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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amending of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (first lenses arranged together with each other) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new interpretation of Yama (new “first direction” and “first refractive index adjusting member”) (Remarks pgs. 5-8).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
For claims 2 and 4, Examiner interprets “about” to mean within +/- 30% of the stated value (i.e. “about -30%” = -60 to 0%, and “about +30%” = 0 to +60%), defined by instant application (Specification 0036).
For claim 20, Examiner interprets “on a side” to include elements that are simply disposed in one direction relative to a reference element and not necessarily in contact with or above the reference element (see instant application par. 0083, 0086, figs. 6+7, relationship between PM1 + VRIM1/LA1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9-10, 13-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki/”Yama” Fig. 3a+b (JP-2004095792-A, machine translation “Yamazaki_English2” cited and included herewith) in view of Sumi (US-20100014063-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yama discloses a laser device (fig. 3, lines 10-20) comprising: a first lens array including first lenses arranged in a first direction (fig. 3 first lens array 45A include first lenses arranged together with each other in first direction (Annotated View fig. 3a + first direction schematic, first lenses in 45a arranged together with each other in first direction, lines 254-261); a condenser lens disposed in a second direction from the first lens array, the second direction intersecting the first direction (fig. 3 condenser lens 49 disposed in second direction (+Z in 3A) intersecting first direction, lines 278-279); and a cylindrical lens array member disposed in a third direction from the first lens array, the third direction being opposite to the second direction (central lens in 46A disposed in third direction (-Z in 3A) opposite to +Z of 45A, lines 262-270).
Yama does not disclose this cylindrical lens array member (central lens in 46A) being a first refractive index adjusting member, wherein a refractive index of the first refractive index adjusting member changes along the first direction.
Sumi discloses an image exposure apparatus with gradient index micro lenses used in place of standard convex refractive micro lenses performing a function equivalent to that of the array of lenses 46A in Yama (Sumi figs. 5 + 23A-24B GRIN lenses 155a used for focusing beams in place of fig. 22B convex lens 62, 0214-0215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flat GRIN lens array in place of the cylindrical lens array 46A in Yama, with each cylindrical lens array member, including the center one, switching to a GRIN lens array member/refractive index adjusting member to take advantage of the flat surface of the GRIN lens, which reduces possibility of optical aberration within lens and provides flat surface to adjoin lens to other components, if needed (Sumi 0061) and to rotate the Sumi gradient index micro lens to allow for proper replacement of the lenses in Yama and sufficient compatibility with the device in Yama (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Refractive index of refractive index adjusting member now changes along X direction, and consequently, along first direction (first direction has x direction component), satisfying amended claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
1252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View Fig. 3a
PNG
media_image2.png
458
993
media_image2.png
Greyscale
First Direction Schematic
Regarding claim 6, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 1, further comprising: a polarizing member disposed in the third direction from the first lens array (fig. 3 polarizing member 46C disposed in -Z direction of 45A, lines 272-276).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 6, wherein the polarizing member is disposed only in the third direction from part of the first lenses (fig. 3 46C disposed only in third direction of part of 45A lenses, alternates between polarization member element and gap, lines 88-93 same setup for fig. 3.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 1, wherein the first refractive index adjusting member extends from a bottom portion to a top portion in the first direction (fig. 3B, after claim 1 modification, central GRIN/46A lens extends from bottom portion (bottom half of central 46A lens) to top portion (top half of central 46A lens)) along X direction (and first direction w/ its x-axis component), and the refractive index of the first refractive index adjusting member changes from the bottom portion to the top portion (fig. 3B, after claim 1 modification, refractive index changes from bottom to top of central 46A lens along X axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3B
Regarding claim 13, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 10.
Modified Yama does not disclose wherein the refractive index of the first refractive index adjusting member is symmetrical with respect to a center of the first refractive index adjusting member.
Sumi discloses the same refractive index adjusting member/GRIN lens having a refractive index that is symmetrical with respect to a center of the lens (fig. 23A-24B 155a top and bottom half index pattern symmetrical with respect to center, 0215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the refractive index of the first refractive index adjusting member symmetrical with respect to a center of the first refractive index adjusting member to provide more predictable behavior and symmetry within the rest of the system and among the outgoing beams.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 1, further comprising: a second lens array disposed between the first lens array and the condenser lens and including second lenses (fig. 3 second lens array 45B between 45A and 49, 45B includes second lenses, lines 250-260).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 14, further comprising: a second refractive index adjusting member disposed in the third direction from the second lens array (fig. 3B bottommost GRIN lens in 46A disposed in -Z direction of 45B).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 15, further comprising: a polarizing member disposed in the third direction from the second lens array (fig. 3 polarizing member 46C disposed in -Z direction of 45B, lines 272-276).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 16, wherein the polarizing member is disposed only in the third direction from part of the second lenses (fig. 3 46C disposed only in third direction of part of 45B lenses, alternates between polarization member element and gap, lines 88-93 same setup for fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 1, wherein the first lens array is directly on a side of the first refractive index adjusting member (annotated fig. 3X first lens array 45A directly on a side (right side) of the first refractive index adjusting member (central 46A)).
def. “on a side”- (see instant application par. 0083, 0086, figs. 6+7, does not require physical contact or positioning of one element above another)
def. direct – causing to turn, move, or point undeviatingly or to follow a straight course (Merriam-Webster def. 1)
PNG
media_image4.png
532
743
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3X
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yama (fig. 3a+b) in view of Sumi and Brunwinkel (DE-10225674-A1, machine translation "Brunwinkel_English" cited and included herewith).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 1.
Modified Yama does not disclose wherein part of the first lenses have different radii of curvature from an other part of the first lenses, and focal lengths of the other part of the first lenses are about -30% to about +30% compared to focal lengths of the part of the first lenses.
Brunwinkel discloses a lens system for homogenization of a laser beam with a lens array that has even-numbered lens elements with a different radii of curvature than odd-numbered lens elements (fig. 2 b+d+f and a+c+e+g different radii, lines 152-159 describes modified approach to homogenization, compared to approach described in claim 4 rejection below).
Brunwinkel focal length/radius difference range (-inf% to +inf%) fully encompasses claimed range, and Applicant does not provide criticality for specific about -30% to about +30% range (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make part of the first lenses have different radii of curvature from other part of the first lenses, and focal lengths of the other part of the first lenses are about -30% to about +30% compared to focal lengths of the part of the first lenses to improve homogenization and reduce “dog ears” effect (Brunwinkel lines 9 + 90-98). Keeping focal length value in range about -30% to about +30% would help prevent lens radii and device size from becoming unmanageably large or small.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 2, further comprising: a polarizing member disposed in the third direction from the first lens array (fig. 3 polarizing member 46C disposed in -Z direction from 45A, lines 272-276).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 1.
Modified Yama does not disclose wherein part of the first lenses are disposed at different positions in the second direction from an other part of the first lenses, and a position at which a focus of the other part of the first lenses is formed is about -30% to about +30% compared to a position at which a focus of the part of the first lenses is formed.
Brunwinkel discloses a lens system for homogenization of a laser beam with a lens array that has even-numbered lens elements positioned at a different point in the optical axis/beam/+Z direction than odd-numbered lens elements (fig. 2 lens array LA2 has LA2b lenses offset in equivalent +Z direction by distance X, lines 1-7 + 127-135). Additionally, Brunwinkel discloses some non-zero value for the focus position difference between the even and odd-numbered lenses (identical focal lengths + different positions produces focus position difference, lines 127-129).
Brunwinkel focus position difference range (-inf% to +inf%) fully encompasses claimed range, and Applicant does not provide criticality for specific about -30% to about +30% range (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have part of the first lenses disposed at different positions in the second direction from other part of the first lenses, and a position at which a focus of the other part of the first lenses is formed is about -30% to about +30% compared to a position at which a focus of the part of the first lenses is formed to improve homogenization and reduce “dog ears” effect (Brunwinkel lines 9 + 90-98). Keeping value in range about -30% to about +30% would help prevent lens offset and device size from becoming unmanageably large or small.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 4, further comprising: a polarizing member disposed in the third direction from the first lens array (fig. 3 polarizing member 46C disposed in -Z direction of 45A, lines 272-276).
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yama fig. 3a+b in view of Sumi further in view of Yama fig. 1a.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yama (fig. 3a+b) discloses the laser device of claim 6.
The Yama device (fig. 3a+b) from claim 6, as modified, does not disclose wherein the first refractive index adjusting member is disposed between the polarizing member and the first lens array.
Yama fig. 1a discloses a separate but similar device embodiment where an analogous polarization member is disposed on the right/back side of the lens array equivalent to the GRIN lens array, where the polarizing member is disposed between the first refractive index adjusting member and the first lens array (fig. 1A polarization member 6 disposed on right/back side of GRIN lens array equivalent 2, placing 6 between 2 and any subsequently placed lens array/”first lens array” to the right of 6 and 2, as is done in fig. 3), but Yama also discloses this same polarization member may be disposed on the left/front side of the lens array, where the first refractive index adjusting member is disposed between the polarizing member and the first lens array (fig. 1A polarization member 6 may be disposed on left/front side of GRIN lens array equivalent 2, placing 2 between 6 and any subsequently placed lens array/”first lens array” to the right of 2 and 6, as is done in fig. 3, lines 132-133 + 145 defining “front” and “behind”).
Additionally, repositioning of the polarizing member to the other/front/left side of the first refractive index adjusting member would be obvious, and Applicant does not provide any additional criticality for placing polarizing member to left side beyond the benefits disclosed by right side placement in fig. 3 (i.e. improved homogeneity/reduction of speckle pattern, Yama lines 311-314) (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first refractive index adjusting member disposed between the polarizing member and the first lens array to reduce adjacent beam interference with polarizing member prior to beam entering first refractive index adjusting member (central GRIN lens in 46A) (Yama lines 311-314).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yama (fig. 3a+b) discloses the laser device of claim 16.
The Yama device (fig. 3a+b) from claim 16, as modified, does not disclose wherein the second refractive index adjusting member is disposed between the polarizing member and the second lens array.
Yama (fig. 1a) discloses a separate but similar device embodiment where an analogous polarization member is disposed on the right/back side of the lens array equivalent to the GRIN lens array, where the polarizing member is disposed between the first refractive index adjusting member and the first lens array (fig. 1A polarization member 6 disposed on right/back side of GRIN lens array equivalent 2, placing 6 between 2 and any subsequently placed lens array/”second lens array” to the right of 6 and 2, as is done in fig. 3), but Yama also discloses this same polarization member may be disposed on the left/front side of the lens array, where the first refractive index adjusting member is disposed between the polarizing member and the first lens array (fig. 1A polarization member 6 may be disposed on left/front side of GRIN lens array equivalent 2, placing 2 between 6 and any subsequently placed lens array/”second lens array” to the right of 2 and 6, as is done in fig. 3, lines 132-133 + 145 defining “front” and “behind”).
Additionally, mere repositioning of the polarizing member to the other/front/left side of the second refractive index adjusting member would be obvious, and Applicant does not provide any additional criticality for placing polarizing member to left side beyond the benefits disclosed by right side placement in fig. 3 (i.e. improved homogeneity/reduction of speckle pattern, Yama lines 311-314) (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second refractive index adjusting member disposed between the polarizing member and the second lens array to reduce adjacent beam interference with polarizing member prior to beam entering second refractive index adjusting member (bottommost GRIN lens in 46A) (Yama lines 311-314).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yama (fig. 3a+b) in view of Sumi and Lippman (US-20220244434-A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yama discloses the laser device of claim 10.
Modified Yama does not disclose wherein the refractive index of the first refractive index adjusting member changes linearly from the bottom portion to the top portion.
Lippman discloses a GRIN lens refractive index changing linearly (figs. 2A-3C, 0047-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the refractive index of the first refractive index adjusting member linearly from the bottom portion to the top portion to provide the simplest method/equation that still varies the refractive index in the member, reducing ray path calculation and device setup complexity (Lippman 0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828