explicitly teach the upper edge being farther in front of the primary lens, in the direction of the optical axis, than the lower edge is, in the direction of the optical axis (claim 1); wherein the upper part and the lower part are configured such that, in all the second planes, the upper edge is farther in front of the primary lens, in the direction of the optical axis, than the lower edge is, in the direction of the optical axis, by a first distance of between 0.07 mm and 0.2 mm, the first distance having the same value in all the second planes, and preferably the first distance is equal to 0.12 mm (claim 2); wherein, in all the second planes, the lower edge is positioned above the upper edge, by a second distance (claim 3).
As for claim 1, Hossfeld also drawn to lighting modules, teaches the upper edge (upper part of 9B) being farther in front of the primary lens (9), in the direction of the optical axis (Fig. 4), than the lower edge (lower part of 9A) is, in the direction of the optical axis (Fig. 4).
As for claim 2, Hossfeld teaches wherein the upper part (9A) and the lower part (9B) are configured such that, in all the second planes, the upper edge (upper part of 9B) is farther in front of the primary lens (9), in the direction of the optical axis (Fig. 4), than the lower edge (lower part of 9A) is, in the direction of the optical axis (Fig. 4), by a first distance (Fig. 4), the first distance having the same value in all the second planes (Fig. 3), and preferably the first distance is equal to 0.12 mm (*note that “preferably” language does not impart any patentable weight).
As for claim 3, Hossfeld teaches wherein, in all the second planes, the lower edge (lower portion of 9A) is positioned above the upper edge (upper portion of 9B), by a second distance (Figs. 3-4).
As for claim 6, Hossfeld teaches wherein the join between the lower edge and the connecting portion (Fig. 4) is located in a plane parallel to the first plane and extending at an equal distance from the upper exit face (exit face of 32) and from the lower exit face (exit face of 36).
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 upper edge, the lower edge, and the connecting portion of Hossfeld in the lighting module of Dikau, in order to provide a desired light output and to lower the number of individual parts and with it the costs of production (paragraph 74 of Hossfeld).
As for claim 2, although Dikau and Hossfeld do not explicitly teach the first distance is between 0.07 mm and 0.2 mm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another set of dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to experiment and optimize the first distance, in order to produce a desired optical output.
As for claim 3, although Dikau and Hossfeld do not explicitly teach the second distance (dist2) of between 0.2 mm and 1.3 mm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another set of dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to experiment and optimize the second distance, in order to produce a desired optical output.
As for claim 11, Dikau teaches wherein the upper part (Fig. 3) has, in a plane parallel to the first plane and passing through the lower edge, a radius of curvature (Fig. 3). Dikau and Hossfeld do not explicitly teach the radius of curvature is greater than or equal to 100 mm, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another set of dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to experiment and optimize the radius of curvature, in order to produce a desired optical output.
As for claim 12, Dikau teaches wherein the lower part (Fig. 3) has, in a plane parallel to the first plane and passing through the upper edge, a radius of curvature (Fig. 3). Dikau and Hossfeld do not explicitly teach the radius of curvature is greater than or equal to 100 mm, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another set of dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to experiment and optimize the radius of curvature, in order to produce a desired optical output.
As for claim 13, Dikau teaches wherein the first beam is a cut-off beam of a low-beam and wherein the second beam is a complementary high beam (Figs. 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikau and Hossfeld, as is applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Krenn et al. (9,664,847).
With respect to claim 10, Dikau and Hossfeld teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching wherein the primary lens includes an entrance dioptric interface, the entrance dioptric interface being in contact with the upper exit face of the upper light guides and the lower exit face of the lower light guides (claim 10).
As for claim 10, Krenn also drawn to lighting modules, teaches wherein the primary lens (2b) includes an entrance dioptric interface (Fig. 1), the entrance dioptric interface being in contact with the upper exit face (exit face of 3) of the upper light guides (3) and the lower exit face of the lower light guides (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use arrangement of Krenn in the lighting module of Dikau, in order to make the device of fewer pieces.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikau and Hossfeld, as is applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kliebisch (10,054,279).
With respect to claim 14, Dikau and Hossfeld teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching an intermediate lens and a projection lens, the intermediate lens being positioned along the optical axis of the primary lens after the primary lens, the projection lens being positioned along the optical axis of the primary lens after the intermediate lens (claim 14).
As for claim 14, Kliebisch also drawn to lighting modules, teaches an intermediate lens (7; column 3, lines 65-67) and a projection lens (7; column 3, lines 65-67), the intermediate lens being positioned along the optical axis of the primary lens after the primary lens, the projection lens being positioned along the optical axis of the primary lens after the intermediate lens (Fig. 1).
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 intermediate and projection lens of Kliebisch in the lighting module of Dikau, since Dikau teaches one or multiple lenses are obvious alternatives (column 3, lines 65-67 of Kliebisch).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7-9 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 4-5, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the second distance at the two lateral ends of the primary lens is strictly less than the second distance on the optical axis; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1, 3, and 4.
As for claims 7-9, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the connecting portion includes an upper zone and a lower zone, the upper zone being positioned in contact with the upper part, the lower zone being positioned in contact with the lower part, the upper zone and the lower zone being configured such that they each describe a curvature, in such a way that, at each point of the join between the upper zone and the lower edge, the tangents of the upper zone and the lower edge are identical and, at each point of the g join between the lower zone and the upper edge, the tangents of the lower zone and the upper edge are identical; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Simchak et al. (2020/0072428); see: Fig. 1
Hamm et al. (2012/0275173); see: Fig. 18
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 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights