DETAILED ACTION
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 11 and 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.
Claims 11 and 12 recite “a plurality of sub-images”, however “a plurality of sub-images” is already set forth in claim 1.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “each section corresponding to one of the plurality of light sources and configured to form an image… wherein at least one of the plurality of sections includes a plurality of transmission regions, each transmission region forming a sub-image…” and claims 11 further recites “wherein the plurality of sub-images are sequentially formed along a same direction”.
It is unclear how the sub images are sequentially formed if there is only a singular light source, particularly in light of the antecedent issue. It is unclear if the claim is indefinite or if there is critical subject matter, e.g. shutters, that enable a single light source to create sequential sub images.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “each section corresponding to one of the plurality of light sources and configured to form an image… wherein at least one of the plurality of sections includes a plurality of transmission regions, each transmission region forming a sub-image…” and claims 12 further recites “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”
It is unclear how the sub images are sequentially formed if there is only a singular light source, particularly in light of the antecedent issue. It is unclear if the claim is indefinite or if there is critical subject matter, e.g. shutters, that enable a single light source to create sequential sub images.
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, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mandl (U.S. 2018/0320852)
Regarding claim 1, Mandl teaches a vehicle lamp comprising:
a light source unit including a plurality of light sources (see fig. 1), each of which generates light;
an optical path adjustment unit (collimator 4) that adjusts a path of the light emitted from at least one of the plurality of light sources; and
an optical lens unit (respective lenses for the light sources) including a plurality of incident lenses (incident lens 31), into which the light emitted from the optical path adjustment unit is incident, and a plurality of exit lenses (exit lens 41), 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 (TIR lens see fig. 2d),
wherein pairs of corresponding incident and exit lenses of the optical lens unit are grouped into a plurality of sections, each section corresponding to one of the plurality of light sources and configured to form an image (see p. 0110, see fig. 3a),
wherein at least one of the plurality of sections includes a plurality of transmission regions, each transmission region forming a sub-image that constitutes the image (see fig. 3, different regions forms different sub images combined into the beam image, see p. 0144 combination of different screens), and
wherein each transmission region includes a plurality of pairs of the corresponding incident and exit lenses (see fig. 2), and
wherein areas occupied by the plurality of transmission regions within the at least one of the plurality of sections are different (see fig. 3, different areas).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mandl teaches that the optical lens unit further includes a plurality of shields (screen device 60) 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.
Regarding claim 3, Mandl 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. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Mandl 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 locations).
Regarding claim 5, Mandl teaches that the attribute includes at least one of image shape, formation position (different location), brightness, size, or color.
Regarding claim 6, Mandl teaches wherein sub-images formed by light that passes through the plurality of transmission regions have different attributes (different locations).
Regarding claim 8, Mandl 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 (see annotated figure, high beams compared to low beams).
Regarding claim 9, Mandl teaches that among the plurality of transmission regions, a first transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more proximate to the optical lens unit has a smaller area than a second transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more distant from the optical lens unit (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 13, Mandl teaches that the first transmission region includes fewer pairs of incident and exit lenses than the second transmission region.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong (U.S. 12,234,959; filed as kr10-2022-0136722 on 10/21/2022, all references made to US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches a vehicle lamp comprising:
a light source unit including a plurality of light sources (see fig. 4), each of which generates light;
an optical path adjustment unit (collimator 330) that adjusts a path of the light emitted from at least one of the plurality of light sources; and
an optical lens unit (lens unit array 350) including a plurality of incident lenses (incident lens 510), into which the light emitted from the optical path adjustment unit is incident, and a plurality of exit lenses (exit lens 530), 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 (collimating lenses),
wherein pairs of corresponding incident and exit lenses of the optical lens unit are grouped into a plurality of sections, each section corresponding to one of the plurality of light sources and configured to form an image (see fig. 7),
wherein at least one of the plurality of sections includes a plurality of transmission regions, each transmission region forming a sub-image that constitutes the image (specifically shown in figure 7), and
wherein each transmission region includes a plurality of pairs of the corresponding incident and exit lenses (see fig 7), and
wherein areas occupied by the plurality of transmission regions within the at least one of the plurality of sections are different (610a, 610b, 610c).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong teaches that the optical lens unit further includes a plurality of shields (image film 520, forms image by blocking non engraved portions) 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.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong 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. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong 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 locations).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong teaches that the attribute includes at least one of image shape, formation position (different location), brightness, size, or color.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong teaches wherein sub-images formed by light that passes through the plurality of transmission regions have different attributes (different locations).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong 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 (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong teaches that among the plurality of transmission regions, a first transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more proximate to the optical lens unit has a smaller area than a second transmission region configured to form a sub-image at a position more distant from the optical lens unit (see fig. 7, less lenses).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong teaches that the first transmission region includes fewer pairs of incident and exit lenses than the second transmission region (see fig. 7, less lenses.
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(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Son (U.S. 2013/0010484).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong does not specifically teach that the plurality of images are sequentially formed along at least one direction.
Son teaches that the plurality of images are sequentially formed along at least one direction (see p. 0055).
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 images of Jeong in a sequential manner to increase the appearance and make the images more noticeable, see Son p. 0055-0060.
Regarding claim 11, Jeong and Son 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 (sequentially formed by sub image of first 350 then sub image of second 350).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong and 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(sequentially formed by sub image of first 350 then sub image of second 350).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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