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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 3-5, 9-13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aphek et al. (US 2008/0291954) in view of Amit et al. (US 2016/0131843).
Regarding claim 3, Aphek discloses, a method for aligning (Figs. 3-4B and 5B) a light source (200) comprising a plurality of lasers (Para. 0008) spaced in an arrangement, each of the lasers operable to emit a beam of light (B’1, B’2, B’3), the method comprising:
centering and collimating (Para. 0062) each of the beams of light by positioning one or more lenses (Para. 0062 and L3, L6, L9) in an optical path of the beam of light and fixing a position of the one or more lenses (Para. 0065-0066);
positioning mirrors (see annotated Fig. 5B below) to redirect the beams of light to provide a closely spaced array of parallel beams of light (Para. 0065-0066 and see spacing of “second spacing” of beams B”1 and B”2 compared to “first spacing” of beams B’1 and B’2 in annotated Fig. 5B below; note the Examiner interprets that the spacing of beams B”1 and B”2 is a more closely spaced array of parallel beams of light than the “first spacing” of beams B’1 and B’2 in annotated Fig. 5B below) and fixing positions of the mirrors (Para. 0065-0066).
Aphek does not explicitly disclose the mirrors are permanently fixed, after the positioning of the mirrors.
Amit teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning that it would have been desirable to make the mirrors are permanently fixed, after the positioning of the mirrors (Para. 0054, lines 18-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the mirrors are permanently fixed, after the positioning of the mirrors as taught by the method for aligning of Amit in the method for aligning of Aphek since Amit teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning for the purpose of providing an accurately and correctly aligned mirror with long term stability and reduced alignment errors.
Furthermore, KSR rationale – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results - offers that it would have been desirable to provide the mirror of Aphek to be permanently fixed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, view the teachings of Amit, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known elements with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skill in the art would have recognized that permanently fixing the mirrors as used in Amit would allow the mirrors in the method for aligning of Aphek to be permanently aligned and to maintain the position of the mirrors to prevent additional alignment and mounting inaccuracies.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, positioning the mirrors comprises reducing a spacing between adjacent ones of the beams of light emitted from the plurality of lasers (Para. 0065-0066 and see Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 5, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, positioning the mirrors to clip edges of the beams of light emitted from the plurality of lasers (Para. 0065-0066 and see Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 9, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, positioning the mirrors comprises mounting each of the plurality of mirrors on a flexible structure (Para. 0065-0066 and see Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 10, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose shimming the flexible structure into place.
The Examiner points out that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include shimming the flexible structure into place for the purpose of effectively and accurately holding the flexible structure in the correct position.
Regarding claim 11, Aphek discloses, applying a settable material to fix the positions of the one or more lenses (Para. 0062, 0065-0066 and Figs. 4A-B and 5B).
Aphek does not explicitly disclose the mirrors are permanently fixed.
Amit teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning that it would have been desirable to make the mirrors are permanently fixed (Para. 0054, lines 18-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the mirrors are permanently fixed as taught by the method for aligning of Amit in the method for aligning of Aphek since Amit teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning for the purpose of providing an accurately and correctly aligned mirror with long term stability and reduced alignment errors.
Furthermore, KSR rationale – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results - offers that it would have been desirable to provide the mirror of Aphek to be permanently fixed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, view the teachings of Amit, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known elements with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skill in the art would have recognized that permanently fixing the mirrors as used in Amit would allow the mirrors in the method for aligning of Aphek to be permanently aligned and to maintain the position of the mirrors to prevent additional alignment and mounting inaccuracies.
Regarding claim 12, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, the settable material comprises epoxy, glue or solder (Para. 0062, 0065-0066 and Figs. 4A-B and 5B).
Regarding claim 13, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, positioning a diffraction grating in an optical path of the lasers to produce an alignment pattern and adjusting alignment of the closely spaced array of parallel light beams using the alignment pattern (Para. 0053).
Regarding claim 16, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, positioning one or more additional lenses or mirrors to expand or contract the beam of light emitted from a corresponding one of the lasers (see 430A, B).
Regarding claim 18, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, placing cooling elements proximate to heat-generating elements of the light source (Para. 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 19, Aphek in view of Amit discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, arranging the lasers in a two-dimensional array that has a length and a width wherein the length of the array is larger than a length of the closely spaced array of parallel beams and the width of the array is larger than a width of the closely spaced array of parallel beams (Para. 0058, 0062 and see Figs. 3 and 4B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aphek et al. (US 2008/0291954) in view of Amit et al. (US 2016/0131843) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Svenson et al. (US 2013/0077308; already of record).
Aphek in view of Amit remains as applied to claim 3 above.
Aphek in view of Amit does not disclose positioning the mirrors to clip edges of the beams of light emitted from the plurality of lasers.
Svenson teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning a light source that it would have been desirable to include positioning the mirrors to clip edges of the beams of light emitted from the plurality of lasers (610 of Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include positioning the mirrors to clip edges of the beams of light emitted from the plurality of lasers as taught by the method for aligning a light source of Svenson in the combination of Aphek in view of Amit since Svenson teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning a light source for the purpose of providing a low cost light source with enhanced brightness and reduced power consumption.
Claims 7-8, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aphek et al. (US 2008/0291954) in view of Amit et al. (US 2016/0131843) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (US 2005/0058175; already of record).
Aphek in view of Amit remains as applied to claim 3 above.
Aphek in view of Amit does not disclose positioning the mirrors comprises adjusting an angle of each of the plurality of mirrors about a corresponding pivot joint.
Gross teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning a light source that it would have been desirable to include positioning the mirrors comprises adjusting an angle of each of the plurality of mirrors about a corresponding pivot joint (Para. 0107-0108 and see 64, 66 of Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include positioning the mirrors comprises adjusting an angle of each of the plurality of mirrors about a corresponding pivot joint as taught by the method for aligning a light source of Gross in the combination of Aphek in view of Amit since Gross teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning a light source for the purpose of providing an improved method for aligning a light source with enhanced efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Aphek, Amit and Gross discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Aphek further discloses, after each of the mirrors is positioned, permanently fixing the corresponding pivot joint with an adhesive (Para. 0065-0066 and Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 14, Aphek, Amit and Gross discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Gross further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning a light source that it would have been desirable to make controlling a dynamic optical element positioned in an optical path of the lasers to display a dynamically varying diffractive alignment pattern and adjusting alignment of the closely spaced array of parallel light beams using the dynamically varying diffractive alignment pattern (Para. 0107-0108 and see 64, 66 of Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the method for aligning a light source of Gross in the combination of Aphek in view of Amit since Gross teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning a light source for the purpose of providing an improved method for aligning a light source with enhanced efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Aphek, Amit and Gross discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Gross further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning a light source that it would have been desirable to make controlling the dynamic optical element to display progressively finer alignment patterns (Para. 0107-0108 and see 64, 66 of Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the method for aligning a light source of Gross in the combination of Aphek in view of Amit since Gross teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning a light source for the purpose of providing an improved method for aligning a light source with enhanced efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, Aphek, Amit and Gross discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Gross further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for aligning a light source that it would have been desirable to make equalizing path lengths of the beams of light by positioning one or more additional mirrors to fold a light path of one or more of the beams of light (Para. 0105-0106 and see 52, 54 of Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the method for aligning a light source of Gross in the combination of Aphek in view of Amit since Gross teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for aligning a light source for the purpose of providing an improved method for aligning a light source with enhanced efficiency.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aphek et al. (US 2008/0291954) in view of Amit et al. (US 2016/0131843) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhai et al. (US 2002/0126479; already of record).
Aphek in view of Amit remains as applied to claim 3 above.
Aphek in view of Amit does not disclose the lasers comprise laser diodes, and at least one laser diode bar comprising a plurality of spaced-apart laser diodes.
Zhai teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of aligning a light source that it would have been desirable to make the lasers comprise laser diodes (Para. 0023 and see 52 of Fig. 2), and at least one laser diode bar comprising a plurality of spaced-apart laser diodes (Para. 0023 and see 52 of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lasers comprise laser diodes, and at least one laser diode bar comprising a plurality of spaced-apart laser diodes as taught by the method for aligning a light source of Zhai in the combination of Aphek in view of Amit since Zhai teaches it is known to include these features in a method for aligning a light source for the purpose of providing an efficient light source that provides uniform illumination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Aphek does not disclose positioning mirrors to redirect the beams of light provides a closely spaced array of parallel beams of light. The Examiner points out that the instant specification does not give a specialized meaning to the phrase “closely spaced”, the specification does not supply a standard for measuring the scope of the phrase/term and depends solely on subjective opinion without objective boundaries. The specification conveys a degree of a feature rather than a precise numerical value. Furthermore, the Examiner points out that the phrase “closely spaced” means objects or elements that are positioned very near to each other; situated near one another, emphasizing limited distance or proximity.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that Aphek discloses positioning mirrors (see annotated Fig. 5B below) to redirect the beams of light to provide a closely spaced array of parallel beams of light (Para. 0065-0066 and see spacing of “second spacing” of beams B”1 and B”2 compared to “first spacing” of beams B’1 and B’2 in annotated Fig. 5B below; note the Examiner interprets that the spacing of beams B”1 and B”2 is a more closely spaced array of parallel beams of light than the “first spacing” of beams B’1 and B’2 in annotated Fig. 5B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an optical system that brings beams closer together to form a closely spaced array) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Aphek does not disclose reducing a spacing between adjacent laser beams. The Examiner points out that Aphek discloses reducing a spacing between adjacent laser beams (Para. 0065-0066 and see spacing of “second spacing” of beams B”1 and B”2 compared to “first spacing” of beams B’1 and B’2 in annotated Fig. 5B below; note the Examiner interprets that the spacing of beams B”1 and B”2 is reduced by lenses 430A, B to reduce the spacing between adjacent laser beams to produce a more closely spaced array of parallel beams of light than the “first spacing” of beams B’1 and B’2 in annotated Fig. 5B above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 06/23/2026
Prosecution Insights