DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. The RCE application submitted on April 27, 2026, has been received and recorded. In response to Final Office Action mailed on February 11, 2026, independent claims 1, and 20 are amended. Applicant maintained claims 2, 5-19 and 21-22. Claims 3-4 are cancelled as before the Final Office Action. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as new claim after the Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-2, and 5-22 are pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments in "REMARKS" filed on April 07, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by the applicant's amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1-2, and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations, "the lower illuminance at the central portion is produced by refraction at the first lens without use of a reflective film or diffusive plate positioned above the plurality of light emitting elements” in claims 1 and 20 are not described in specification in such way from where one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands the claimed invention. NO where in the “specification” submitted on October 14, 2022, describes, especially the limitations, “the lower illuminance at the central portion is produced by refraction at the first lens without use of a reflective film or diffusive plate positioned above the plurality of light emitting elements” in the current application or even in the parent applications.
Therefore, the limitations are considered as new matter in the current application.
Claims 2, 5-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because of their dependency on the rejected base claims respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-2, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1) in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1)(herein after COUILLARD).
Regarding claim 1, O’Daniel teaches a light emitting device (Para-3: laser assemblies and optics for laser assemblies; fig.1A, Para-33) comprising:
a substrate(substrate 102, figs.1A-1B, Para-33);
a plurality of light emitting elements(laser array 104, figs.1A-1B) provided at a first surface of the substrate (Para-36: the laser array 104 may be positioned on a first side or first surface of the substrate 102); and
a plurality of lenses(lens array 112, figs.1A-1B) provided at a second surface of the substrate(Para-36: the lens array 112 may include multiple lenses 114 (only one of which is labeled). Each of the lenses 114 may correspond to one of the lasers 106 on the other side of substrate 102), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
257
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prior Art Current Application
the plurality of lenses includes a first lens(lenses 114, fig.1B) that is axicon lens, or a pyramidal lens(fig.3), (Para-52), the first lens having an apex(fig.3, Para-52) and being configured to refractively redistribute light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements(Para-50), and
the [lower] illuminance(illumination intensity, Para-50) at the central portion is produced by refraction at the first lens (lenses 114, fig.3) without use of a reflective film or diffusive plate positioned above the plurality of light emitting elements(lasers 106, fig.3).
Nevertheless, O’Daniel is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device, wherein refractively redistributed light through the first lens having a lower illuminance at a central portion than at a peripheral portion.
However, COUILLARD teaches wide-angle lenses and optical assemblies, wherein refractively redistributed light through the first lens(negative axicon 107, fig.1A, Para-38) having a lower illuminance at a central portion than at a peripheral portion(fig.2, Para-36: As can be seen in the plot, the emission peak is around 68°(with a corresponding peak in the opposite direction around 292°), and the refracted light spans angles in a region ranging from about 30° up to nearly 90° (or from about 330° to about 270°). Of course, the depicted plot is exemplary only and it is to be understood that the lens materials and dimensions can be varied to produce different emission peaks and emission regions, without limitation).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel with the teaching of COUILLARD to include the feature in order to provide wide-angle lenses having a reduced thickness, which may, in turn, reduce the thickness of the overall optical assembly or display device.
Regarding claim 2, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD teaches light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first lens includes a lens having a single zone(fig.3, O’Daniel)(one lens covers target area 126).
Regarding claim 7, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses includes a second lens(114b, figs.1B&2C, Para-38, O’Daniel) having a shape different from a shape of the first lens(114a, O’Daniel).
Regarding claim 10, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses includes at least any of a convex lens or a concave lens(Para-38, O’Daniel; Para-28, COUILLARD).
Regarding claim 11, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein light emitted from one of the plurality of Light emitting elements is incident on one corresponding lens(fig.3, O’Daniel).
10. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1)in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1)and further in view of Milster et al.(US 2021/0297601 A1)(herein after Milster).
Regarding claim 5, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first lens is a lens having a plurality of zones.
However, Milster teaches an optical device having multi-order diffractive Fresnel lens(MD-DFL), wherein the first lens is a lens having a plurality of zones(fig.3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel further with the teaching of Milster to include the feature in order to provide an optical device that reduces refractive dispersion created by the MOD-DFL using achromatizing compensation mechanism, and thus, reducing focal range of the MOD-DFL.
Regarding claim 6, [O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD and] Milster teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first lens is a Fresnel lens(multi-order diffractive Fresnel lens)(for motivation, see the rejection of claim 5 above).
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1) in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1) and further in view of Chen(US 2020/0366051 A1).
Regarding claim 8, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device according to claim 7, wherein the second lens includes a spherical lens or an ellipsoidal lens.
However, Chen teaches a light source with integrated monitor photodetector, wherein the second lens(lenslets 111, fig.2) includes a spherical lens(Para-42) or an ellipsoidal lens.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel further with the teaching of Chen to include the feature in order to prevent optical leakage (e.g. errant laser light) and to prevent potential eye damage.
12. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1)in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1) and further in view of Joseph(US 2021/02 18228 A1).
Regarding claim 9, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses has a structure that does not cause light from the plurality of light emitting elements to be totally reflected.
However, Joseph teaches a laser apparatus, wherein the plurality of lenses has a structure that does not cause light from the plurality of light emitting elements to be totally reflected (fig.22, Para-326) (only a few of the laser light 252 is reflected back).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel further with the teaching of Joseph to include the feature in order to provide a laser apparatus that provides plating to remove heat from active region of the laser devices to enhance performance at low cost for the laser devices with no failures.
Regarding claim 12, [O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD and] Joseph teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein light emitted from one of the plurality of light emitting elements (virtual light source 186, fig.18) is incident on a corresponding plurality of lenses(184, fig.18, Para-291) (for motivation, see the rejection of claim 9 above).
13. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1) in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1)and further in view of Yokota(US 2011/0187966 A1).
Regarding claim 13, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising a refractive index buffer layer provided at the second surface of the substrate to cover the plurality of lenses, the refractive index buffer layer having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the substrate.
However, Yokota teaches a display device, comprising a refractive index buffer layer(refractive index layer 11, figs.1 &3, Para-43) provided at the second surface(light incident surface 13) of the substrate to cover the plurality of lenses (lens sheet 10, fig.1), the refractive index buffer layer(11) having a refractive index(1) lower than a refractive index (1.6) of the substrate(13).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel further with the teaching of Yokota to include the feature in order to improve light use efficiency of illumination device easily.
14. Claims 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1)in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1) and further in view of Mizuo et al.(US 2006/0050263 A1)(herein after Mizuo).
Regarding claim 14, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising a drive device configured to drive the plurality of light emitting elements to cause the plurality of Light emitting elements to emit light.
However, Mizuo teaches an optical distance measuring sensor,
comprising a drive device(LED driving circuit 25, fig.5, Para-70) configured to drive the plurality of light emitting elements(LEDs 51-55) to cause the plurality of light emitting elements to emit light(Para-14).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel further with the teaching of Mizuo to include the feature in order to provide a distance measuring device to measure distance of a target object from the light source.
Regarding claim 16, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD and Mizuo teaches the light emitting device according to claim 14, wherein the drive device drives(25) the plurality of light emitting elements(51-55) for each individual light emitting element(fig.5, Para-71, Mizuo).
Regarding claim 17, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD and Mizuo teaches the light emitting device according to claim 14, wherein the drive device scans a subject with light from the plurality of light emitting elements by sequentially driving the plurality of light emitting elements(fig.6, abstract, Para-77, Mizuo).
Regarding claim 18, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD and Mizuo teaches the light emitting device according to claim 17, wherein one of the plurality of lenses(114, fig.3, O’Daniel) receives light emitted from one corresponding light emitting element(106, fig.3, O’Daniel), and
a position of an optical axis of at least any of lenses is misaligned from a position of an optical axis of a corresponding Light emitting element(small alignment offsets, Para-29, 31, 38, 40, 55, 58-59, O’Daniel).
15. Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1),COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1), Mizuo et al.(US 2006/0050263 A1) and further in view of CHEN et al.(US 2023/0030614 A1)(herein after CHEN).
Regarding claim 15, O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD and Mizuo is not found to teach expressly the light emitting device according to claim 14, wherein the drive device is provided on the first surface side of the substrate with the plurality of light emitting elements interposed between the drive device and the substrate.
However, CHEN teaches a light emitting assembly, wherein a drive device(circuit board 4, fig.16) is provided on the first surface side of the substrate(substrate 1) with the plurality of light emitting elements(light source 2, fig.6) interposed between the drive device and the substrate(substrate 1, fig.16, Para-87, 88).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified O’Daniel further with the teaching of CHEN to include the feature in order to provide a light assembly where entire light emitting assembly meets a miniaturization design requirement.
Regarding claim 19, [O’Daniel as modified by COUILLARD, Mizuo and] CHEN teaches the light emitting device according to claim 17, wherein one of the plurality of lenses receives light emitted from a corresponding plurality of light emitting elements(fig.9, Para-73, CHEN) (for motivation, see the rejection of claim 15 above).
16. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuo et al.(US 2006/0050263 A1) (herein after Mizuo) in view of O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1) and further in view of COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1)(herein after COUILLARD).
Regarding claim 20, Mizuo teaches a distance measuring device (distance measuring sensor 10, fig.5) comprising:
a light emitting device(plurality of LEDS 51-55, fig.1A, Para-57) configured to irradiate a subject(object 32, fig.5) with light(near infrared beam L1, fig.5);
an imaging device(position sensitive detector PSD 4, fig.1A, Para-57) configured to receive light reflected(reflected light L2, fig.1A, Para-58) by the subject(32), to image the subject (Para-58); and
a control device(integrate circuit 31, fig.1A; LED driving circuit 25, controller 40, fig.5) configured to measure a distance to the subject using an image signal output from the imaging device(Para-58),
wherein the light emitting device includes a substrate(obvious to have substrate),
Nevertheless, Mizuo is not found to teach expressly the distance measuring device, wherein a plurality of light emitting elements provided at a first surface of the substrate, the plurality of light emitting elements configured to emit the light, and a plurality of lenses provided at a second surface of the substrate, the plurality of lenses configured to form the light, and the plurality of lenses includes a first lens that is axicon lens, or a pyramidal lens, the first lens having an apex, and being configured to refractively redistributed light from the plurality of light emitting elements, and the lower illuminance at the central portion is produced by refraction at the first lens without use of a reflective film or diffusive plate positioned above the plurality of light emitting elements.
However, O’Daniel teaches laser assemblies and optics for laser assemblies, comprising:
a substrate(substrate 102, figs.1A-1B, Para-33);
a plurality of light emitting elements(laser array 104, figs.1A-1B) provided at a first surface of the substrate (Para-36: the laser array 104 may be positioned on a first side or first surface of the substrate 102); and
a plurality of lenses(lens array 112, figs.1A-1B) provided at a second surface of the substrate(Para-36: the lens array 112 may include multiple lenses 114 (only one of which is labeled). Each of the lenses 114 may correspond to one of the lasers 106 on the other side of substrate 102) the plurality of lenses configured to form the light, and
the plurality of lenses includes a first lens(lenses 114, fig.1B) that is axicon lens, or a pyramidal lens(fig.3)(Para-52), the first lens having an apex(fig.3, Para-52), and being configured to refractively redistribute light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements(Para-50), and
the [lower] illuminance(illumination intensity, Para-50) at the central portion is produced by refraction at the first lens (lenses 114, fig.3) without use of a reflective film or diffusive plate positioned above the plurality of light emitting elements(lasers 106, fig.3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Mizuo with the teaching of O’Daniel to include the feature in order to provide an alignment tolerant laser assembly in distance measuring device.
Neither Mizuo nor O’Daniel teaches expressly the light emitting device, wherein refractively redistributed light through the first lens having a lower illuminance at a central portion than at a peripheral portion.
However, COUILLARD teaches wide-angle lenses and optical assemblies, wherein refractively redistributed light through the first lens(negative axicon 107, fig.1A, Para-38) having a lower illuminance at a central portion than at a peripheral portion(fig.2, Para-36: As can be seen in the plot, the emission peak is around 68°(with a corresponding peak in the opposite direction around 292°), and the refracted light spans angles in a region ranging from about 30° up to nearly 90° (or from about 330° to about 270°). Of course, the depicted plot is exemplary only and it is to be understood that the lens materials and dimensions can be varied to produce different emission peaks and emission regions, without limitation).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Mizuo further with the teaching of COUILLARD to include the feature in order to provide wide-angle lenses having a reduced thickness, which may, in turn, reduce the thickness of the overall optical assembly or display device.
Regarding claim 21, Mizuo as modified by O’Daniel and COUILLARD teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 20, wherein the plurality of lenses includes a second lens(114b, figs.1B&2C, Para-38, O’Daniel) having a shape different from a shape of the first lens(114A, O’Daniel)(for motivation see the rejection of claim 20 above).
17. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuo et al.(US 2006/0050263 A1), O’Daniel(US 2021/0057889 A1), COUILLARD et al.(US 2019/0004217 A1) and further in view of Chen (US 2020/0366051 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Mizuo as modified by O’Daniel and COUILLARD is not found to teach expressly the distance measuring device according to claim 21, wherein the second lens includes a spherical lens or an ellipsoidal lens.
However, Chen teaches a light source with integrated monitor photodetector, wherein the second lens(lenslets 111, fig.2) includes a spherical lens(Para-42) or an ellipsoidal lens.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Mizuo further with the teaching of Chen to include the feature in order to prevent optical leakage (e.g. errant laser light) and to prevent potential eye damage.
Examiner Note
18. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights