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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response to arguments presented below in the present Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "With regard to the "replicas of the output beams," the Assignee has previously argued that…no further modifications to the figures are required," the Examiner traverses. Examiner submits that this argument conflates showing the presence of a structural component (i.e., diffractive optical element) with disclosing the claimed structural result (i.e., replica of output beams) of said component. The replicas of output beams are not merely an operational effect, for they are claimed structural characteristics that define what the claimed element does to light. Disclosure of claimed configuration and resulting optical behavior should be shown in the drawings. Furthermore, the haptic-device and speaker analogies that the applicant has presented are not appropriate for the matter because replicas of output beams are not an inherent nor inevitable result of a diffractive optical element. Examiner reminds the applicant that replicas of output beams are a specific optical transformation that must be supported by the disclosure of the present application.
In response to the applicant's argument that "As noted in MPEP §2173.05(g), "there is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms….Assignee respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Examiner submits that it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows flood illumination to be emitted, or whether infringement occurs when the system is actually operated to emit flood illumination. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p). Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See § 112(b) rejections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that " The Examiner has argued that an assembly of "LED emitter assembly", "a radially symmetric reflector 111" and a "light guide plate 101" of Holman collectively constitutes an array of emitters. However, the claims as presently amended require that each emitter is a VCSEL…Assignee respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current instance, Xu teaches integrated beam splitting, scanning device, and manufacturing method therefor ([0007-83]; fig. 1-9), wherein a transmitter 11 includes a light source 111 as a light source such as a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL), wherein the array light source 111 is a VCSEL array light source chip formed by generating a plurality of VCSEL light sources on a single semiconductor substrate ([0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system of Holman in view of another embodiment of Holman to include the technical feature of the light guide comprising VCSELs, for the purpose of emitting a light beam of any required wavelength, such as visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc., as taught by Xu ([0059]). See § 103 rejections below in the present Office action.
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 replicas of the output beams must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are: “the array of emitters is configured to, when operated to emit the respective input beams, emit flood illumination to a target illumination region” in Claim 15.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-20 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.
With respect to Claim 15, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the current instance, "the array of emitters is configured to, when operated to emit the respective input beams, emit flood illumination to a target illumination region" recites a light emitting apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. In other words, this limitation claims the act of operating the light emitting module within an apparatus claim.
Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows flood illumination to be emitted, or whether infringement occurs when the system is actually operated to emit flood illumination. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p). Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a light emitting module.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. US 20130286653 A1 (herein after "Holman") in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu et al. WO 2021056669 A1 (see machine translation; herein after "Xu").
With respect to Claim 1, Holman discloses a light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b), comprising:
a substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4a-4d) having first and second surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of optical film 129; [0050]);
an array of emitters (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a), wherein a light-emitting surface (surface of light guide 112; [0050]) of each of the array of emitters (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a) is positioned to emit an input beam (light guide 112 is shown providing an input beam to an optical film 129; [0050]) into the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c) through the second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c); and
an array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]), which are formed on the first surface (bottom surface of optical film 129 closest to sections A and B; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c), wherein each beam-splitting prism of the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]):
is positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters (as seen in fig. 4a & 4c) to split the input beam (splits input beam; [0050]) emitted by the corresponding emitter (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a) to generate a plurality of output beams (beam-splitters, with the angle of the features determining the angles at which portions of the output beam are directed; [0050]; as seen in fig. 4c); and
comprises a plurality of prism surfaces (sections A and B each include prismatic, features having triangular cross-sections; [0050]) positioned to generate the plurality of output beams by redirecting respective portions of the input beam (triangular features operate as beam-splitters, with the angle of the features determining the angles at which portions of the output beam are directed e.g., light incident on the first section A in fig. 4a is split into two beams, with one directed leftward and one rightward relative to the input beam; [0050]).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein a light emitting module comprises an array of emitters, wherein an array of beam-splitting prisms is positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters.
However, in another embodiment, Holman further teaches an LED emitter assembly 109 and a radially symmetric reflector 111 being combined with the light guide plate 101 shown in FIG. 1A; together this structure can comprise the light engine 112, wherein the light emitter assembly 109 includes one or more light emitters such as light emitting diodes ([0039]; fig. 1b-1c). The array of beam splitters (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) is positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters (one or more light emitters such as light emitting diodes from light engine 112 comprised within light emitter assembly 109; [0039]; as seen in fig. 4a & 4c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system to include the technical features of multiple emitters and tailoring the characteristics of emitted light through multiple beam splitters, for the purpose of controlling the distribution and direction of light while also improving illumination efficiency within an illumination system, as taught by Holman ([0037]). Examiner notes that it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the emitters and beam splitters, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co , 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because it is explicitly stated in the prior art that separate implementations being implemented in combination in a single implementation and various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple implementations separately or in any suitable subcombination, as taught by Holman ([0067]).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein each of the array of emitters is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches integrated beam splitting, scanning device, and manufacturing method therefor ([0007-83]; fig. 1-9), wherein a transmitter 11 includes a light source 111 as a light source such as a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL), wherein the array light source 111 is a VCSEL array light source chip formed by generating a plurality of VCSEL light sources on a single semiconductor substrate ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system of Holman in view of another embodiment of Holman to include the technical feature of the light guide comprising VCSELs, for the purpose of emitting a light beam of any required wavelength, such as visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc., as taught by Xu ([0059]).
With respect to Claim 2, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 1, wherein the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]), wherein the plurality of prism surfaces (sections A and B each include prismatic, features having triangular cross-sections; [0050]) of the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) are arranged as a pyramid (triangular/pyramid-like features having base and apex as seen in fig. 4c).
With respect to Claim 3, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 2, wherein an apex of the pyramid (as seen in fig. 4c) faces toward the second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c).
With respect to Claim 4, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 1, wherein the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]), wherein:
the plurality of prism surfaces (sections A and B each include prismatic, features having triangular cross-sections; [0050]) of the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) comprises a first prism (first section A; [0050]) surface (side of section A directing beams leftward; [0050]; fig. 4c) and a second prism (second section B; [0050]) surface (side of section A directing beams rightward; [0050]; fig. 4c).
With respect to Claim 5, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 4, wherein the first prism (first section A; [0050]) surface (side of section A directing beams leftward; [0050]; fig. 4c) and the second prism (second section B; [0050]) surface (side of section A directing beams rightward; [0050]; fig. 4c) are angled toward a common side (having a plurality of sections, each with slightly different angled turning features, can produce a composite of a series of circles or other shapes caused by the beam-splitting effect of each of the sections A and B of the optical film 129 & the beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) of the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b).
With respect to Claim 6, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 4, wherein the first prism (first section A; [0050]) surface (side of section A directing beams leftward; [0050]; fig. 4c) and the second prism (second section B; [0050]) surface (side of section A directing beams rightward; [0050]; fig. 4c) are angled toward different sides (having a plurality of sections, each with slightly different angled turning features, can produce a composite of a series of circles or other shapes caused by the beam-splitting effect of each of the sections A and B of the optical film 129 & the beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) of the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b).
With respect to Claim 7, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 1, wherein the array of emitters (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a) is formed on the second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c).
With respect to Claim 9, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 1, wherein the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) and a second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]), wherein an output beam generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) substantially overlaps an output beam (output beams from sections A and B overlap and cross as seen in fig. 4c; [0051]) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]) in a scene illuminated (area being illuminated, the different circles or other shapes can overlap in space; [0051]) by light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b).
With respect to Claim 10, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 1, further comprising the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the light emitting module comprises a diffractive optical element positioned to create multiple replicas of the output beams generated by the array of beam-splitting prisms.
However, in another embodiment, Holman further teaches that the optical film 129 can include lenslet arrays, lenticular films, lenticular-like films, diffusers e.g., surface or volume diffusers, color filters, clear windows, and cutouts for modifying the output beams to exit the film with characteristics that differ from the input beam, and thus, producing different composite output beams ([0044]; fig. 2a-2b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system to include the technical feature of a diffractive optical element, for the purpose of producing differing illumination characteristics within an illumination system, as taught by Holman ([0044]).
Furthermore, Examiner notes a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
With respect to Claim 11, Holman discloses an optical device (LED emitter comprising light engine 112; fig. 1b) comprising:
a substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4a-4d) having a first surface (bottom surface of optical film 129 closest to sections A and B; [0050]) and a second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]), wherein the first surface (bottom surface of optical film 129 closest to sections A and B; [0050]) is etched (fig. 4c) to define an array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) configured to split input beams of light (splits input beam; [0050]) that have been transmitted through the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c);
and an array of emitters (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a) configured to generate the input beams (light guide 112 is shown providing an input beam to an optical film 129; [0050]), wherein a light-emitting surface (surface of light guide 112; [0050]) of each of the array of emitters (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a) is positioned to emit an input beam (light guide 112 is shown providing an input beam to an optical film 129; [0050]) of the input beams into the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c) through the second surface of the substrate (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]), wherein:
each beam-splitting prism of the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a plurality of prism surfaces (sections A and B each include prismatic, features having triangular cross-sections; [0050]) arranged as a pyramid (triangular/pyramid-like features having base and apex as seen in fig. 4c) positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters (as seen in fig. 4a & 4c).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein an optical device comprises an array of emitters, wherein each of the array of emitters is positioned to emit an input beam of the input beams and a plurality of prism are positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters.
However, in another embodiment, Holman further teaches an LED emitter assembly 109 and a radially symmetric reflector 111 being combined with the light guide plate 101 shown in FIG. 1A; together this structure can comprise the light engine 112, wherein the light emitter assembly 109 includes one or more light emitters such as light emitting diodes ([0039]; fig. 1b-1c). The plurality of prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) are positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters (one or more light emitters such as light emitting diodes from light engine 112 comprised within light emitter assembly 109; [0039]; as seen in fig. 4a & 4c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system to include the technical features of multiple emitters, multiple input beams being emitted, and tailoring the characteristics of emitted light through a plurality of prisms, for the purpose of controlling the distribution and direction of light while also improving illumination efficiency within an illumination system, as taught by Holman ([0037]). Examiner notes that it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the emitters, input beams being combined, and prisms, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co , 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because it is explicitly stated in the prior art that separate implementations being implemented in combination in a single implementation and various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple implementations separately or in any suitable subcombination, as taught by Holman ([0067]).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein each of the array of emitters is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches integrated beam splitting, scanning device, and manufacturing method therefor ([0007-83]; fig. 1-9), wherein a transmitter 11 includes a light source 111 as a light source such as a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL), wherein the array light source 111 is a VCSEL array light source chip formed by generating a plurality of VCSEL light sources on a single semiconductor substrate ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system of Holman in view of another embodiment of Holman to include the technical feature of the light guide comprising VCSELs, for the purpose of emitting a light beam of any required wavelength, such as visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc., as taught by Xu ([0059]).
With respect to Claim 12, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the optical device of Claim 11, and the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the substrate comprises a III-V semiconductor substrate.
However, Xu further teaches integrated beam splitting, scanning device, and manufacturing method therefor ([0007-83]; fig. 1-9), wherein a transmitter 11 includes a light source 111 as a light source such as a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL), wherein the array light source 111 is a VCSEL array light source chip formed by generating a plurality of VCSEL light sources on a single semiconductor substrate ([0042]). VCSELs typically utilize III-V semiconductor substrates for efficient light emission of a light beam of any required wavelength ([0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system of Holman in view of another embodiment of Holman to include the technical feature of the light guide utilizing VCSELs comprising III-V semiconductor substrates, for the purpose of emitting a light beam of any required wavelength, such as visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc., as taught by Xu ([0059]).
Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 13, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the optical device of Claim 11, wherein the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first prism (first section A; [0050]), wherein the plurality of prism surfaces (sections A and B each include prismatic, features having triangular cross-sections; [0050]) of the first prism (first section A; [0050]) are arranged as a pyramid (triangular/pyramid-like features having base and apex as seen in fig. 4c) with an apex (as seen in fig. 4c) facing toward the second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c).
With respect to Claim 14, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the optical device of Claim 11, wherein the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first prism (first section A; [0050]), wherein the plurality of prism surfaces (sections A and B each include prismatic, features having triangular cross-sections; [0050]) of the first prism (first section A; [0050]) are arranged as a pyramid (triangular/pyramid-like features having base and apex as seen in fig. 4c) with an apex (as seen in fig. 4c) with an apex (as seen in fig. 4c) facing away from the second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c).
With respect to Claim 15, Holman discloses a light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b), comprising:
a substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4a-4d) having first and second surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of optical film 129; [0050]);
an array of emitters (from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4a) positioned to emit respective input beams (light guide 112 is shown providing an input beam to an optical film 129; [0050]) into the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c) through the second surface (top surface of optical film 129 closest to light guide 112; [0050]) of the substrate (optical film 129; [0050]; fig. 4c);
an array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) each prism positioned to receive an input beam from a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters (as seen in fig. 4a & 4c), configured to split each of the input beams (splits input beam; [0050]) to generate a corresponding plurality of output beams (beam-splitters, with the angle of the features determining the angles at which portions of the output beam are directed; [0050]; as seen in fig. 4c), wherein:
illumination region is illuminated (area being illuminated; [0051]) by output beams (larger beam-splitting effect; [0050]) generated by at least two beam-splitting prisms (sections A and B; [0050-51]) of the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]).
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein a light emitting module comprises an array of emitters, wherein an array of beam-splitting prisms has each prism positioned to receive an input beam from a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters; the first array of emitters is configured to, when operated to emit the respective input beams, emit flood illumination to a target illumination region such that each location within the target illumination region is illuminated.
However, in another embodiment, Holman further an LED emitter assembly 109 and a radially symmetric reflector 111 being combined with the light guide plate 101 shown in FIG. 1A; together this structure can comprise the light engine 112, wherein the light emitter assembly 109 includes one or more light emitters such as light emitting diodes ([0039]; fig. 1b-1c). The plurality of prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) are positioned over a corresponding emitter of the array of emitters (one or more light emitters such as light emitting diodes from light engine 112 comprised within light emitter assembly 109; [0039]; as seen in fig. 4a & 4c); and a light guide coupled thereto are outfitted so as to receive interchangeable optical films ([0037]). A user can therefore readily switch out different optical films for different applications, tailoring the characteristics of the emitted light to achieve the desired lighting scheme ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system to include the technical features of multiple emitters, multiple input beams being emitted, and tailoring the characteristics of emitted light through a plurality of prisms, for the purpose of controlling the distribution and direction of light while also improving illumination efficiency within an illumination system, as taught by Holman ([0037]). Examiner notes that it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the emitters, input beams, and prisms, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co , 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because it is explicitly stated in the prior art that separate implementations being implemented in combination in a single implementation and various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple implementations separately or in any suitable subcombination, as taught by Holman ([0067]). Examiner notes a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). Also, when the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a "means" for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 USC 5 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279.
Holman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein each of the array of emitters is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches integrated beam splitting, scanning device, and manufacturing method therefor ([0007-83]; fig. 1-9), wherein a transmitter 11 includes a light source 111 as a light source such as a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL), wherein the array light source 111 is a VCSEL array light source chip formed by generating a plurality of VCSEL light sources on a single semiconductor substrate ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination system of Holman in view of another embodiment of Holman to include the technical feature of the light guide comprising VCSELs, for the purpose of emitting a light beam of any required wavelength, such as visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc., as taught by Xu ([0059]).
With respect to Claim 16, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 15, wherein:
the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) and a second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]); and
a first output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) substantially overlaps (output beams from sections A and B overlap and cross as seen in fig. 4c & area being illuminated, the different circles or other shapes can overlap in space; [0051]) with a first output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]).
With respect to Claim 17, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 16, wherein a second output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) substantially overlaps (output beams from sections A and B overlap and cross as seen in fig. 4c & area being illuminated, the different circles or other shapes can overlap in space & beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) with a second output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]).
With respect to Claim 18, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 15, wherein:
the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) and a second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]); and
a first output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) is projected between first and second output beams (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]) without substantially overlapping the first and second output beams (having a plurality of sections, each with slightly different angled turning features, can produce a composite of a series of circles or other shapes caused by the beam-splitting effect of each of the sections of the optical film 129 & beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]).
With respect to Claim 19, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 15, wherein:
the array of beam-splitting prisms (first and second sections A and B having prismatic, triangular features operating as beam-splitters; [0050]) comprises a first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]), a second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]), and a third beam-splitting prism (third section C; [0051]; fig. 4d);
a first output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) substantially overlaps (output beams from sections A and B overlap and cross as seen in fig. 4c & area being illuminated, the different circles or other shapes can overlap in space & beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) a first output beam (as seen in fig. 4c) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]); and
a second output beam (as seen in fig. 4c-4d) generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) substantially overlaps (area being illuminated, the different circles or other shapes can overlap in space & beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) a first output beam (as seen in fig. 4d) generated by the third beam-splitting prism.
With respect to Claim 20, Holman, in view of another embodiment of Holman and Xu, teaches the light emitting module (illumination system; [0004-68]; fig. 1a-9b) of Claim 19, wherein a third output beam (as seen in fig. 4d) generated by the first beam-splitting prism (first section A; [0050]) substantially overlaps (area being illuminated, the different circles or other shapes can overlap in space & beam-splitting effect illustrated can be adjusted in various ways and/or combined with other types of films to achieve the desired results; [0051]) a second output beam (as seen in fig. 4c-4d) generated by the second beam-splitting prism (second section B; [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zheng et al. US 20210041538 A1 discloses light detection and ranging sensors with optics and solid-state detectors, and associated systems and methods substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 31 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872