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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/2/25 (x2) has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6-11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mochizuki [US 2009/0097268].
As to claim 1, Mochizuki discloses a lighting module [10, figure 3] for a headlight in a vehicle, comprising: a projector light source [14b]; a second light source [14a] associated with a low-beam function [see figure 3]; a lens [19] defining a first lens portion associated with the projector light source [middle and bottom of 19, figure 3, 4] and a second lens portion associated with the second light source [top of 19 in figure 3]; a housing holding the projector light source and the second light source and holding the lens at a fixed position relative to the projector light source and the second light source and spaced apart therefrom [12 and 18, figure 3]; and a shield assembly [17] disposed in an interior of the housing between the light sources and the lens and including a light blocker [portion of 17 not at tip but between 14a and 14b] configured to block light from the projector light source from reaching the second lens portion and to block light from the second light source from reaching the first lens portion [see figures 3, 4], and wherein the shield assembly further includes a cut-off portion configured to interrupt a portion of light emitted from the second light source and to define a cut-off pattern [external surfaces of 17b at tip of 17, figure 3, 4].
As to claim 2, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the cut-off portion extends in a horizontal plane [see 17, figure 3, extending in horizontal direction].
As to claim 3, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 2, wherein the cut-off portion defines a terminal edge opposite from the second light source, and wherein the terminal edge defines the cut-off pattern [see figures 3, 4].
As to claim 6, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the lighting module includes two of the projector light sources [see figure 2, 14a], wherein the second light source is disposed between the two of the projector light sources [top1 4b, figure 2], and wherein the light blocker includes two light blockers, with each of the two light blockers configured to block light from a corresponding projector light source of the projector light sources [see 17, figure 2].
As to claim 7, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the light blocker extends in a vertical plane [see figure 3, 4, wherein 17 extends in vertical direction].
As to claim 8, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the light blocker extends in a first plane [vertical, figure 3] and wherein the cut-off portion extends in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane [horizontal, see figure 2, 3, 4].
As to claim 9, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the shield assembly includes a piece of sheet metal that is bent to define each of the light blocker and the cut-off portion [see paragraph 63].
As to claim 10, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, further including a third light source, and wherein the third light source is disposed on a side of the cut-off portion opposite from the second light source [see figure 2, top light source].
As to claim 11, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 10, wherein the third light source is associated with a high-beam function [see figure 2].
As to claim 14, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the lighting module includes four of the projector light sources [see figure 10], wherein the second light source is disposed between two projector light sources of the projector light sources [see figures 1-4, 9-10].
As to claim 15, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 14, wherein the light blocker includes four light blockers, with each of the four light blockers configured to block light from a corresponding projector light source of the projector light sources [see figures 10, 17].
As to claim 16, Mochizuki discloses the lighting module of Claim 1, wherein the housing further defines an aperture and one or more retaining tabs configured to hold the lens against an interior surface of the housing and in a fixed position extending through the aperture [18, figures 2, 3, 9].
As to claim 17, Mochizuki discloses a lighting module for a headlight in a vehicle [see figures, especially figure 3, 4], comprising: a projector light source [14b]; a second light source [14a] associated with a low-beam function [see figure 3]; a lens [19] defining a first lens portion associated with the projector light source [middle and bottom of 19, figure 3] and a second lens portion [top of 19] associated with the second light source [see figure 3]; and a housing [12, 13, 18] holding the projector light source and the second light source and holding the lens at a fixed position relative to the projector light source and the second light source and spaced apart therefrom [see figure 3], wherein the housing further defines an aperture [middle of 18] and one or more retaining tabs [portions of 18 above and below 19, figure 3] configured to hold the lens against an interior surface of the housing and in a fixed position extending through the aperture [see figure 3].
As to claim 18, Mochizuki discloses a headlight assembly for a vehicle, comprising two of the lighting modules of Claim 1, wherein the projector light source of one of the two lighting modules is associated with the low-beam function, and wherein the projector light source of another one of the two lighting modules is associated with a high-beam function [see figures 3, 4].
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki.
As to claim 19, Mochizuki discloses a lighting system for a vehicle [see abstract, title], comprising: at least one headlight assembly [see figure 2, for example], with each of the headlight assemblies including at least one lighting module [10a or 10b, figure 2], with each lighting module of the at least one lighting module including: a projector light source [14b, figure 3]; a second light source [14a, figure 3] associated with a low-beam function [see figure 3]; a lens [19] defining a first lens portion associated with the projector light source [middle and bottom of 19, figure 3] and a second lens portion associated with the second light source [top of 19, figure 3]; a housing [13, 14, 18, figure 3] holding the projector light source and the second light source and holding the lens at a fixed position relative to the projector light source and the second light source and spaced apart therefrom [see figure 3]; and a shield assembly [17] disposed in an interior of the housing between the light sources and the lens and including a light blocker configured to block light from the projector light source from reaching the second lens portion and to block light from the second light source from reaching the first lens portion [see figure 3], wherein the shield assembly further includes a cut-off portion configured to interrupt a portion of light emitted from the second light source and to define a cut-off pattern [external surface of 17b, figure 3, 4].
Mochizuki fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of lighting assemblies. Mochizuki does disclose that the light is for a headlamp assembly [see title, abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement two headlight assemblies since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this instance, having two assemblies allow for full illumination of a roadway as is known in the art [see Mochizuki, paragraph 102]
As to claim 20, Mochizuki discloses the lighting system of Claim 19, wherein the at least one lighting module includes two of the lighting modules disposed in each of the two headlight assemblies [see figure 2].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Rice [US 8449159].
As to claim 4, Mochizuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cut-off portion defines an upper surface having a reflective finish. Rice teaches configuring reflective surfaces to be made of a reflective finish, such a metalized coating, was well known [see column 7, line 37]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the reflective finish as taught by Rice with the lighting unit of Mochizuki, in order to increase transmissive efficiency of light which interacts with the cut off portion [see Mochizuki, paragraph 102].
As to claim 5, Mochizuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein the upper surface of the cut-off portion includes a metalized coating. Rice teaches configuring reflective surfaces to be made of a reflective finish, such a metalized coating, was well known [see column 7, line 37]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the reflective finish as taught by Rice with the lighting unit of Mochizuki, in order to increase transmissive efficiency of light which interacts with the cut off portion [see Mochizuki, paragraph 102].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Suzuki [US 2010/0067249]
As to claim 12, Mochizuki fails to explicitly disclose a primary lens assembly disposed in an optical path between at least one of the projector light source or the second light source, and the lens. Suzuki teaches the use of a primary lens assembly [see 11, figure 2, see also figure 1 as it is labeled 2 in figure 1] disposed in an optical path between a light source and a lens [see figure 1] was well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a primary lens assembly as claimed, in order to provide for even distributed illumination as desired by a user [see Mochizuki, paragraph 102].
As to claim 13, Mochizuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein the primary lens assembly includes a first primary optic portion disposed in a first optical path between the projector light source and the lens, and a second primary optic portion disposed in a second optical path between the second light source and the lens. Suzuki teaches the implementation of a first primary optic portion disposed in a first optical path between the projector light source and the lens [left half of 11, figure 2], and a second primary optic portion disposed in a second optical path between the second light source and the lens [right half of 11, figure 2] was well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a primary lens assembly as claimed, in order to provide for even distributed illumination as desired by a user [see Mochizuki, paragraph 102].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alternative embodiments of cut off headlamps are taught by Matsumoto, Yamagata, Wang, Ishida, Rhoads, Nomura, Chou, Tsukamoto, Abe, and Fleury [see PTO-892]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875