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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 10/2/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-17 have been amended, thus currently claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, the phrase “between 5 and 15°” should be changed to -- between 5° and 15° --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10-11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuba et al. (JP 2007149552 A, hereinafter, “Matsuba”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuba teaches a luminous module (vehicle-mounted headlight, see figures 1-5) for automotive vehicle (vehicle, see ¶ 2) configured to perform a first luminous function (high beam light distribution pattern, see ¶ 5) and a second luminous function (low beam, see ¶ 5) distinct from the first luminous function (high beam light distribution pattern, see ¶ 5),
the luminous module comprising a housing (lens housing 21, see fig 3) in which are accommodated a light-emitting assembly (LEDs 12, see fig 3), a collimator (collimation lenses 23, see fig 3) and a microlens array device (fly-eye lens holding plate 25, see fig 2),
the light-emitting assembly (12) being configured to emit light rays toward the microlens array device (25) through the collimator (23) with a view to alternately performing each of the two luminous functions (high and low beams),
and an actuator (motor 36, see fig 1), activation of which causes the housing (21) to pivot (pivot around axis of 26) during passage from one of the luminous functions (high or low beam) to the other (high or low beam).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuba teaches wherein the light-emitting assembly (12) includes a first light source (at least one 12) configured to perform the first luminous function (high beam light distribution pattern, see ¶ 5) and a second light source (at least another 12) configured to perform the second luminous function (low beam, see ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuba teaches wherein the collimator (23) has an object focal plane (focal plane of LED board 11, see fig 1), with the first light source (at least one 12) and the second light source (at least another 12) being placed in this the object focal plane (plane of 11).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuba teaches wherein the first light source (one 12) and the second light source (another 12) sources have different luminous intensities (as high beam distribution requires light sources with higher intensity than for low beam, see ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuba teaches method for using a luminous module (vehicle-mounted headlight, see figures 1-5) with the luminous module including a housing (21) in which are accommodated a light-emitting assembly (12), a collimator (23) and a microlens array device (25), the light-emitting assembly (12) being configured to emit light rays toward the microlens array device (25) through the collimator (23) with a view to alternately performing each of two luminous functions (high and low beams), and
an actuator (36), activation of which causes the housing (12) to pivot (pivot around axis of 26) during passage from one of the luminous functions (high or low beam) to the other (high or low beam),
comprising detecting (via user activation, not labeled but necessarily included in all vehicles, and shown in fig 5a) the passage from a first luminous function (high beam light distribution pattern, see ¶ 5) to a second luminous function (low beam, see ¶ 5) and causing the actuator (36) to be activated to make the housing (21) pivot (pivot around axis of 26) from a first angular position (from one position at one end of rack gear 15, see fig 1) to a second angular position (to another position at another end of rack gear 15, see fig 1), and
detecting (via user activation, not labeled but necessarily included in all vehicles, and shown in fig 5b) the passage from the second luminous function (low beam, see ¶ 5) to the first luminous function (high beam light distribution pattern, see ¶ 5) and causing the actuator- (36) to be activated to make the housing (21) pivot (pivot around axis of 26) from the second angular position (the another end of 15) to the first angular position (the one end of 15).
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuba et al. (JP 2007149552 A, hereinafter, “Matsuba”).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuba teaches the second luminous function (low beam, see ¶ 5) is a lighting function (as low beam is a vehicle lighting function), such as a low-beam function, but
Matsuba does not explicitly teach wherein the first luminous function is a signaling function, such as a daytime-running-light function.
However, Matsuba discloses the device may be perform other lighting functions besides low and high beam (see ¶ 47).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select proper microlenses to Matsuba to emit a signaling function, since the applicant has not disclosed that a specific light distribution solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with providing a signaling function. In this case, selecting a given light distribution would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 16, Matsuba teaches wherein the actuator (36) is configured to make the housing (21) pivot (pivot around axis of 26) by an angular offset of between 0° and 90°, but
Matsuba does not teach an angular offset of between 5 and 15°.
However, Matsuba discloses the device may have additional light sources directly reducing the pivoting angle to less than 90 degrees, including less than 15 degrees (see ¶ 47).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select proper number of microlenses into Matsuba’s device to provide an angular offset of between 5 and 15° between distributions. since the applicant has not disclosed that a specific an angular offset solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with providing an angular offset of between 5 and 15°. In this case, selecting an appropriate an angular offset would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuba et al. (JP 2007149552 A, hereinafter, “Matsuba”) in view of Nakano et al. (US 20080112174 A1, hereinafter, “Nakano”).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuba does not explicitly teach further comprising a control unit controlling the actuator.
Nakano teaches a luminous module (headlamp module 12, see fig 2) having an actuator (drive unit 18);
further comprising a control unit (light-distribution controller 20) controlling the actuator (18).
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 control unit as taught by Nakano into the teachings of Matsuba, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to automate the rotational motion of the housing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuba et al. (JP 2007149552 A, hereinafter, “Matsuba”) in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2016078560 A1, hereinafter, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuba does not explicitly teach further comprising an additional lens placed between the first light source and the microlens array device.
Zhang teaches a luminous module (Compound eye lens device, see figure 1) having a first light source (light source 101) and microlens array device (fly-eye lens 104).
further comprising an additional lens (second lens 102) placed between the first light source (101) and the microlens array device (104).
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 additional lens as taught by Zhang into the teachings of Matsuba, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to further modulate the light from light source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-9 and 12-13 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 claims 3-5, although Matsuba teaches the luminous module, as described in claim 1 above,
the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach (claim 3) wherein the microlens array device comprises includes an entrance microlens array, an exit microlens array and a mask, the mask being placed between the entrance two microlens arrays and the exit microlens array, and
(claim 4) wherein the entrance microlens array has an image focal plane and the exit microlens array has an object focal plane, this the image focal plane and this the object focal plane being substantially coincident with the mask, the mask being opaque and containing apertures, and
(claim 5) wherein each microlens of the entrance microlens array has an image focal plane, the light rays generated by the light-emitting assembly and participating in the first luminous function being focused on the image focal plane, at a first focal point away from the edges of the apertures of the mask, and the light rays generated by the light-emitting assembly and participating in the second luminous function being focused on the image focal plane, at a second focal point on the edge of an aperture of the mask.
Regarding claims 7-9, although Matsuba teaches the luminous module, as described in claims 1and 6 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach (claim 7) further comprising an additional actuator, activation of which causes a movement of at least part of the luminous module within the housing , the control unit being configured to control the actuator and the additional actuator simultaneously, and
(claim 8) wherein the part of the luminous module corresponds to the microlens array device, the microlens array device being configured to rock between a first angular position and a second angular position, the light-emitting assembly comprising includes a light source having a variable luminous intensity, and
(claim 9) wherein the portion of the luminous module corresponds to the light-emitting assembly, the light-emitting assembly comprising includes a light source movable between a first position and a second position, the first position being associated with the first luminous function and the second position being associated with the second luminous function, the light source having a variable luminous intensity.
Regarding claim 12, although Matsuba teaches the luminous module, as described in claims 1 and 10 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein the first light source and the second light source two light sources are placed in two different vertical planes, each vertical plane being perpendicular to an optical axis (O) of the luminous module, one of the light sources being closer to the microlens array device than the other light source.
Regarding claim 13, although Matsuba teaches the luminous module, as described in claims 1 and 10-11 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein the collimator has an object focal plane, the second light source being placed in this object focal plane and the first light source being offset with respect to this the object focal plane.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights