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 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 1-2, 6-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lamberterie et al. (2014/0003071) in view of Iwasaki (2021/0325017).
with respect to claim 1, de Lamberterie teaches an optical element (10) for a vehicle headlamp (paragraphs 79-80), wherein the optical element comprises: one or more entry portions (13) for receiving light rays from one or more light sources (11); one or more total internal reflection (TIR) surfaces (14 and/or 16i) configured to receive light rays from the one or more entry portions and to focus, by TIR, the light rays received from the one or more entry portions in a vertical direction (y) and in a horizontal direction (x) (Figs. 4 and/or 6 and/or 7); and one or more exit portions (18i) comprising one or more exit lenses, wherein the one or more exit lenses comprise a plurality of Fresnel structures (paragraph 75) configured to collimate and/or spread (Figs. 4 and/or 6 and/or 7), in the horizontal direction and/or in the vertical direction (Figs. 4 and/or 6 and/or 7), light rays exiting the optical element, wherein the optical element is formed as a monolithic body (paragraph 70).
De Lamberterie does not explicitly teach one or more total internal reflection (TIR) surfaces configured to focus, by TIR, the light rays received from the one or more entry portion to one or more focal points of the one or more TIR surfaces (claim 1).
As for claim 1, Iwasaki also drawn to optical elements for vehicle headlamps, teaches one or more total internal reflection (TIR) surfaces configured to focus, by TIR, the light rays received from the one or more entry portion to one or more focal points of the one or more TIR surfaces (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present inventio, to use the one or more focal points of Iwasaki in the optical element of de Lamberterie, in order to enable downsizing of the optical element (paragraph 7 of Iwasaki).
As for claim 2, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the optical element comprises one or more light cutters (“hood” in paragraph 99) configured to form, by TIR, a cutoff profile for light rays passing from the one or more entry portions to the one or more exit lenses (paragraph 99).
As for claim 6, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the plurality of Fresnel structures (18i) comprise: ring-shaped Fresnel structures, and/or horizontally and/or vertically stacked rectangular Fresnel structures (Fig. 4).
As for claim 7, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the one or more exit portions (18i and 20) comprise one or more exit lenses devoid of Fresnel structures (Fig. 7).
As for claim 8, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the plurality of Fresnel structures comprise Fresnel structures of at least two different types (Fig. 6).
As for claim 9, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein at least one TIR surface (16i) of the one or more TIR surfaces has a first focal point and a second focal point for focusing the light rays received from the one or more entry portions, wherein the first focal point and the second focal point are substantially coincident, or wherein the first focal point and the second focal point are noncoincident (Figs. 4 and/or 6 and/or 7), and optionally wherein one of the first focal point and the second focal point is positioned further from the at least one TIR surface than the other one of the first focal point and the second focal point and/or the first focal point and the second focal point are in different positions in the horizontal direction (Figs. 4 and/or 6 and/or 7).
As for claim 10, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the one or more exit lenses comprise a plurality of exit lenses (18i) comprising a plurality of the Fresnel structures (Fig. 4).
As for claim 11, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the optical element comprises a plurality of entry portions (13 and 19) for receiving light rays from the one or more light sources (Fig. 7), and a plurality of TIR surfaces (14 and/or 16i) configured to receive light rays from the plurality of entry portions and to focus, by TIR, the light rays received from the plurality of entry portions in the vertical direction (y) and in the horizontal direction (x) (Fig. 7).
As for claim 12, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the plurality of TIR surfaces (16i) comprise substantially parallel optical axes for focusing the light rays (Fig. 7).
As for claim 13, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the plurality of TIR surfaces (14 and 16i) comprise substantially nonparallel optical axes for focusing the light rays (Fig. 7).
As for claim 14, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the one or more exit lenses (18i and 20) comprise a plurality of exit lenses (Fig. 7), wherein: the plurality of exit lenses include at least one exit lens for each of the plurality of TIR surfaces (Fig. 7), and/or a plurality of horizontally and/or vertically adjacent exit lenses.
As for claim 15, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more exit portions comprises only one of the one or more exit lenses (Fig. 4; *note the use of “comprising” language rather “consisting” language only requires a single one of the items 18i to be interpreted as the “exit portions” of the claim).
As for claim 17, de Lamberterie further teaches wherein the plurality of Fresnel structures of at least one of the one or more exit lenses are configured to spread light rays exiting the optical element at two or more different spread angles (Fig. 6).
As for claim 18, de Lamberterie and Iwasaki teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, as well as de Lamberterie further teaches a lighting unit (paragraphs 79-87).
As for claim 19, de Lamberterie and Iwasaki teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, as well as de Lamberterie further teaches a vehicle (paragraphs 79-87).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
With respect to claims 3-5, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the optical element comprises one or more light collector surfaces configured to receive light rays reflected by the one or more light cutters, and to reflect, by TIR, the light rays received from the one or more light cutters towards the one or more exit lenses, and optionally wherein:at least one of the one or more light collector surfaces is configured to collimate the light rays received from the one or more light cutters towards the one or more exit lenses, and/or at least one of the one or more light collector surfaces is configured to focus the light rays received from the one or more light cutters in the vertical direction and in the horizontal direction; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1-3.
As for claim 16, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of Fresnel structures of at least one of the one or more exit lenses comprise first Fresnel structures configured to collimate light rays exiting the optical element and second Fresnel structures configured to spread light rays exiting the optical element; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6-15, and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Iwasaki reference has been added to teach the amended subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 571-272-2399. 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 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights