Vehicle headlight

The latest Office Action

Mailed Apr 17, 2026 · Final Office Action

The examiner has issued a Final Office Action maintaining all rejections. Claim 1 is rejected under §102 as anticipated, meaning the examiner found a single prior patent (Byrnes) that already discloses every element of the claim. Claims 2-5 are rejected under §103 as obvious, meaning the examiner believes combinations of two or three prior patents (Byrnes with Lin or Kanayama) would have made these claims obvious to a person skilled in vehicle headlight design.

A Final Office Action typically requires a response within three months (extendable up to six months with fees). Common options include filing arguments and amendments if a genuine path to allowance exists, requesting an examiner interview to narrow disagreements, or filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with amendments if more substantive changes are needed. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Open 19/120,393 as a matter and work this Office Action in your AI.

Connect PatentReply to Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, or another supported AI workspace and it compiles this application: the 3 Office Actions on file, every claim version, the responses, and the cited references, with each answer pointing back to the filed passage.

One new public application a month is free. The first compile takes a few minutes.

Strategy and filing changes require your approval.

All actions (2)

Final Office ActionLatest

Apr 17, 2026 · §102, §103

Final Office Action — all claims 1-5 rejected under §102 anticipation and §103 obviousness

Rejection groups (4)

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byrnes (U.S. 9,939,129).
Final Office Action mailed Apr 17, 2026
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 2
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes.
Final Office Action mailed Apr 17, 2026
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 3
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Lin (U.S. 11,057,115).
Final Office Action mailed Apr 17, 2026
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 4-5
Claims 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Kanayama (U.S. 2018/0245757).
Final Office Action mailed Apr 17, 2026

Prior art consulted (3)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US9939129	us patent	Byrnes	View ↗
US11057115	us patent	Lin	View ↗
US20180245757	patent publication	Kanayama	View ↗

Procedural framework (2)

MPEP§ 706.07(a)

Case lawIn Re Aller

Non-Final Office Action

Jan 9, 2026 · §102, §103

Non-Final Office Action — all claims 1-5 rejected under §102 anticipation and §103 obviousness

The applicant typically has three months to respond, extendable to six months with fees. Common responses include amending the claims to distinguish them from Byrnes and Kanayama, arguing that the examiner misread the references or the claims, or requesting an examiner interview to discuss the rejections. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 3
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byrnes (U.S. 9,939,129).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan 9, 2026
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 2
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan 9, 2026
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 4-5
Claims 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Kanayama (U.S. 2018/0245757).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan 9, 2026