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 3/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of transmission-enhancing features disposed on each of the input surface and the output surface of each of the optical elements of Claim 2 lines 1-4, the nanostructures defining a regular pattern with a same distance between corresponding parts of adjacent ones of the nanostructures of Claim 5 lines 1-2, and the lens cover comprising another plurality of transmission-enhancing features of Claim 15 lines 3-4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for transmission-enhancing features being nanostructures (see Specification paragraphs 33, 34, and 37), does not reasonably provide enablement for all possible features for enhancing transmission. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
With regards to Claim 1, lines 4-6 recite the limitation “each optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features disposed on a surface thereof and configured to increase light transmission therethrough and to decrease reflection therefrom”. In the Specification as originally filed, paragraph 33 discusses the nanostructures applied to the surface(s) of the lenses [40], [44], [48], and [52] and to lens cover [68], noting that as a result the nanostructures may increase optical efficiency of the headlight assembly by increasing light transmission originating from the light source and reducing the amount of reflection. Paragraph 34 further continues discussion that each optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features disposed on a surface thereof and configured to increase light transmission therethrough and to decrease reflection therefrom. In paragraph 37, the plurality of transmission-enhancing features are identified to be nanostructures formed on the surface of the optical element. Therefore, the transmission-enhancing being nanostructures has support in the original disclosure. However, no other embodiment or arrangement forming transmission-enhancing features is discussed or disclosed, and “transmission-enhancing features” is a phrasing that includes a broader range of features that could be included to enhance transmission (e.g., coatings, total reflection surfaces at a non-nanoscale level, reflectors, openings, etc.). Therefore, the scope of the claim is broader than the embodiment disclosed, and support for all embodiments is not provided in the original disclosure.
Additionally, Claim 15 lines 3-5 recite the limitation “the lens cover includes another plurality of transmission-enhancing features configured to increase light transmission through the lens cover and to decrease reflection therefrom”. In the Specification as originally filed, paragraph 33 discusses the nanostructures applied to the surface(s) of the lenses [40], [44], [48], and [52] and to lens cover [68], noting that as a result the nanostructures may increase optical efficiency of the headlight assembly by increasing light transmission originating from the light source and reducing the amount of reflection. Paragraph 34 further continues discussion that each optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features disposed on a surface thereof and configured to increase light transmission therethrough and to decrease reflection therefrom. In paragraph 37, the plurality of transmission-enhancing features are identified to be nanostructures formed on the surface of the optical element. Therefore, the transmission-enhancing being nanostructures has support in the original disclosure. However, no other embodiment or arrangement forming transmission-enhancing features is discussed or disclosed, and “transmission-enhancing features” is a phrasing that includes a broader range of features that could be included to enhance transmission (e.g., coatings, total reflection surfaces at a non-nanoscale level, reflectors, openings, etc.). Therefore, the scope of the claim is broader than the embodiment disclosed, and support for all embodiments is not provided in the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 lines 1-3 recite the limitation “each optical element of the plurality of optical elements defines a surface, and wherein the plurality of transmission-enhancing features are disposed on the surface”. However, Claim 3 depends from Claim 1, which recites on lines 4-5 “each optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features disposed on a surface thereof”. Therefore, the scope of Claim 3 is already included in the scope of Claim 1, and Claim 3 fails to further limit the scope of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joerg et al. (FR 3085738; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 1, Joerg et al. discloses a headlight assembly for a motor vehicle (see top of page 5 and Figure 2), comprising: a light source [12] (see middle of page 5and Figures 1 and 2); and a plurality of optical elements [10] disposed along an optical path with the light source [12] (see top of page 6 and Figure 2), wherein optical element of the plurality of optical elements [10] includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features (comprising the features shown with triangular cross-sections at portion [100] as shown in Figure 2, see bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 and bottom of page 9 and Figure 2; Joerg et al. discloses the optical elements [10] include three optical elements [101,102,103] and that several of the optical elements [10] include transmission-enhancing features) disposed on a surface thereof (see top of page 7 and Figure 2) and configured to increase light transmission therethrough and to decrease reflection therefrom (see middle of page 7 and middle of page 9).
Joerg et al. does not explicitly disclose each of the optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features. However, Joerg et al. does disclose the optical elements [10] include three optical elements [101,102,103], several of the optical elements [10] include transmission-enhancing features, and contemplates arrangements of optical elements [101,102,103] having transmission-enhancing features (see Joerg et al. bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 and bottom of page 9 and Figure 2), and that the inclusion of the transmission-enhancing features reduce light loss through the elements and due to reflection (see Joerg et al. middle of page 7 and middle of page 9). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form the optical elements of Joerg et al. such that each of the optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features in order to reduce light loss through the elements and due to reflection from each optical element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical elements of Joerg et al. such that each of the optical element of the plurality of optical elements includes a plurality of transmission-enhancing features. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce light loss through the elements and due to reflection (see Joerg et al. middle of page 7 and middle of page 9).
With regards to Claim 2, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Joerg et al. further discloses each optical element of the plurality of optical elements [10] defines an input surface for receiving light from the light source [12] (see Figure 2), and an output surface for emitting light therefrom (see Figure 2).
Joerg et al. does not explicitly disclose the plurality of transmission-enhancing features are disposed on each of the input surface and the output surface. However, Joerg et al. does disclose including the plurality of transmission-enhancing features [100] on an input surface and/or an output surface of an optical element (see Joerg et al. middle of page 7), and use of the plurality of transmission-enhancing features substantially reduces loss of light (see Joerg et al. bottom of page 7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to include the plurality of transmission-enhancing features on each of the input surface and the output surface in order to improve the transmission of light and reduce loss of light at each surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission-enhancing features of Joerg et al. to be disposed on each of the input surface and the output surface. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the transmission of light and reduce loss of light at each surface (see Joerg et al. middle and bottom of page 7).
With regards to Claim 3, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Joerg et al. further discloses each optical element of the plurality of optical elements [10] defines a surface, and wherein the plurality of transmission-enhancing features are disposed on the surface (see page 7 and Figure 2).
With regards to Claim 4, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 3.
Joerg et al. further discloses the plurality of transmission-enhancing features [100] include nanostructures formed on the surface of the optical element [10] (see bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 and Figure 2).
With regards to Claim 5, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 4.
Joerg et al. further discloses the nanostructures define a regular pattern [101] with a same distance [p1] between corresponding parts of adjacent ones of the nanostructures (see middle and bottom of page 7, and Figures 2, 4, and 5).
With regards to Claim 7, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 4.
Joerg et al. further discloses at least some of the nanostructures contact adjacent ones of the nanostructures where they each meet the surface (see middle of page 7 and Figures 2 and 5; a distance d between the bases of adjacent nanostructures can be equal to 0, thereby at least some of the nanostructures substantially contact adjacent nanostructures where they each meet the surface).
With regards to Claim 8, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 4.
Joerg et al. further discloses the nanostructures each have a same height [P] in a direction perpendicular to the surface (see middle of page 7 and Figure 5).
With regards to Claim 9, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 4.
Joerg et al. further discloses the nanostructures each have a refractive index that varies with a height perpendicular to the surface (see page 8 and Figure 5).
With regards to Claim 10, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 4.
Joerg et al. further discloses the nanostructures each have a refractive index that varies along a direction parallel to the surface (see top of page 7 and page 8 and Figure 5; due to the conic or pyramid shape of the nanostructures, the refractive index substantially varies along a direction parallel to the surface).
With regards to Claim 11, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 10.
Joerg et al. further discloses the refractive index of each of the nanostructures varies proportional to distance along the direction parallel to the surface (see top of page 7 and page 8 and Figure 5; due to the conic or pyramid shape of the nanostructures, the refractive index substantially varies proportionally to distance along the direction parallel to the surface).
With regards to Claim 12, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Joerg et al. further discloses a film of material disposed on the surface of each optical element, and wherein the film includes the plurality of transmission-enhancing features (see top half of page 10; the transmission-enhancing features [100] can be formed on a film, the film deposited to the surface of the optical elements [10]).
With regards to Claim 13, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Joerg et al. further discloses the plurality of transmission-enhancing features are integrally formed with each optical element (see top half of page 10; the features can be formed using a nanoimprint lithography process, substantially forming transmission-enhancing features integrally the optical element).
With regards to Claim 14, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Joerg et al. further discloses the plurality of optical elements [10] includes a plurality of lenses [101,102] each configured to focus and direct light from the light source [12] (see top half of page 6 and Figure 2).
With regards to Claim 15, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 14.
Joerg et al. further discloses the plurality of optical elements [10] further includes a lens cover [103] overlying the plurality of lenses [101,102], wherein the lens cover [103] is configured to pass light therethrough without distortion (see bottom of page 6 and Figure 2), and wherein the lens cover [103] includes another plurality of transmission-enhancing features configured to increase light transmission through the lens cover [103] and to decrease reflection therefrom (see bottom of page 6 and top of page 7; the optical element [103] substantially includes such features).
With regards to Claim 16, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Joerg et al. further discloses the headlight assembly does not include a heat sink (see middle of page 5, Figure 2, and the above discussion of the disclosure of Joerg et al. as pertains to the requirements of the headlight assembly of Claim 1; the headlight assembly as claimed does not include a heat sink).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joerg et al. (FR 3085738; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of de Lamberterie et al. (FR 3064371; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 6, Joerg et al. discloses the headlight assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 4.
Joerg et al. does not disclose the nanostructures define an irregular pattern with different distances between corresponding parts of adjacent ones of the nanostructures.
de Lamberterie et al. teaches the nanostructures define an irregular pattern with different distances between corresponding parts of adjacent ones of the nanostructures (see middle of page 5 and Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nanostructures of Joerg et al. to define an irregular pattern with different distances between corresponding parts of adjacent ones of the nanostructures, as taught by de Lamberterie et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an irregular arrangement of the transmission-enhancing features (see de Lamberterie et al. middle of page 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Motohashi (WO 2024121981), which discloses at least a vehicle headlight including a light source, a plurality of optical elements, the optical elements including on at least one surface a plurality of nanostructures, Motohashi (US 2023/0167960), which discloses at least a vehicle headlight including nanostructures formed on at least one surface thereof, Nan (CN 113864726), which discloses at least a vehicle headlight including a plurality of lens elements, each lens element having an anti-reflection film formed thereon, and Yamashita (JP 200379705), which discloses at least a film for lighting equipment having a plurality of triangular-profile structures arranged thereon for reducing reflections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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 (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights