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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, 18 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 2015/0247623 A1) in view of Tomoaki (JP 2006147751 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hikmet et al. teaches a light source unit comprising:
a light source (214; figure 4) configured to emit light; and
a holder (housing 402; figure 4) configured to hold the light source (214), wherein the holder (402) includes:
a recess (404) that includes an opening (208), wherein the light source (214; figure 4) is in the recess (404);
a diffuse reflection surface (406; diffusely reflective inner surfaces; paragraph [0051]) in the recess (404), wherein the diffuse reflection surface (406) is configured to reflect and diffuse a first part of emitted light toward the opening of the recess (404) and a window (408) configured to cover the opening of the recess (see figure 4).
Hikmet et al. does not explicitly teach the light source has an emission surface that faces away from the window.
Tomoaki et al. teaches a light source (301; figure 7) having an emission surface (see figure 7 where light source 301 is a side emitting light source) that faces away from the window (305).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light source of Hikmet et al. to have an emission surface that faces away from the window as taught by Tomoaki et al. so that the thickness of the optical device itself can be reduced (see the last paragraph on page 2 of the translation of Tomoaki).
Regarding claim 12, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, wherein the diffuse reflection surface (406; figure 4) is on a peripheral wall of the recess (404; see at least figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, wherein the diffuse reflection surface (diffusely reflective inner surfaces 406; figure 4) is on the window (408).
Regarding claim 14, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, wherein the diffuse reflection surface (see at least figure 4; paragraph [0051] where 406 is a diffusely reflective inner surface) is on a bottom surface of the recess (cavity 404; figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, wherein the light source is a laser light source (see paragraph [0055] where the light emitters are Light Emitting Diodes, Organic Light Emitting Diodes or laser diodes).
Regarding claim 41, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, wherein each of the light source (214) and the diffuse reflection surface is on a bottom surface of the recess (see at least figure 4; paragraph [0051] where 406 is a diffusely reflective inner surface).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 2015/0247623 A1) in view of Tomoaki (JP 2006147751 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Harada (US 2012/0236536 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, but Hikmet et al. is silent regarding wherein the diffuse reflection surface is inclined with respect to an emission direction of the light source. Harada teaches a diffuse reflection surface (11A) that is inclined with respect to an emission direction of the light source (14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuse reflection surface of Hikmet et al. to be inclined with respect to the emission direction of the light source as taught by Harada so that as to form a desired light distribution extracted from the light emitting device (see paragraph [0043] of Harada).
Regarding claim 5, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada teaches the light source unit according to claim 4, but Hikmet et al. is silent about wherein an inclination angle of the diffuse reflection surface with respect to the emission direction of the light source is 30° to 60°.
Harada teaches an inclination angle of the diffuse reflection surface (11A) with respect to the emission direction of the light source (13; figure 1) is 30 degrees to 60 degrees (see paragraph [0033] where the light emitted from LED element 13 can be incident on the plate 11 by about 45 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inclination angle of the diffuse reflection surface with respect to the emission direction of the light source of Hikmet et al. to be 30 to 60 degrees as taught by Harada so that as to form a desired light distribution extracted from the light emitting device (see paragraph [0043] of Harada).
Regarding claim 6, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada teaches the light source unit according to claim 4, but Hikmet et al. is silent about wherein the emission surface of the light source faces the diffuse reflection surface. Harada teaches an emission surface of the light source (13 and/or 14; see figure 1) and the diffuse reflection surface (11A) face each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the emission surface of the light source and the diffuse reflection surface to face each other in the light source unit of Hikmet et al. as taught by Harada so that as to form a desired light distribution extracted from the light emitting device (see paragraph [0043] of Harada).
Regarding claim 7, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada teaches the light source unit according to claim 6, but Hikmet et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the emitted light directly enters the diffuse reflection surface.
Harada teaches light emitting from the light source (see LD elements 13 and/or 14) directly enters the diffuse reflection surface (11A; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light source of Hikmet et al. to enter the diffuse reflection surface directly as taught by Harada so that as to form a desired light distribution extracted from the light emitting device (see paragraph [0043] of Harada).
Regarding claim 8, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 2, and further Hikmet et al. further teaches wherein the light source (214) is on a bottom surface of the recess (404; see figure 4) but Hikmet et al. is silent about an angle, associated with an emission direction of the light source with respect to the bottom surface is 0° to 45°.
Harada teaches an angle associated with an emission direction of the light source (13; figure 1) with respect to the bottom surface is about 0 to 45 degrees (see paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angle made by an emission direction of the light source with respect with the bottom surface of Hikmet et al. to be 0 to 45 degrees as taught by Harada so that as to form a desired light distribution extracted from the light emitting device (see paragraph [0043] of Harada).
Regarding claim 9, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada teaches the light source unit according to claim 8, and Hikmet et al. further teaches wherein the diffuse reflection surface (406) is between the light source (214) and a part of a peripheral wall of the recess(404).
Regarding claim 17, Hikmet et al. teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, and Hikmet et al. further teaches wherein the holder (housing 402) further includes a diffuse reflection portion (406) having the diffuse reflection surface (inner surface of 406), but does not explicitly teach the a light receiving element is configured to receive a second part of the emitted light via the diffuse reflection portion.
Harada teaches a light source unit (13 and 14; figure 1) comprising a light receiving element (17) that receives at least part of light emitted from the light source (13 and 14) and through the diffuse reflection portion (11A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light source unit of Hikmet et al. to comprise a light receiving element as taught by Harada to collect the entering light so as to form a desired light distribution (see paragraph [0043] of Harada).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 2015/0247623 A1) in view of Tomoaki (JP 2006147751 A) and Harada (US 2012/0236536 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2014/0355243 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada teaches the light source unit according to claim 9, but Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada does not explicitly teach wherein the peripheral wall of the recess has a light-shielding property.
Yu et al. teaches the peripheral wall of the recess has a light shielding property (see paragraph [0036] where 1006 constitutes a shielding portion and at least figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the peripheral wall of the recess of Hikmet et al. modified by Harada to have a light shielding property as taught by Yu et al. to increase the freedom of positioning the light emitting elements and to prevent the generated light from passing the reflector opening unaffected directly from the light emitting devices (see paragraphs[0007] and [0036] of Yu et al).
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 2015/0247623 A1) in view of Tomoaki (JP 2006147751 A) and Harada (US 2012/0236536 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tonar et al. (US 6,870,656 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada teaches the light source unit according to claim 9, but Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki and Harada is silent about wherein a part of an inner peripheral surface of the peripheral wall of the recess has a light attenuation function.
Tonar et al. teaches at least a part of an inner peripheral surface of the peripheral wall of the recess (chamber 125; see figure 7B) has a light attenuation function (column 33 lines 3-5 using a black coating to absorb light - this is known (black coatings absorb light) ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the peripheral wall of the recess of Hikmet et al. modified by Harada to have a light attenuation function as taught by Tonar et al. to attenuate various amounts of light traveling therethrough to achieve a desired illumination output (see column 33 lines 3-5 using a black coating to absorb light - this is known (black coatings absorb light) of Tonar et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki, Harada and Tonar teaches the light source unit according to claim 11, but Hikmet et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the light attenuation function is based on at least one of provisions of fine unevenness, formation of an antireflection film, and application of black coating. Tonar teaches a light attenuation function that is implemented by a black coating (see figure 7B, column 33, lines 3-5 discloses using a black coating to absorb light, which is known in the art that black coatings absorb light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Hikmet et al. to include a light attenuation function that is implemented by a black coating as taught by Tonar et al. to keep the reflectivity of the window area to a minimum to achieve a desired illumination output (see column 33, lines 3-5 of Tonar et al.).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 2015/0247623 A1) in view of Tomoaki (JP 2006147751 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tonar et al. (US 6,870,656 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Hikmet et al. modified by Tomoaki teaches the light source unit according to claim 1, and Hikmet et al. further teaches wherein the holder (402; figure 4) further includes a diffuse reflection portion (406; figure 4) having the diffuse reflection surface (see paragraph [0051]) and the at least one surface of the diffuse reflection portion (406) is different from the diffuse reflection surface (see figure 4), but Hikmet et al. does not explicitly teach at least one surface of the diffuse reflection portion other than the diffuse reflection surface has a light attenuation function.
Tonar et al. teaches at least one surface having a light attenuation function (Figure 7B; see figure 7B, column 33, lines 3-5 discloses using a black coating to absorb light, which is known in the art that black coatings absorb light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify at least one surface of the diffuse reflection portion of Hikmet et al. to have a light attenuation function as taught by Tonar et al. to attenuate various amounts of light traveling therethrough to achieve a desired illumination output ( see column 33 lines 3-5 using a black coating to absorb light - this is known (black coatings absorb light) of Tonar et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-18, and 41 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1. A new reference, Tomoaki, teaches the newly recited limitation. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875