DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-14 have been amended, claims 15-17 have been newly added. Currently claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hossfeld et al. (DE 102014205994 A1, hereinafter, “Hossfeld”, newly cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Hossfeld teaches a vehicle lighting system (light module 8, see figures 10-14), comprising;
least two light modules (see modules A, B annotated in fig 13 below), each light module including a light source (semiconductor light source 9, see fig 13), primary optics (coupling section 11, see fig 13) and a lens (central lens section 16, see fig 13) and producing an output beam (see individual output beams A’, B’ annotated in fig 13 below) from light emitted by the respective light source (9), wherein the at least two light modules (A, B) are facing each other (as seen in fig 10), fixed on a holder (housing 2, see fig 14), with the lenses (16s) in opposition to each other (as seen in fig 13); and
an optical device (deflection surface 19 and projection optics 20, see fig 13) that redirects the output beam (A’ and B’) of each of the at least two light modules (A, B) exiting the lenses (16s) and combines the output beams (A’ and B’) into a single composite output beam (see combined output C as annotated in fig 13 below) such that, after having been redirected by the optical device (19-20), the output beams are in partial overlap (as clearly seen in fig 12).
Annotated figure 13 of Hossfeld has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
603
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hossfeld teaches comprising one single output aperture (20, better seen in fig 12 and 14) for the single composite output beam (C) to exit the vehicle lighting system (1).
Regarding claim 3, Hossfeld teaches wherein the optical device (19-20) comprises at least one reflective surface (19) facing one light module (A or B) of the at least two light modules (A, B) and reflecting the output beam (A’ or B’) of the one light module (A or B) as a component (better seen in fig 12) of the single composite output beam (C).
Regarding claim 4, Hossfeld teaches wherein materials used for the optical device (19-20) are chosen in a list consisting of glass (glass, see ¶ 48 of translated description), plastic material, and silicon.
Regarding claim 8, Hossfeld teaches wherein the optical device (19-20) comprises at least one mirror (upper or lower 19) which reflects the output beam (A’ or B’) of the at least two light modules (A, B) and directs the output beam (A’ or B’) as a component (better seen in fig 12) of the single composite output beam (C).
Regarding claim 9, Hossfeld teaches wherein the at least two light modules (A, B) are placed above each other and oriented in opposition (as seen in fig 14), the optical device (19-20) comprising two mirrors (upper and lower 19) placed above each other and oriented symmetrically (as seen in fig 14) to combine light rays from two light modules (A, B) into the single composite output beam (C).
Regarding claim 10, Hossfeld teaches wherein the at least two light modules (A, B) are above each other and the optical device (19-20) is made of only one mirror (19).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossfeld in view of Clarke Jhon. (US 4915479 A, hereinafter “Clarke”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, Hossfeld teaches wherein materials used for the optical device (19-20) are chosen in a list consisting of glass (glass, see ¶ 48 of translated description), plastic material, and silicon,
Hossfeld does not explicitly teach an optical device with a polished surface or layer.
Clarke teaches an optical device (guide 6, see figure 1) wherein materials used for the optical device (6) are chosen in a list consisting of glass, plastic material (polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), see col 4, lines 1-2);
the optical device (6) with a polished surface or layer (as walls 11 of the guide are polished smooth and are reflective to light inside the guide, see col 4, lines 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the polished surface as taught by Clarke into the teachings of Hossfeld in order to enhance total internal reflection within the optical device. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid light losses and maximize light output.
Regarding claim 14, Hossfeld teaches a vehicle headlamp (headlight 1, see figures 10-14) comprising the vehicle lighting system (8) according to claim 1 (better seen in fig 14).
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imade Shinichi (US 20050002110 A1, hereinafter, “Imade”, newly cited by the Examiner) in view of Hossfeld.
Regarding claim 1, Imade teaches a vehicle lighting system (illumination apparatus, see figure 33 and figures 1-32 to show common elements and features to all embodiments), comprising;
least two light modules (see modules A, B annotated in fig 33 below), each light module including a light source (LED packages 24R or 24G, see fig 33), primary optics (rod 20, see fig 33) and a lens (optical light-condensing element 98, see fig 33) and producing an output beam (see output beams A’, B’ annotated in fig 33 below) from light emitted by the respective light source (24R or 24G), wherein the at least two light modules (A, B) are facing each other (as seen in fig 33), with the lenses (98s) in opposition to each other (as seen in fig 33); and
an optical device (prism 10, tapered rod 40, see fig 33) that redirects the output beam (A’ and B’) of each of the at least two light modules (A, B) exiting the lenses (98s) and combines the output beams (A’ and B’) into a single composite output beam (see combined output, better seen in fig 21) such that, after having been redirected by the optical device (10, 40), the output beams are in partial overlap (as clearly seen in fig 21).
Annotated figure 33 of Imade has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
689
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Imade does not explicitly teach the least two light modules fixed on a holder.
Hossfeld teaches a vehicle lighting system (light module 8, see figures 10-14), having at least two light modules (as seen in fig 13);
the at least two light modules (as seen in fig 13) fixed on a holder (housing 2, see fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle lighting system as taught by Hossfeld into the teachings of Imade in order to position the sytem within a headlight and away from rain or dust. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to protect the system from the environment.
Regarding claim 2, Imade teaches comprising one single output aperture (optical aperture of 40) for the single composite output beam (combined output, better seen in fig 21) to exit the vehicle lighting system (illumination apparatus).
Regarding claim 3, Imade teaches wherein the optical device (10, 40) comprises at least one reflective surface (see reflective surface R, as annotated in fig 33 above) facing one light module (A or B) of the at least two light modules (A, B) and reflecting the output beam (A’ or B’) of the one light module (A or B) as a component (better seen in fig 12) of the single composite output beam (combined output, better seen in fig 21).
Regarding claim 4, Imade teaches wherein materials used for the optical device (10, 40) are chosen in a list consisting of glass (solid glass, see ¶ 136), plastic material, and silicon.
Regarding claim 6, Imade teaches wherein the optical device (10, 40) comprises at least one prism (10) having at least one reflective surface (see reflective surface R, as annotated in fig 33 above) which reflects a light module output beam (a’ or b’) off the at least one reflective surface (R) of the at least one prism and directs it as a component (better seen in fig 21) of the single composite output beam (mix of lights).
Regarding claim 7, Imade teaches wherein a V-shape reflective surface (see V-shape of reflective surface R, as annotated in fig 33 above) of the at least one prism (10) allows reflection of two output beams facing each other (as seen in fig 33).
Regarding claim 8, Imade teaches wherein the optical device (10, 40) comprises at least one mirror (upper or lower R) which reflects the output beam (A’ or B’) of the at least two light modules (A, B) and directs the output beam (A’ or B’) as a component (better seen in fig 12) of the single composite output beam (combined output, better seen in fig 21).
Regarding claim 9, Imade teaches wherein the at least two light modules (A, B) are placed above each other and oriented in opposition (as seen in fig 33), the optical device (10, 40) comprising two mirrors (upper and lower R) placed above each other and oriented symmetrically (as seen in fig 33) to combine light rays from two light modules (A, B) into the single composite output beam (combined output, better seen in fig 21).
Regarding claim 10, Imade teaches wherein the at least two light modules (A, B) are above each other and the optical device (10, 40) is made of only one mirror (R).
Regarding claim 15, Imade teaches wherein the optical device (10, 40) comprises a first flat side surface (see on of flat surfaces of 10’ as annotated in fig 33 above) facing a first one of the at least two light modules (A), a second flat side surface (another of 10’) facing a second one of the at least two light modules (B), first and second mirrored surfaces (upper and lower R) between the first and second flat side surfaces (upper and lower 10’), and a single output aperture (optical aperture of 40) on a front face (front face of 40) of the optical device (10, 40).
Regarding claim 17, Imade teaches wherein each of the at least two light modules (A, B), including the respective lenses (98s), are spaced apart (as clearly seen in fig 33) from the optical device (10, 40).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imade in view of Hossfeld, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clarke.
Regarding claim 5, Imade teaches wherein materials used for the optical device (10, 40) are chosen in a list consisting of glass (solid glass, see ¶ 136), plastic material, and silicon,
Imade does not explicitly teach an optical device with a polished surface or layer.
Clarke teaches an optical device (guide 6, see figure 1) wherein materials used for the optical device (6) are chosen in a list consisting of glass, plastic material (polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), see col 4, lines 1-2);
the optical device (6) with a polished surface or layer (as walls 11 of the guide are polished smooth and are reflective to light inside the guide, see col 4, lines 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the polished surface as taught by Clarke into the teachings of Imade in order to enhance total internal reflection within the optical device. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid light losses and maximize light output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 11, although Imade and Hossfeld teach the vehicle lighting system, as described in claims 1 and 8 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein the optical device comprises at least a first and a second mirror for one of the at least two light modules, the first mirror reflecting rays emitted by the one of the at least two light modules toward the second mirror, the second mirror reflecting rays received from first mirror toward an output aperture.
Regarding claims 12-13, although Imade and Hossfeld teach the vehicle lighting system, as described in claim 1 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein an output aperture of the vehicle lighting system is delimited by at least one hiding screen that hides the at least two light modules from an observer looking at a headlamp comprising the vehicle lighting system from outside the vehicle; and
wherein the at least one hiding screen also is an auxiliary light module that provides auxiliary signalling functions.
Regarding claim 16, although Imade and Hossfeld teach the vehicle lighting system, as described in claim 1 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein each of the at least two light modules is positioned on a separate adjustable mount.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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
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 OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875