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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 16, 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 16-21, 23-33 & 38-41 are pending.
Claims 16-21, 23-32 & 38-41 are rejected.
Claim 33 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-15, 22 & 34-37 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed February 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claim 29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed February 16, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 of Claims 16-21, 23-32 & 38-39 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 of Claims 16-21, 23-32 & 38-39 have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
“a distance between the light entrance surface and the light exit surface filled by polymer material [emphasis added]” of Claim 1, Lines 7-8;
“the circumferential wall portion surrounding the light guiding section [emphasis added]” of Claim 1, Lines 8-9;
“a thickness of the circumferential wall portion surrounding the light guiding section [emphasis added]” of Claim 1, Lines 8-9;
“a distance between the [second] light entrance surface and the [second] light exit surface filled by the polymer material [emphasis added]” of Claim 40, Lines 3-4;
“the circumferential wall portion surrounding the second light guiding section [emphasis added]” of Claim 40, Lines 4-5;
“a thickness of the circumferential wall portion surrounding the second light guiding section [emphasis added]” of Claim 40, Lines 4-5;
“a distance between the [second] light entrance surface and the [second] light exit surface filled by the polymer material [emphasis added]” of Claim 41, Lines 6-7;
“the circumferential wall portion surrounding the second light guiding section [emphasis added]” of Claim 41, Lines 7-8; and
“a thickness of the circumferential wall portion surrounding the second light guiding section [emphasis added]” of Claim 41, Lines 7-8.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 40-41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 40, Claim 40 recites “a second light guiding section comprising a light entrance surface spaced apart from a light exit surface that is larger than the light entrance surface [emphasis added]” and “a distance between the light entrance surface and the light exit surface [emphasis added]” on Lines 1-3. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend a/the “light entrance surface” and a/the “light exit surface” to read a/the “second light entrance surface” and a/the “second light exit surface”, respectively, to provide greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 41 recites the limitations “wherein the second light guiding section comprises a light entrance surface spaced apart from a light exit surface that is larger than the light entrance surface [emphasis added]” and “a distance between the light entrance surface and the light exit surface [emphasis added]” on Lines 4-6. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend a/the “light entrance surface” and a/the “light exit surface” to read a/the “second light entrance surface” and a/the “second light exit surface”, respectively, to provide greater clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-21, 23-32 & 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites, inter alia, “a [first] light guiding section comprising a [first] light entrance surface spaced apart from a [first] light exit surface that is larger than the [first] light entrance surface [and] a distance between the [first] light entrance surface and the [first] light exit surface filled by the polymer material and being greater than a thickness of the circumferential wall portion surrounding the [first] light guiding section” on Lines 5-9. While the circumferential wall portion 8’ is described in Applicant’s amended specification, filed September 1, 2025, a distance between the light entrance surface 16 of the light guiding section 14 and the light exit surface 18 of the light guiding section 14, a portion of the circumferential wall portion 8’ that surrounds the light guiding section 14, a thickness thereof, and that the thickness is less than the distance, are not described anywhere in Applicant’s specification. Given, however, that information contained in the drawings as filed can be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter (see MPEP § 2163.06), Examiner and/or one skilled in the relevant art could reasonably ascertain from Fig. 1 the distance between the light entrance surface 16 of the light guiding section 14 and the light exit surface 18 of the light guiding section 14. Examiner and/or one skilled in the relevant art, however, could not reasonably ascertain the portion of the circumferential wall portion 8’ that surrounds the light guiding section 14, the thickness thereof and that the thickness is less than the distance. Therefore, Examiner concludes that the Applicant’s disclosure does not provide sufficient written description to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 40-41, recite, inter alia, wherein the/a “second light guiding section compris[es] a [second] light entrance surface spaced apart from a [second] light exit surface that is larger than the [second] light entrance surface [and] a distance between the [second] light entrance surface and the [second] light exit surface filled by the polymer material and being greater than a thickness of the circumferential wall portion surrounding the second light guiding section” on Lines 1-5 & Lines 4-8, respectively. While the circumferential wall portion 8’ is described in Applicant’s amended specification, filed September 1, 2025, a distance between the light entrance surface 17 of the light guiding section 15 and the light exit surface 19 of the light guiding section 15, a portion of the circumferential wall portion 8’ that surrounds the light guiding section 15, a thickness thereof, and that the thickness is less than the distance, are not described anywhere in Applicant’s specification. Given, however, that information contained in the drawings as filed can be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter (see MPEP § 2163.06), Examiner and/or one skilled in the relevant art could reasonably ascertain from Fig. 1 the distance between the light entrance surface 17 of the light guiding section 15 and the light exit surface 19 of the light guiding section 15. Examiner and/or one skilled in the relevant art, however, could not reasonably ascertain the portion of the circumferential wall portion 8’ that surrounds the light guiding section 15, the thickness thereof and that the thickness is less than the distance. Therefore, Examiner concludes that the Applicant’s disclosure does not provide sufficient written description to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 17-21, 23-32 & 38-39, Claims 17-21, 23-32 & 38-39 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-24 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 recites the limitation “the light guiding part or the light guiding section [emphasis added]” on Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the light guiding part or the light guiding section” is being interpreted as “the light guiding section”.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 recites the limitation “an opaque protective ring” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “opaque protective ring” is the same as the “opaque protective ring” previously recited on Line 2 of Claim 27, or a separate, different opaque protective ring. For the purpose of examination, “an opaque protective ring” is being interpreted as “the opaque protective ring”.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 is rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights