DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 2-9, 12- 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20020024740) in a view of Miura (US 20160301899), and further in a view of Fahlen et al (US 4733944).
Regarding Claim 2, Hashimoto teaches a device for generating a flat-top laser beam (abstract; figs. 1-3), the device comprising:
a light source (fig. 1, 12; ¶[0029], line 1-6, The bar laser 12 is a type of semiconductor laser, and includes a plurality of linearly arranged emitters 11; Such bar lasers have several tens of emitters);
a first cylindrical lens array having a plurality of convex lenslets that face the light source (fig. 1, 14, --one close to 16);
a second cylindrical lens array, having a plurality of convex lenslets that face away from the light source (fig. 1, 14, --one close to 17; ¶[0030], line 1-8, The cylindrical lens array 15 is a combination of two cylindrical lens arrays 14. The cylindrical lens array 14 consists of a plurality of lens units arranged parallel to the direction in which the emitters 11 are arranged of the bar laser 12);
the light source comprising two or more laser diodes (fig. 1, 11); each of the two or more laser diodes having a respective beam (¶[0029], line 1-6, The bar laser 12 is a type of semiconductor laser, and includes a plurality of linearly arranged emitters 11; Such bar lasers have several tens of emitters), which are combined to yield a combined beam (fig. 3B, L1-L5 and L).
But Hashimoto does not specifically disclose that the two or more laser diodes being tilted relative to each other to shift respective intensity peaks of each respective beam and thus the combined beam has an improved uniformity of intensity of a flattop profile.
However, Miura teaches an illumination unit (abstract; fig. 1A-B), wherein two or more laser diodes being tilted relative to each other to shift respective intensity peaks of each respective beam (fig. 23, 11A-1, 11A-2, 11A-3; (¶[0260], line 1-16, laser chips 11A-1, 11A-2, and 11A-3, the chips 11A-1 and 11A-2 are disposed in a slanting direction to the optical axis Z1) and thus the combined beam has an improved uniformity of intensity of a flattop profile (¶[0013], line 1-10, an integrator uniformalizing illumination distribution in a predetermined illumination region which is to be illuminated by light from the traveling-direction angle conversion device).
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 device of Hashimoto by the illumination unit of Miura for the purpose to increase luminance of illumination light (¶[0008], line 1-6).
But Hashimoto – Miura combination does not specifically disclose that wherein the first cylindrical lens array (LA1) having an effective first focal length (fLA1); and the second cylindrical lens array (LA2) having a second effective focal length (fLA2); the distance between the first cylindrical lens arrays (LA1) and the second cylindrical lens array (LA2) being greater than the second effective focal length (fLA2), but less than the combined first effective focal length (fLA1) plus the second effective focal length (fLA2).
However, Fahlen teaches an optical beam integration system (abstract; fig. 3), a light source (fig. 3, 10); a first cylindrical lens array having a plurality of convex lenslets that face the light source (fig. 3, 22); a second cylindrical lens array, having a plurality of convex lenslets that face away from the light source (fig. 3, 26);
wherein the first cylindrical lens array (LA1) having an effective first focal length (fLA1); and the second cylindrical lens array (LA2) having a second effective focal length (fLA2) (fig. 3, f1s); the distance between the first cylindrical lens arrays (LA1) and the second cylindrical lens array (LA2) (fig. 3, d2) being greater than the second effective focal length (fLA2) (fig. 3, d2, f1), but less than the combined first effective focal length (fLA1) plus the second effective focal length (fLA2) (fig. 3, d2, f1+f1; col. 3, line 9-51, the distance between the first crossed lenticular cylindrical lens means and the second crossed lenticular cylindrical lens means is preferably in the range of zero to two times the given focal length).
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 device of Hashimoto – Miura combination by the optical beam integration system of Fahlen for the purpose for homogenizing an input beam having a nonuniform beam intensity profile characteristic. (col. 3, line 63-68).
Regarding Claim 3, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 2, the first and second cylindrical lens arrays being operably disposed for the first cylindrical lens array to receive light from the light source, the second cylindrical lens array to receive light from the first cylindrical lens array (fig. 1, 16, 14s, 17; --light beams from 12 through 16, 15(14s) and 17, as disclosed in Hashimoto) and thereby generate a light beam that has one or both a flat top intensity profile, or a flattop beam (fig. 3B, L, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 4, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 2, the first and second cylindrical lens arrays defining a pair of cylindrical lens arrays (fig. 1, 15(14s); ---two 14s, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 5, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 2, the first cylindrical lens array having a first focal length, the second cylindrical lens array having a second focal length (fig. 3, f1, as disclosed in Fahlen), and the first cylindrical lens array and the second cylindrical lens array defining a distance therebetween (fig. 3, d2, as disclosed in Fahlen) that is greater than the second focal length of the second cylindrical lens array (fig. 3, d2, f1, as disclosed in Fahlen), but less than a sum of the first focal length of the first cylindrical lens array and the second focal lengths of the second cylindrical lens array (fig. 3, d2, f1+f1; col. 3, line 9-51, the distance between the first crossed lenticular cylindrical lens means and the second crossed lenticular cylindrical lens means is preferably in the range of zero to two times the given focal length, as disclosed in Fahlen).
Regarding Claim 6, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 4, the pair of cylindrical lens arrays being operably disposed to homogenize a beam profile in a slow axis (X) of one or more diode lasers (fig. 1, 11, 15(14s); fig. 3B, L, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 7, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 2, the first and second cylindrical lens arrays being operably disposed to receive a laser beam (fig. 1, 12, 15(14s) , as disclosed in Hashimoto), the first and second cylindrical lens arrays collimating the laser beam (fig. 2, 12, 15(14s), and collimated beam, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 8, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 7, the collimating being in a fast axis (Y) by including and using either or both a fast axis collimation lens, or, a cylindrical lens (fig. 1, 18, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 9, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 6, having several collimated laser beams stacked in a y-direction in close proximity to increase power density (fig. 3B, L1-L5, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 12, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to any of claim 2, including two or more dichroic mirrors (fig. 1A-B, 30A, 30B, as disclosed in Miura), the dichroic mirrors forming at least two high power uniform lines of different wavelengths at some spacing (fig. 1A-B, 10A, 10B, 10C; ¶[0092], line 1-10, The respective chips 11A in the light sources 10A,10B, and 10C may be designed to emit light beams of different wavelengths. 10A emits a light beam having a wavelength of about 400 nm to 500 nm or a blue light beam; 10B emits a light beam having a wavelength of about 500 nm to 600 nm or a green light beam; 10C emits a light beam having a wavelength of about 600 nm to 700 nm or a red light beam, as disclosed in Miura).
Regarding Claim 13, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device of claim 2, further comprising either or both a fast axis collimation lens and a slow axis collimation lens (fig. 1, 16, 18; ¶[0031], line 1-10, The cylindrical lens 16 having power in the direction of the slow axis is used for creating a superimposed far field pattern, in the direction of arrangement of the emitters 11; ¶[0032], line 1-7, The pair of cylindrical lenses 18 and 19 each having power in the direction of the fast axis are used for imaging near field patterns, in the direction (i.e. the direction of the fast axis) perpendicular to the direction of arrangement of the emitters 11; ¶[0034], line 1-7, the laser beams emitted from the emitters 11 of the bar laser 12 enter the cylindrical lens array 15 after collimated in the slow axis and fast axis directions by the cylindrical lenses 16 and 18 respectively, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 14, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device of claims 2, further comprising one or both a slow axis collimation lens or a cylindrical lens (fig. 1, 16, 18, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 15, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device of claims 2, further comprising one or more focusing lenses (fig. 1, 17, 19, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 17, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device of claim 2, the light source being one or more diode lasers (fig. 1, 12, 11s; ¶[0029], line 1-6, The bar laser 12 is a type of semiconductor laser, and includes a plurality of linearly arranged emitters 11; Such bar lasers have several tens of emitters, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 18, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination teaches a device according to claim 2, further comprising a fast axis collimation lens having two or more half cylinder shaped convex lenses, or lenslets, that run an entire length of one side of the structure (fig. 5, 22, as disclosed in Fahlen).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20020024740) in a view of Miura (US 20160301899).
Regarding Claim 19, Hashimoto teaches a device for generating a flat-top laser beam (abstract; figs. 1-3), the device comprising:
a light source (fig. 1, 12; ¶[0029], line 1-6, The bar laser 12 is a type of semiconductor laser, and includes a plurality of linearly arranged emitters 11; Such bar lasers have several tens of emitters);
a fast-axis collimating lens (fig. 1, 18);
a slow-axis collimating lens (fig. 1, 16);
(¶[0031], line 1-10, The cylindrical lens 16 having power in the direction of the slow axis is used for creating a superimposed far field pattern, in the direction of arrangement of the emitters 11; ¶[0032], line 1-7, The pair of cylindrical lenses 18 and 19 each having power in the direction of the fast axis are used for imaging near field patterns, in the direction (i.e. the direction of the fast axis) perpendicular to the direction of arrangement of the emitters 11; ¶[0034], line 1-7, the laser beams emitted from the emitters 11 of the bar laser 12 enter the cylindrical lens array 15 after collimated in the slow axis and fast axis directions by the cylindrical lenses 16 and 18 respectively);
a pair of cylindrical lens arrays (fig. 1, 15(14s); ¶[0030], line 1-8, The cylindrical lens array 15 is a combination of two cylindrical lens arrays 14. The cylindrical lens array 14 consists of a plurality of lens units arranged parallel to the direction in which the emitters 11 are arranged of the bar laser 12); and,
one or more focusing lenses to focus a beam on an image plane (figs. 1-2, 17, 19, 13);
the light source comprising two or more laser diodes (fig. 1, 11); each of the two or more laser diodes having a respective beam (¶[0029], line 1-6, The bar laser 12 is a type of semiconductor laser, and includes a plurality of linearly arranged emitters 11; Such bar lasers have several tens of emitters), which are combined to yield a combined beam (fig. 3B, L1-L5 and L).
But Hashimoto does not specifically disclose that the two or more laser diodes being tilted relative to each other to shift respective intensity peaks of each respective beam and thus the combined beam has an improved uniformity of intensity of a flattop profile.
However, Miura teaches an illumination unit (abstract; fig. 1A-B), wherein two or more laser diodes being tilted relative to each other to shift respective intensity peaks of each respective beam (fig. 23, 11A-1, 11A-2, 11A-3; (¶[0260], line 1-16, laser chips 11A-1, 11A-2, and 11A-3, the chips 11A-1 and 11A-2 are disposed in a slanting direction to the optical axis Z1) and thus the combined beam has an improved uniformity of intensity of a flattop profile (¶[0013], line 1-10, an integrator uniformalizing illumination distribution in a predetermined illumination region which is to be illuminated by light from the traveling-direction angle conversion device).
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 device of Hashimoto by the illumination unit of Miura for the purpose to increase luminance of illumination light (¶[0008], line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 20, Hashimoto – Miura combination teaches a device of claim 19, the pair of cylindrical lens arrays homogenizing a beam profile in a slow axis of the light source (fig. 1, 11, 15(14s); fig. 3B, L, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 21, Hashimoto – Miura combination teaches a device of claim19, the one or more focusing lenses one or both combining or imaging beamlets received and overlapping the beamlets on an image plane (figs. 1-2, 17, 19, 13; fig. 3B, L1-L5, L, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20020024740) in views of Miura (US 20160301899) and Fahlen et al (US 4733944), and further in a view of in a view of Wiedemann et al (US 20110279903).
Regarding Claim 11, Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination discloses as set forth above, and further teaches a device according to claim 2, the light source comprising two or more laser diodes (fig. 1, 12, 11, as disclosed in Hashimoto).
But Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination does not specifically disclose that the laser diodes generating two similar laser diode beams that are polarization combined by including and using a polarization combining cube to double total power.
However, Wiedemann teaches an optical combiner (abstract; fig. 2 and fig. 4), wherein the laser diodes generating two similar laser diode beams that are polarization combined by including and using a polarization combining cube to double total power (fig. 214, 204, 210; fig. 4, 400, 410, 414; ¶[0026], line 1-16, The polarizing beam splitter 400 combines the first laser bundle 410 emitted by the first laser chip 408 with the second laser bundle 414 emitted by the second laser chip 412).
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 device of Hashimoto – Miura - Fahlen combination by the optical combiner of Wiedemann for the purpose to form higher density bundles of substantially parallel laser beams, having less desirable beam divergence (¶[0015], line 1-10).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20020024740) in a view of Miura (US 20160301899), and further in a view of Fahlen et al (US 4733944).
Regarding Claim 22, Hashimoto – Miura combination discloses as set forth above, and further teaches a device according to claims19, the pair of cylindrical lens arrays comprising a first lens array and a second lens array (fig. 1, 15(14s)).
But Hashimoto – Miura combination does not specifically disclose that the pair of cylindrical lens arrays further having a distance between the first lens array and second lens array that is greater than a focal length of the second lens array, but less than the sum of at focal length of the first lens array and the focal lengths of the second lens array.
However, Fahlen teaches an optical beam integration system (abstract; fig. 3), wherein having a distance between the first lens array and second lens array (fig. 3, d2) that is greater than a focal length of the second lens array (fig. 3, d2, f1), but less than the sum of at focal length of the first lens array and the focal lengths of the second lens array (fig. 3, d2, f1+f1; col. 3, line 9-51, the distance between the first crossed lenticular cylindrical lens means and the second crossed lenticular cylindrical lens means is preferably in the range of zero to two times the given focal length).
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 device of Hashimoto – Miura combination by the optical beam integration system of Fahlen for the purpose for homogenizing an input beam having a nonuniform beam intensity profile characteristic. (col. 3, line 63-68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 71 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 71, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a device for generating a flat-top laser beam further comprising
wherein tilting of the laser diodes producing periodic peaks of spacing ΛFP as defined by the equation:
ΛFP = λ·fFL/PLA
where λ is the laser wavelength, fFL is the focal length of the second cylindrical lens array, and PLA = pitch of lens array, the vertex clearance between two neighboring lenses of the array.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current new 103 rejections.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), 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 reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872