DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the claims set forth a number of limitations about “areas”, “sections”, and “images”, with no differentiation between the respective terms. I.e. claim 1 recites “wherein the optical lens unit is divided into a plurality of sections, each section corresponding to one of the plurality of light sources”.
Applicant further sets forth “at least one image” and “sub-images”, however there is additionally no distinction set forth in the claims. There is no distinction that each transmission region forms a different or specific sub-image, just that there are multiple transmission regions and that there are multiple sub-images formed by the multiple transmission regions.
The Examiner has interpreted “transmission region” as “an area or a division that transmits light”. “Sub-image” has been interpreted as “a subset of an image”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (U.S. 11,441,752).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a vehicle lamp comprising:
a light source unit (light source array 10) including a plurality of light sources (emitters 12), each of which generates light;
an optical path adjustment unit (lens array 30a, see fig. 3) that adjusts a path (collimates) of the light emitted from at least one of the plurality of light sources; and
an optical lens unit (second lens array) including a plurality of incident lenses (31b), into which the light emitted from the optical path adjustment unit is incident, and a plurality of exit lenses (31c), through which the light incident into the plurality of incident lenses is emitted, wherein the optical path adjustment unit includes a plurality of adjustment lenses configured to adjust the path of the light emitted from the plurality of light sources (see fig. 3, focuses light through shields and then collimates),
wherein the optical lens unit is divided into a plurality of sections (see fig. 5, shields 21), each section corresponding to one of the plurality of light sources (see col. 3 lines 27-37, each matched to a fine light emitter),
wherein at least one of the plurality of sections includes a plurality of transmission regions (see annotated figure 5),
and
wherein areas occupied by the plurality of transmission regions within the at least one of the plurality of sections are different (see annotated figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches that the optical lens unit further includes a plurality of shields (shield array 20) disposed between the plurality of incident lenses and the plurality of exit lenses and configured to obstruct a portion of light from proceeding toward the plurality of exit lenses (shielding array shapes light, see col. 5 lines 22-40).
Regarding claim 3, Lim teaches wherein light that passes through at least one of the plurality of sections forms at least one image on a surface onto which the light is irradiated (see fig. 5, road projection device, projects images of shield openings, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches that among a plurality of images formed by the light that passes through the plurality sections, at least one image has a different attribute from at least one other image (different location).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches that the attribute includes at least one of image shape, formation position (different location), brightness, size, or color.
Regarding claim 6, Lim teaches wherein sub-images formed by light that passes through the plurality of transmission regions have different attributes (different locations).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches that among the sub-images, at least one sub-image is formed at a different distance from the optical lens unit than at least one other sub-image (each sub image is at different location).
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches that the plurality of images are sequentially formed along at least one direction (sequential illumination see col. 5 lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches that each of the plurality of images includes a plurality of sub-images, and wherein the plurality of sub-images are sequentially formed along a same direction (see annotated figure 5, subimages of the first image are formed sequentially before the sub images of the second image).
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.
Claim 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Son (U.S. 2013/0010484).
Regarding claim 9, Lim does not specifically teach that among the plurality of transmission regions, a transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more proximate to the optical lens unit has a smaller area than a transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more distant from the optical lens unit.
Son teaches that among the plurality of transmission regions, a transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more proximate to the optical lens unit has a smaller area than a transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more distant from the optical lens unit (see p. 0045, “The shapes 151 to 154 may have sizes gradually decreasing or the same size.”, p. 0042-0045 establish that the sizes are adjusted by the sizes and angles of the light source parts, i.e. a larger lens 121b would result in a larger sub image proximate the lens unit) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used larger subimages near the vehicle as taught by Son in the structure of Lim to better draw attention and illuminate the vehicle. Furthermore, if all the light sources are the same brightness, then an increase in size of the proximate patterns would be required to maintain uniform brightness of the images.
Regarding claim 12, Lim does not teach that each of the plurality of images includes a plurality of sub-images, and wherein a sub-image of at least one image among the plurality of images and another sub-image of at least one other image among the plurality of images are sequentially formed along different directions.
Son teaches that each of the plurality of images includes a plurality of sub-images, and wherein a sub-image of at least one image among the plurality of images and another sub-image of at least one other image among the plurality of images are sequentially formed along different directions (see figures 7-9, images formed on each side of the vehicle, results in sub images being sequential in different directions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the system of Lim on each side of the vehicle as taught by Son to be used to provide turning indicators to pedestrians and other vehicles, see p. 0005-0008 of Son.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that asserts Lim cannot be said to teach that at least one of the plurality of sections is further divided in a plurality of transmission regions, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no specific division or definition of “transmission region”. Applicant’s disclosure appears to set forth an arbitrary designation of a portion of the lens. There is no distinction or division set forth for the transmission regions either functionally or structurally.
Lim teaches that each section (shield corresponding to a singular light source) has an infinite number of transmission regions within it, forming an infinite number of sub images within each image.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner finds that, even further defined, Lim teaches any number of transmission regions and sections for forming different portions of sub images, see figure 7 and see col. 5 lines 34-39.
The Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure and finds no further definitions for the limitations “transmission regions” or “sub-images”. Only claim 2 (with no dependents) sets forth shields that the disclosure recites to form the images. The Examiner recommends further defining the structure of the claimed invention and using narrower language to specify the intended meaning of “section”, “region”, and “sub-image”.
Conclusion
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 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