DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-30 are pending in this application.
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 1-7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296), and in view of LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126).
Regarding claim 1, STEINER discloses a light system comprising
a light supply arrangement comprising a light source (12, Fig.1A) having a bandwidth that spans over an emitted wavelength range; and
a filter (42, Fig.1A) configured to filter from the emitted wavelength range (para[0075]);
a Homogenizing Light Pipe (40, Fig.1A), HLP, wherein the HLP is configured for scrambling the light from the HLP (as seen in para[0076], the HLP 40 scrambles light to make a more uniform distribution); and
a fiber bundle (50, Fig.1A) comprising a common packed input end (52, Fig.1A; para[0114]) configured to receive scrambled light from the HLP.
STEINER fails to disclose a laser light source having a bandwidth that spans over an emitted wavelength range of at least about 100 nm, a band pass filter that is wavelength tunable and configured to filter off a wavelength range from the emitted wavelength range, and wherein the HLP is configured for scrambling the light in the wavelength range filtered off by the band pass filter.
However, LAU discloses a laser light source (202, Fig.1) having a bandwidth that spans over an emitted wavelength range of at least about 100 nm (as seen in para[0079], the laser light source 202 includes alternative light sources such as [1] a semiconductor laser integrating red, green, blue lasers in a single monolithic package, [2] a supercontinuum laser, or [3] multiple colored lasers; the laser light source 202 [e.g. a supercontinuum laser] was considered to include a bandwidth spanning over a wavelength range of at least 100 nm).
However, GUTHRIE discloses a band pass filter (110, Fig.2) that is wavelength tunable and configured to filter off a wavelength range from an emitted wavelength range (as seen in para[0032], the band pass filter 110 is a dynamically tunable filter such as a tunable bandpass filter).
Therefore, in view of LAU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a laser light source as taught by LAU to the light source of STEINER in order to provide a light source with an intensity and wavelength range for a desired application.
Therefore, in view of GUTHRIE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a tunable band pass filter as taught by GUTHRIE to the light source of STEINER modified by LAU in order to provide a desired wavelength based on the tunable band pass filter. As a result, the HLP would have been configured for scrambling the light in the wavelength range filtered off by the band pass filter.
Regarding claim 2, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the band pass filter is configured for filtering off two or more non-overlapping wavelength ranges from the emitted wavelength range (as seen in Fig.2 of GUTHRIE, the band pass filter 110 includes filtering 110a off two non-overlapping wavelengths ranges [e.g. yellow and red]).
Regarding claim 3, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the laser light source is one of the lasers: a fiber laser, a solid-state laser, and a semiconductor laser (the terms “solid-state laser” and “semiconductor laser” were considered to be generic terms for a generic laser; as seen in para[0052] and para[0079] of LAU, the laser light source 202 include a solid-state laser or a semiconductor laser).
Regarding claim 4, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the laser light source comprises two or more lasers (as seen in para[0052] and para[0079] of LAU, the laser light source 202 include two or more lasers).
Regarding claim 5, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 4 fails to discloses wherein the lasers is a combination of the lasers where each laser light source is one of the lasers: a fiber laser, a solid-state laser, and a semiconductor laser.
Regarding “wherein the lasers is a combination of the lasers”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a combination of lasers to the lasers of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to 1) provide a light source with different wavelengths and/or 2) provide a higher luminance for the light source.
Regarding claim 6, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the bandwidth spans over a wavelength range of at least about 500 nm (as seen in para[0079] of LAU, the laser light source 202 includes alternative light sources such as a supercontinuum laser; the laser light source 202 [e.g. a supercontinuum laser] was considered to include a bandwidth spanning over a wavelength range of at least 500 nm).
Regarding claim 7, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the laser light source is a supercontinuum light source (para[0079] of LAU).
Regarding claim 10, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the light supply arrangement comprises at least two wavelength filters for filtering off two or more wavelength ranges from an input light beam (as seen in Fig.2 of GUTHRIE, one wavelength filter 110a and another wavelength filter 110b includes filtering off two or more wavelengths ranges [e.g. green 110b, and yellow and red 110a]).
Regarding claim 11, STEINER further discloses wherein the HLP (40, Fig.1A) scrambles the light such that the light at an output end (46, Fig.1A) of the HLP has a substantially cross-sectional uniformity, whereby the light at the output end of the HLP has a uniform modal power distribution.
Regarding claim 14, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the light system further comprises a wavelength combiner.
However, GUTHRIE further discloses a wavelength combiner (150, Fig.1).
Therefore, in view of GUTHRIE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wavelength combiner as taught by GUTHRIE to the light system of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to combine the light.
Regarding claim 16, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 14 fails to disclose wherein the wavelength combiner is configured for combining light from one or more wavelength filters and/or from one or more light sources.
However, GUTHRIE further discloses a wavelength combiner (150, Fig.1) is configured for combining light from one or more wavelength filters and/or from one or more light sources.
Therefore, in view of GUTHRIE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate combining light from one or more wavelength filters or from one or more light sources as taught by GUTHRIE to the wavelength combiner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to combine the light.
Regarding claim 17, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 14 further discloses wherein the wavelength combiner (150, Fig.1 of GUTHRIE) is configured for combining beams comprising different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 18, STEINER further discloses wherein the light system further comprises at least one beam conditioner configured for beam shaping the light prior to being scrambled by the HLP (“beam conditioner” was interpreted to be an optical element for modifying light; as seen in Fig.1A, the “beam conditioner” was considered to be the optical element 30 guiding or beam shaping the light prior the HLP 40).
Regarding claim 28, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE as discussed above for claim 1 discloses a sensing apparatus comprising the light system according to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of BAGSHAW (US 5,181,013).
Regarding claim 9, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the band pass filter is an Acousto Optic Tunable Filter, AOTF.
However, BAGSHAW discloses an Acousto Optic Tunable Filter (23, Fig.2; col.1, line 62-col.2, line 2).
Therefore, in view of BAGSHAW, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an Acousto Optic Tunable Filter as taught by BAGSHAW to the band pass filter of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to adjust the wavelengths and intensity of the light source for a desired application.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of MILKAEV (US 2010/0309559).
Regarding claim 12, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the laser light source is configured for generating a light beam with a first beam quality factor, M 2, and the HLP scrambles the light beam such that the first beam quality factor increases to a second beam quality factor, wherein the second beam quality factor is at least 10% larger than the first beam quality factor.
However, MILKAEV discloses a laser light source is configured for generating a light beam with a first beam quality factor, M 2, and the HLP scrambles the light beam such that the first beam quality factor increases to a second beam quality factor (para[0066]), and the second beam quality factor is at least 10% larger than the first beam quality factor (para[0066]; Figs.5a and 5b).
Therefore, in view of MILKAEV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a HLP for increasing a second beam quality factor as taught by MILKAEV to the HLP of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to increase laser beam quality (para[0066]; para[0003]) and/or to influence focusability of the laser radiation (para[0004]; para[0006]).
Regarding claim 13, STEINER modified by LAU, GUTHRIE, and MILKAEV further discloses wherein the second beam quality factor is at least about 50% larger than the first beam quality factor (para[0066], Figs.5a, and Fig.5b of MILKAEV).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of GUO (US 2016/0190764).
Regarding claim 15, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE discloses wherein the wavelength combiner is a Wavelength Division Multiplexer, WDM.
However, GUO discloses a Wavelength Division Multiplexer (5, Fig.1l para[0031]).
Therefore, in view of GUO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a Wavelength Division Multiplexer as taught by GUO to the wavelength combiner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to multiplex the light.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of JOHNSON (US 2003/0007147).
Regarding claim 19, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner comprises a diffuser.
However, JOHNSON discloses a beam conditioner (78, Fig.24) includes a diffuser (para[0098]).
Therefore, in view of JOHNSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a diffuser as taught by JOHNSON to the beam conditioner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide an alternative optical element to couple light.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of IRISAWA (CN 104159519).
Regarding claim 20, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner comprises a diverging lens.
However, IRISAWA discloses a beam conditioner includes a diverging lens (as seen in Figs.16-17, the “beam conditioner” was considered to be the optical element 71 being a plano-concave lens diverging light).
Therefore, in view of IRISAWA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a diverging lens as taught by IRISAWA to the beam conditioner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide an alternative optical element to couple light.
Regarding claim 21, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner comprises a plano-concave lens.
However, IRISAWA discloses a beam conditioner includes a plano-concave lens (as seen in Figs.16-17, the “beam conditioner” was considered to be the optical element 71 being a plano-concave lens diverging light).
Therefore, in view of IRISAWA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a diverging lens as taught by IRISAWA to the beam conditioner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide an alternative optical element to couple light.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of ANDERSON (GB 2354899).
Regarding claim 22, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner comprises a micro lens array.
However, ANDERSON discloses a beam conditioner includes a micro lens array (2, Fig.1).
Therefore, in view of ANDERSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a micro lens array as taught by ANDERSON to the beam conditioner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide an alternative optical element to couple light.
Regarding claim 23, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner comprises a gradient index lens, GRIN.
However, ANDERSON discloses a beam conditioner includes a gradient index lens (42, Fig.5).
Therefore, in view of ANDERSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a gradient index lens as taught by ANDERSON to the beam conditioner of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide a gradient index lens output response on the light which is known in the art to smoothly bend light rays, focusing or collimating light without complex optical systems and or substitution of one lens configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of LIPPEY (US 2013/0162952).
Regarding claim 24, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner is arranged for free space delivery to the HLP.
However, LIPPEY discloses a beam conditioner (304, Fig.3) is arranged for free space delivery to a HLP (310, Fig.3).
Therefore, in view of LIPPEY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate arranged for free space delivery as taught by LIPPEY to the beam conditioner and the HLP of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide an alternative arrangement to couple light.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of ZHANG (CN 102540736).
Regarding claim 25, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the beam conditioner is coupled by coupling to the HLP.
However, ZHANG discloses a beam conditioner is coupled by coupling to a HLP (a microlens array placed tightly to the entrance end of the quartz rod i.e. coupled).
Therefore, in view of ZHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a beam conditioner is coupled by coupling to a HLP as taught by ZHANG to the beam conditioner and the HLP of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide an alternative coupling.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034), GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126) and ZHANG (CN 102540736), and in view of SHAW (EP 0136871).
Regarding claim 26, STEINER modified by LAU, GUTHRIE, and ZHANG fails to disclose wherein the coupling is a butt coupling.
However, SHAW discloses a butt coupling (pg.15, lines 4-6).
Therefore, in view of SHAW, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a butt coupling as taught by SHAW to the coupling of STEINER modified by LAU, GUTHRIE, and ZHANG in order to provide an alternative coupling.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034), GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and ZHANG (CN 102540736), and in view of NAKAI (US 2011/0135260).
Regarding claim 27, STEINER modified by LAU, GUTHRIE, and ZHANG fails to disclose wherein the coupling is a splicing.
However, NAKAI discloses a coupling is a splicing (para[0045]-para[0046]).
Therefore, in view of NAKAI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate splicing as taught by NAKAI to the coupling of STEINER modified by LAU, GUTHRIE, and ZHANG in order to provide an alternative coupling.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of BUCKWALD (DE 29624210).
Regarding claim 29, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose wherein the band pass filter is configured for scanning the wavelength range through the bandwidth of the emitted wavelength range.
However, BUCKWALD discloses a band pass filter is configured for scanning a wavelength range through the bandwidth of an emitted wavelength range (as seen in pg.3, AOTF scans wavelengths).
Therefore, in view of BUCKWALD, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate scanning as taught by BUCKWALD to the band pass filter of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to detect wavelengths.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINER (US 2003/0002296) modified by LAU (US 2017/0205034) and GUTHRIE (US 2017/0059126), and in view of OTTO (NPL 001).
Regarding claim 30, STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE fails to disclose a camera to image a part of the light from the light system.
However, OTTO discloses a camera to image a part of a light.
Therefore, in view of OTTO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a camera as taught by OTTO to the light system of STEINER modified by LAU and GUTHRIE in order to provide a sensor for analyzing data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the presented claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
However, Applicant has argued “In contrast to a tunable bandpass filter, STEINER requires "[a]n optional dimmer for providing a controllable variable attenuation of the light emitted by the light guide" ([0015]) and that "a dimmer 42, such as an iris, a variable neutral density filter, sliding apertures, or a liquid crystal shutter, can optionally precede homogenizer 40, to reduce or eliminate light to the homogenizer" ([0075]). The dimmer of STEINER does not "filter off a wavelength range from" the light - the dimmer of STEINER simply reduces or eliminates the light, i.e., it attenuates the light.
The system of STEINER requires the function of attenuating all wavelengths of the light emitted by the light source 12 before the light arrives at the homogenizer (see STEINER Fig.1A and [0015] and [0075]). In contrast, the separator 110 of GUTHRIE separates "an input light beam 115, from light source 105, into a retained light beam 120 directed along a first path and an excess light beam 125 directed along a second path" (para [0024]) whether it is a tunable bandpass filter, a dichroic mirror, or something else.
The system of STEINER requires attenuation of all wavelengths of the light emitted by its light source. The separator of the system of GUTHRIE identified by the Office does not perform attenuation of all wavelengths of the light emitted by its light source and is therefore not suitable to replace the dimmer of STEINER.
A PHOSITA reading STEINER would not be motivated by the disclosure of either STEINER or GUTHRIE to combine their teachings. Indeed, since it would be apparent to the PHOSITA that the separator of GUTHRIE would not perform the required function of attenuation of all wavelengths of the light emitted by its light source such a combination would be discounted by the PHOSITA since it would not improve the system of STEINER, rather it would result in the system of STEINER working less well”.
In response to applicant’s argument, as seen in para[0075] of STEINER, the dimmer 42 merely controls the light by decreasing or increasing the light entering into the homogenizer. The dimmer 42 is a separate type of optical element with regards to the wavelength/color spectrum of the light. It is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to generally incorporate additional optical elements to adjust optical properties of the light for a desired application. In this case, GUTHRIE was used to show filters configured to block and pass different wavelength ranges to adjust the wavelength/color spectrum of the output light. For example: The filters can transmit, block, or reflect different wavelengths of light [e.g. red, green, yellow] depending on the desired wavelength/color spectrum of the output light. STEINER does not explicitly exclude modifying the wavelength/color spectrum of the output light. In addition, the Office Action was incorporating [or adding] the teachings of GUTHRIE as opposed to completely replacing the optional dimmer of STEINER. Therefore, the dimmer of STEINER does not affect the inclusion of a filter of the prior art. The references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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, JONG-SUK LEE can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/J.M.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875