fNotice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Ooi does not teach amended Claim 1 - specifically lenses having non-circular cylindrical surface, and instead the focal length remains constant along the entire lens surface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. [0019] of Ooi clearly states that "since spherical convex lenses having a large numerical aperture have off-axial aberration and poor condensing properties, it is preferred to employ an aspherical shape". [0034] of Ooi further describes the lens. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ooi (US 20210003911 A1).
Claim 1: Ooi teaches a diffuser device comprising
a first lens array comprising cylindrical lenses and a second lens array comprising cylindrical lenses (Fig. 7, homogenizers 32x and 32y)
through the first lens array and the second lens array light passes successively during operation of the diffuser device (Fig. 7, showing incident light passing through arrays),
wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array have cylinder axes extending in a first direction (x) and the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array have cylinder axes extending in a second direction (y) perpendicular to the first direction (x) (Fig. 7 and [0140]),
wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array and/or the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array each have a non-circular cylindrical surface ([0034]),
wherein the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array are configured to widen in the first direction (x) the light passing through the second lens array into an angular range of more than 100 deg ([0039]),
wherein the first lens array is disposed on a first substrate and the second lens array is disposed on a second substrate, and wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are separated by an air gap (Fig 7, first array 32x on substrate 30x, second array 32y on substrate 30y and substrates spaced apart).
Claim 2: Ooi teaches the diffuser device according to claim 1, wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array are arranged side by side in the second direction (y) and the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array are arranged side by side in the first direction (x) (Fig. 7, lens arrays 32x and 32y arranged perpendicularly).
Claim 5: Ooi teaches the diffuser device according to claim 1, further comprising a concave cylindrical lens arranged on an exit surface of the second substrate, wherein the concave cylindrical lens has a cylindrical axis extending in the second direction (y) and spans the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array in the first direction (x) (Fig. 7, second lense 32y on second substrate 30y and perpendicular to first lenses 30x).
Claim 6: Ooi teaches the diffuser device according to claim 1, wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array and/or the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array are refractive or diffractive or holographic lenses ([0093] refracting lenses).
Claim 12: Ooi teaches the diffuser device according to claim 1, wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array have a radius such that the light passing through the first lens array is widened in the second direction (y) into an angular range of approximately 120 deg ([0039]).
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 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooi (US 20210003911 A1) in view of Balashov (WO 9950596 A2).
Claim 7: Ooi teaches the device according to Claim 1. Ooi does not teach, but Balashov does teach, wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array and/or the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array are arranged irregularly (Fig. 7 and 9, lenses 62a and 63a and page 10, lines 11-19 – Fresnel lenses are irregular).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the Fresnel lens, as taught by Balashov, in the device as taught by Ooi, because Fresnel lenses are well known in the art. Additionally, as Balashov teaches, an asymmetrical array allows for more distribution options (pg 10, lines 5-10).
Claim 8: Ooi teaches the device according to claim 1. Ooi does not teach, but Balashov does teach the device, wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array and/or the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array are asymmetrically shaped (Fig. 8 and 9, lenses 62a and 63a and page 10, lines 11-19).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the Fresnel lens, as taught by Balashov, in the device as taught by Ooi, because Fresnel lenses are well known in the art. Additionally, as Balashov teaches, an asymmetrical array allows for more distribution options (pg 10, lines 5-10).
Claim 10: Ooi, as modified in view of Balashov, teaches the device according to claim 8. wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array are offset in a third direction (z) perpendicular to both the first direction (x) and the second direction (Ooi Fig. 7 and [0140]).
Claim 11: Ooi teaches the device according to claim 1. Ooi does not teach, but Balashov does teach the device characterized wherein a pitch distance of the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array is larger than a pitch distance of the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array (Balashov Fig. 11 and 12, showing two types of lenes (31 and 32) and Fig. 8 and 10, showing distance between lenses 62a smaller than distance between ‘bumps’ on lenses 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the arrangement of Fresnel lenses as taught by Balashov, in the system as taught by Ooi, as modified in view of Balashov, because positioning and arrangement of lenses, including Fresnel lenses, have well-known results (through the lens equation). Further, although Balashov teaches the lens with larger lenses is on the outside of the substrate (and thus the second lens), it would be obvious that this could be flipped (See MPEP 2144.-04 – reversal of parts and rearrangement of parts).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooi (US 20210003911 A1) in view of Balashov (WO 9950596 A2) in view of Shi (US 9465175 B2).
Claim 9: Ooi, as modified in view of Balashov, teaches the diffuser device according to claim 8. Ooi, as modified in view of Balashov, does not teach, but Shi does teach wherein an exit surface of the first substrate comprises a first planar portion parallel to the first direction (x) but not parallel to the second direction (y) and/or an exit surface of the second substrate comprises a second planar portion parallel to the second direction (y) but not parallel to the first direction (Fig. 1, lens 1 and lens 2 on opposite sides of right angle prism, leading to planar portions not being parallel to each other and Fig. 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lens arrangement, as taught by Balashov, with the diffuser device as taught by Ooi, because different orientation of the lenses would yield predictable results (i.e.: the light reflected at an angle).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooi (US 20210003911 A1) in view of Fisher (US 20220229159 A1).
Claim 13: Ooi teaches the diffuser device according to Claim 1. Ooi does not teach, but Fisher does teach, a distance measuring device comprising a light source and the diffuser device according to claim 1 ([0050] – diffuser in LiDAR system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the LiDAR system with a diffuser, as taught by Fisher, with the specific diffuser as taught by Ooi (specifically by replacing Fisher’s diffuser with Ooi’s), because LiDAR systems are well known in the art, and the effect of different diffusers on said systems are also well known in the art.
Claim 14: Ooi teaches a diffuser device for widening the light emanating from the light source, characterized in that the diffuser device is a diffuser device according to claim 1 ([0011] – angle β enlarged). Ooi does not teach, but Fisher does teach, a LIDAR device comprising a light source and a diffuser device ([0050] – diffuser in LiDAR system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the LiDAR system with a diffuser, as taught by Fisher, with the specific diffuser as taught by Ooi (specifically by replacing Fisher’s diffuser with Ooi’s), because LiDAR systems are well known in the art, and the effect of different diffusers on said systems are also well known in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooi (US 20210003911 A1) in view of Wangler (EP 1984787 B1).
Claim 15: Ooi teaches the diffuser device according to Claim 1. Ooi does not teach, but Wangler does teach, wherein the cylindrical lenses of the first lens array each have a concave surface and/or the cylindrical lenses of the second lens array each have a concave surface (Fig. 27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concave lenses, as taught by Wangler, instead of the convex lenses as taught by Ooi, because different lens shapes (concave vs convex) have results well known in the art (as they are easily modeled by equations such as the lens equation), and thus would yield predictable results (concave widens light, convex narrows light – generally).
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645