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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 (c) with PCT/EP2024/065805, and applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with FR 2305775. The certified copy of foreign priority has been filed with the Office on 12/08/2025. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention has been recognized as 06/08/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 was filed considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the informalities, below.
Re Claim 14:
On line 13 (third from bottom, before unamended text), “the luminous unit” should be changed to – the luminous units – in order to put the claim in proper form.
Re Claim 15:
The claim is objected to due to its dependence on claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On line 4, the claim recites “all the other luminous units”. There is no antecedent bases for other luminous units; therefore, the claim is indefinite. Upon careful review of Applicant’s disclosure (specifically including Applicant’s Fig 2), the Examiner has best understood Applicant to claiming at least three luminous units for claim 15. However, if the Examiner’s best understanding is correct, a rewrite of the claims would be required, and such a rewrite would be a moot point if Applicant did not mean to claim at least three luminous units. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted “in the first direction, relative to the light sources of the rows of light sources of all the other luminous units” as – in the first direction – in order to execute compact prosecution.
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, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroya (JP 2022028514 A; listed as Cite No. 4 under Foreign Patent Documents in the IDS filed on 12/08/2025; English machine translation provided).
Re Claim 1:
Hiroya discloses a luminous unit for an automotive vehicle (vehicle headlight 100; Figs 1-6; described in at least PDF Pages 23-27 as well as below), comprising:
- a row of light sources (rows of first and second light sources 11 and 12, respectively; Fig 2; the Examiner notes that both rows for 11 and 12 may be reasonably interpreted as a row of light sources; therefore, both rows are mapped as well as the resulting emitted light rays L1 and L2) emitting light rays (L1 and L2, Figs 1 and 3), the row of light sources including light sources aligned in a first direction (direction from left to right shown in Fig 2),
- a support (substrate 13) on which the row of light sources is disposed (Fig 2), and
- an optical system (at least light guide body 20 and projection lens 30) including:
a primary lens (20) including an optical axis (optical axis AX; Figs 1 and 3), a first entrance face (face of 20 proximate to 13) and an exit face (emission surface 24), and
a projection lens (30), the light rays (L1 and L2) passing first through the primary lens (20) and second through the projection lens (30),
wherein a plane (plane of view shown in Figs 1 and 3) is perpendicular to the first direction (Figs 1 and 3 transposed with Fig 2) and includes the optical axis (includes AX, shown in Figs 1 and 3), and
wherein in that the support (13) forms with the optical axis (13) an angle different from 90° (shown in Figs 1 and 3; described on Page 23 as diagonally upward), and in that the first entrance face (face proximate to 13) includes a planar upper portion (first surface 21a), a planar lower portion (third incident surface 22a) and a connecting portion (leading edge portion 25), the lower portion (22a) being offset relative to the upper portion (Fig 3) along the optical axis (AX), the upper portion (21a) and the lower portion (22a) being connected by the connecting portion (connected by 25; Fig 3).
Hiroya is silent regarding the limitation of each light source of the row of light sources being individually activatable.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that each light source in rows of light sources being individually activatable was well-known within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, 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 configure each light source in the row of light sources of Hiroya to be individually activatable as was well-known and for the benefit of localized brightness adjustment in the total beam propagation.
Re Claim 2:
Hiroya further discloses wherein the first entrance face (face of 20 proximate to 13) receives light rays (L1 and L2) emitted by the row of light sources (Figs 1 and 3).
Re Claim 3:
Hiroya further discloses wherein the upper portion (21a) is offset along the optical axis (AX), relative to the lower portion (22a).
With further regard to the offset, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the offset shown in Fig 3 as an equivalent offset to the claimed offset of in order to be closer to the exit face.
Further, the offset as claimed is an obvious variant, specifically including to the variant as claimed in claim 4. This lack of criticality is evident by the description in Applicant’s ¶ 0034 of (given) that the objective of positioning a connecting portion inclined with respect to the upper portion and with respect to the lower portion is to create a blurring in the projection of the light rays that have traversed this connecting portion, irrespective of the positioning of the upper portion with respect to the lower portion, the desired technical effect will be obtained. Thus, the upper portion can be positioned upstream (or downstream) of the lower portion along the optical axis. Stated differently, the criticality of the offset is that there is that the connection portion is at an incline to both the upper and lower portions. The Examiner further notes that Hiroya discloses two (curved) inclines between 21a and 22a. Furthermore, for argument’s sake, even if the light sources were mapped only to 11, if the connection portion were mapped to second incident portion 21b, and if the lower portion were mapped to the surface between 21b and 21d, the limitations of the claim would be read on, specifically including the previously described critical limitation of the inclined orientation of the connection portion (21b for the sake of argument) relative to the upper (21a) and lower (portion between 21b and 21d) portion (for argument’s sake).
Re Claim 4:
Hiroya further discloses wherein the upper portion (21a) is offset along the optical axis (AX), relative to the lower portion (22a), in order to be farther away from the exit surface (shown in Fig 3).
Re Claim 5:
With regard to orientation, 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 PHOSITA to recognize Hiroya as at least suggesting wherein the support (13) is inclined with respect to the optical axis (AX) so that the light rays (L1 and L2) are oriented more toward the upper portion (21a) than lower portion (22a) due to the emission patterns shown in Figs 1 and 3.
Re Claim 10:
Hiroya further discloses wherein the optical system (20 and 30) has a focal length (necessarily occurs).
With further regard to the focal length, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Hiroya as at least suggesting focal length as a results effective variable due to the effective result as predetermined low beam pattern P1 and low beam pattern P2 (shown in Fig 6 and described on Page 26) derived from the inherent variable of the focal length in the optical system. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (in re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Hiroya as at least suggesting an equivalent focal length to the claimed focal length of wherein the optical system has a focal length , the length of the orthogonal projection in the plane on the optical axis connecting portion being proportional to the focal length by applying a proportionality factor between 0.02 and 0.03 for the purpose of providing a desired beam pattern.
Re Claim 13:
Hiroya further discloses wherein the luminous unit (100) is configured to form and participate in a segmented complementary high beam (shown in Fig 6 and described on Page 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11-12 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.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 6:
The closest prior art of record (Hiroya) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the light sources orthogonal projection on the optical axis intercepts the optical axis at the main object focal point as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 7:
The closest prior art of record (Hiroya) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the row of light sources as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 8-9:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 7.
Re Claim 11:
The closest prior art of record (Hiroya) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the upper portion and the lower portion as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 12:
The closest prior art of record (Hiroya) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the first curvature being more convex than the fifth curvature and the second curvature being more convex than the fifth curvature and the fourth curvature being more convex than the third curvature as set forth in the claim.
Claim 14 objected to above, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection above.
The closest prior art of record (Hiroya) fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality the plurality of luminous units as set forth in the claim. The Examiner notes that there is not a duplication of the entire luminous unit limitation as set forth in claim 1; in example, there are not two optical systems.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claim contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on base claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kinoshita et al. (US 20170299137 A1) discloses a luminous unit including an optical system, wherein the optical system includes a connecting portion. However, the connection portion is on the projection lens rather than the primary lens.
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