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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 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. Examiner submits that the drawing objection(s), 112(f) invoke, and 112(b) rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Independent claim 1, from which claims 2-7, 9, and 10, depend, recites an array of emitters…Holman and Xu, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest such a limitation," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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]). It would have also 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 an array light source 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 rejection(s) below for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "When discussing Holman, the Examiner references "from light guide 112, as seen in fig. 4A" as support for the claimed array of emitters…Neither of these components of Holbrook, however, constitutes an array of light emitters as presently claimed," the Examiner traverses. Examiner submits that the light guide 112 in view of the LED emitter assembly 109 of Holman, and in combination with the array light source 111 of Xu, explicitly teaches the claim limitation requiring an array of emitters. Another embodiment of Holman is utilized to further provide evidence that multiple elements, including the light guide 112, can be utilized as an array light source. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., only addressing Holman), 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). 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). See § 103 rejection(s) below for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Accordingly, the light engine 112 of Holman, as a unit, cannot be reasonably relied upon as support for an array of light emitters, each of which is a VCSEL that is configured to emit a respective input beam. Similarly, the light emitter assembly 109 cannot be relied upon as support for an array of light emitters as presently claimed. Nowhere does Holman teach…which redirects light such that is can collectively form the single light beam discussed above," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above rebutting piecemeal analysis and bodily incorporation requirements. As stated in the previous and current Office action, “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]).” Examiner submits that the applicant has failed again to account for Xu’s prior art teachings in combination with the disclosure of Holman. Xu further teaches that light source 111 can be an array light source composed of a plurality of light sources ([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 an array light source 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 rejection(s) below for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Overall, Holman fails to teach or suggest an array of beam-splitting prisms, where each beam-splitting prism receives and splits an input beam from a respective light emitter of an array of light emitters. Xu fails to cure these deficiencies. For at least these reasons, the Assignee respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-7, and 9-20 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). Xu further teaches that light source 111 can be an array light source composed of a plurality of light sources ([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 an array light source 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]). It is noted that "the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123. See § 103 rejection(s) below for further guidance. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “In many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP § 2141.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Drawings
The applicant' s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 a respective input beam (light guide 112 is shown providing an input beam to an optical film 129; [0050]; arrows representing each emitter emitting respective input beams from light guide 112; as illustrated in figs. 4a & 4c) 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) and aligned with the light-emitting surface (surface of light guide 112; [0050]) of the corresponding emitter (as seen in fig. 4a & 4c) to split the respective 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 respective 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]; arrows representing each emitter emitting respective input beams from light guide 112; as illustrated in figs. 4a & 4c).
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]). Xu further teaches that light source 111 can be an array light source composed of a plurality of light sources ([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 an array light source 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 receive 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 a respective input beam (light guide 112 is shown providing an input beam to an optical film 129; [0050]; arrows representing each emitter emitting respective input beams from light guide 112; as illustrated in figs. 4a & 4c) 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) and aligned with the light-emitting surface (surface of light guide 112; [0050]) of the corresponding emitter (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]). Xu further teaches that light source 111 can be an array light source composed of a plurality of light sources ([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 an array light source 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; arrows representing each emitter emitting respective input beams from light guide 112; as illustrated in figs. 4a & 4c) and aligned with a light-emitting surface (surface of light guide 112; [0050]) of the corresponding emitter (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]). Xu further teaches that light source 111 can be an array light source composed of a plurality of light sources ([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 an array light source 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 August 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights