DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Benefit & Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 (c) with PCT/EP2024/061422, which in turn claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with DE 10 2023 002 272.1. The certified copy for foreign priority has been filed with the Office on 12/04/2025. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date was recognized as 06/05/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2025 was 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanners et al. (GB 2405272 A; listed as Cite No. 8 under Foreign Patent Documents in the IDS filed on 12/04/2025; reference copy provided by Applicant; “Stanners”).
Stanners discloses a method (described by the following) for operating a vehicle tail light (left and right clusters 12a and 12b, respectively as well as high level brake lamp 14; shown in at least Fig 1; described by at least the following) comprising a plurality of illuminants (bulbs 15a-17a, 15b-17b, 18) arranged one next to each other according to a pattern (the pattern of 18 in 14), wherein at least one partner illuminant of the plurality of illuminants is allocated to each illuminant of the plurality of illuminants depending on a mirror symmetry or point symmetry in the pattern (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18, specifically including Considering Figure 4, for example, were LED L4 to fail, the appearance of the lamp would be compromised, the failed LED being clearly noticeable. In the invention, however, the processor may, in this case, automatically switch off or deactivate LED L9 which corresponds symmetrically to LED L4. Thus, a symmetrical appearance of the lamp is maintained and the failed LED will be undetected by the driver or other road users, thereby maintaining the perceived quality of the lamp), and wherein a respective center point of a mirror axis or a mirror point lies in a geometric center point of the pattern, the method comprising:
monitoring functionality of the plurality of illuminants (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18); and
detecting failure of one of the plurality of illuminants and, responsive, deactivating light emission from a partner illuminant allocated to the one of the plurality of illuminants that failed (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18).
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 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Stanners.
Re Claim 11:
Stanners discloses a vehicle tail light (left and right clusters 12a and 12b, respectively as well as high level brake lamp 14; shown in at least Fig 1; described by at least the below) comprising:
a plurality of illuminants (bulbs 15a-17a, 15b-17b, 18) arranged one next to each other according to a pattern (the pattern of 18 in 14),
wherein at least one partner illuminant of the plurality of illuminants is allocated to each illuminant of the plurality of illuminants depending on a mirror symmetry or point symmetry in the pattern (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18, specifically including Considering Figure 4, for example, were LED L4 to fail, the appearance of the lamp would be compromised, the failed LED being clearly noticeable. In the invention, however, the processor may, in this case, automatically switch off or deactivate LED L9 which corresponds symmetrically to LED L4. Thus, a symmetrical appearance of the lamp is maintained and the failed LED will be undetected by the driver or other road users, thereby maintaining the perceived quality of the lamp), and
wherein a respective partner illuminant is configured to be switched off when the illuminant to which the partner illuminant is allocated fails to maintain symmetry of the pattern (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18).
With further regard to symmetry, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to recognize Stanners as at least suggesting wherein a respective center point of a mirror axis or a mirror point lies in a geometric center point of the pattern due to the description from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18 in combination with the configuration of at least high-level brake lamp 14 in Fig 1 transposed with Figs 3-4. The Examiner points to Figs 5a-5b as showing additional embodiments that also show (or at least suggest) geometric centers.
Re Claim 12:
Stanners further discloses wherein at least of the plurality of illuminants is an LED (described as LED on pages 17-18).
Re Claim 13:
Stanners further discloses an integrated control unit (drive 36 and processor 40) configured to monitor or control the plurality of illuminants (configuration shown in at least Fig 3 and described on at least page 10).
Re Claim 14:
Stanners further discloses wherein the pattern is designed in such a way that, for at least one location in the pattern and a corresponding partner location (correspondence of pattern described with regard to LED 4 and LED 9 on Pages 17-18), light with at least two different colors are emittable by the plurality of illuminants (colors described with the Legend in Fig 4 and the 4th ¶ on page 16).
Re Claim 16:
Stanners further discloses a monitoring monitor (40; described on Page 17).
Stanners does not explicitly describe how the functionality of illuminants are monitored, specifically including wherein the monitoring module detects the failure of the one of the plurality of illuminants by monitoring an electrical voltage, an electrical current, or a resistance of at least one part of an electrical circuitry of the vehicle tail light.
However, there are a limited number of ways for a monitor to detect functionality of at least one part of an electrical circuitry of the vehicle tail light, specifically including monitoring an electrical voltage, an electrical current, or a resistance. Further, the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to try the method of detecting function failure for at least one part of an electrical circuity of the vehicle tail light to be at least one of a monitoring an electrical voltage, an electrical current, or a resistance for the benefit of trying a definitive method.
Re Claim 17:
Stanners discloses a vehicle (shown in at least Fig 1 and described, below) comprising:
a tail light (left and right clusters 12a and 12b, respectively as well as high level brake lamp 14), which comprises a plurality of illuminants (bulbs 15a-17a, 15b-17b, 18) arranged one next to each other according to a pattern (the pattern of 18 in 14),
wherein at least one partner illuminant of the plurality of illuminants is allocated to each illuminant of the plurality of illuminants depending on a mirror symmetry or point symmetry in the pattern (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18, specifically including Considering Figure 4, for example, were LED L4 to fail, the appearance of the lamp would be compromised, the failed LED being clearly noticeable. In the invention, however, the processor may, in this case, automatically switch off or deactivate LED L9 which corresponds symmetrically to LED L4. Thus, a symmetrical appearance of the lamp is maintained and the failed LED will be undetected by the driver or other road users, thereby maintaining the perceived quality of the lamp), and
wherein a respective partner illuminant is configured to be switched off when the illuminant to which the partner illuminant is allocated fails to maintain symmetry of the pattern (described from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18).
With further regard to symmetry, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to recognize Stanners as at least suggesting wherein a respective center point of a mirror axis or a mirror point lies in a geometric center point of the pattern due to the description from the last paragraph of page 17 to the top paragraph of page 18 in combination with the configuration of at least high-level brake lamp 14 in Fig 1 transposed with Figs 3-4. The Examiner points to Figs 5a-5b as showing additional embodiments that also show (or at least suggest) geometric centers.
Re Claim 18:
Stanners further discloses wherein the tail light (12a, 12b, 14) is configured to emit a light characteristic of a rear light, a reversing light, a brake light, or a turning indicator (at least reversing, brake, and turning described with regard to combinations on pages 11-14).
Re Claim 19:
Stanners further discloses wherein the tail light is a continuous tail light (specifically 14) extending horizontally across a rear of the vehicle (Fig 1), wherein the tail light (specifically 14) is configured to emit a first light characteristic at least via a first part (a combination described on pages 11-14 for LED 4) of the pattern (pattern of 18 in 14) and a light characteristic corresponding to the first light characteristic (the same combination described on pages 11-14 for LED 4) via a second part of the pattern (LED 9).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanners in view of Niggemann (EP 1000806 B1; listed as Cite No. 7 in the IDS filed on 12/04/2025; English machine translation provided by Applicant “Niggemann”).
Stanners further discloses a monitoring module (40) configured to detect failure of one of the plurality of illuminants (described on pages 17-18).
With regards to number of illuminants, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Stanners as at least suggesting wherein the plurality of illuminants are divided into a first number of illuminants and a second number of illuminants depending on an arrangement in the pattern due to at least the distinction of L4 from L9 on pages 17-18.
Stanners does not explicitly disclose a monitoring module (40) configured to issue a issue a notification message to a user via vehicle-internal output after detecting the failure of at least one illuminant.
Niggemann teaches a monitoring module (light controller, page 12) configured to issue a issue a notification message (error) to a user via vehicle-internal output (display element) after detecting the failure of at least one illuminant (page 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the monitoring module of Stanners to issue a notification message as taught (in at least principle) by Niggemann for the benefit of added utility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bradley (US 20070242338 A1) and Oh (US 9951921 B2) disclose a vehicle tail light with a monitoring module.
Wu (US 20090251909 A1) discloses a vehicle tail light with a first and second plurality of light emitting elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights