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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 11 and 13 were previously withdrawn. Claims 8, 14, and 16-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-27 have been added.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22 and 27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 22 is directed to a species of an optical system wherein the mounting surface is concave. However, all of the previous claims were directed to a species of an optical system wherein the mounting surface is flat, as seen in Figs. 7 and 8. In claim 22, applicant has changed the flat surface to be a concave mounting surface, as discussed in ¶00166, which is mutually exclusive from the flat mounting surface of the previous claims.
Claim 27 is directed to a species of an optical system wherein the lens specifically does not have an anti-reflection coating on the output surface, which is directed to a non-elected species wherein there is no air gap between the lens and the optical waveguide, as seen in Figs. 9-10 and discussed in ¶00162. However, all of the previous claims were directed to a species of an optical system wherein the lens does or can have an anti-reflection coating on the output surface, a feature of the elected species wherein there is an air gap between the lens and the optical waveguide, as stated in claim 10, ¶0035, and ¶00161. In claim 27, applicant requires the output surface to not have an anti-reflection coating, which is mutually exclusive from the output surface having an anti-reflection coating of the previous claims and directed to a non-elected species.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22 and 26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not disclose the width of the mounting surface is at least half of the full width of the lens, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Yang is silent as to the dimensions of the lens, and the depiction of the lens in the drawings cannot be relied upon to teach this limitation. The examiner notes it has been held the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125, and it has been held that “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125. In this case, Figs. 1-2 of Yang suggests that the width of the mounting surface is at least half of the full width of the lens. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Dunphy in view of Yang discloses all of the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the mounting surface width at least half of the full width of the lens for the purpose of having enough surface area on the mounting surface to apply an adhesive on to attach the lens to the substrate.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20210124020 A1), hereinafter Dunphy, in view of Yang (CN 213401853 U).
Regarding independent claim 1, Dunphy discloses an optical system, comprising:
a light emitter (140; Fig. 1B; ¶0033); and
an optical waveguide (150; Fig. 1B; ¶0033).
Dunphy does not disclose a lens that optically couples the light emitter to the optical waveguide, wherein the lens has a long axis and a plurality of surfaces surrounding the long axis, wherein the plurality of surfaces include a convex surface, an output surface opposite the convex surface, and a mounting surface, wherein the convex surface faces the light emitter such that light emitted by the light emitter enters the lens through the convex surface, wherein at least some of the light emitted by the light emitter that enters the lens through the convex surface exits the lens through the output surface, wherein the lens has a full width defined by a greatest distance between the convex surface and the output surface, wherein the mounting surface has a width in a direction perpendicular to the long axis, and wherein the width of the mounting surface is at least half of the full width of the lens.
However, Yang teaches a similar optical system with a light emitter (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0032) and a lens (104; Figs. 1-2; ¶n0025) that is optically coupled to the light emitter (Figs. 1-2), wherein the lens (104) has a long axis (Figs. 1-2) and a plurality of surfaces surrounding the long axis (Figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of surfaces include a convex surface (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028), an output surface opposite the convex surface (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028), and a mounting surface (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028), wherein the convex surface faces the light emitter (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028) such that light emitted by the light emitter enters the lens (104) through the convex surface (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028), wherein at least some of the light emitted by the light emitter that enters the lens (104) through the convex surface exits the lens (104) through the output surface (Figs. 1-2), wherein the lens (104) has a full width defined by a greatest distance between the convex surface and the output surface (Figs. 1-2), wherein the mounting surface has a width in a direction perpendicular to the long axis (Figs. 1-2), and wherein the width of the mounting surface is at least half of the full width of the lens (104) (Figs. 1-2)1.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Dunphy in view of Yang discloses all of the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the mounting surface width at least half of the full width of the lens for the purpose of having enough surface area on the mounting surface to apply an adhesive on to attach the lens to the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis and for the width of the mounting surface to be at least half of the full width of the lens for the purpose of having enough surface area on the mounting surface to effectively attach the lens to the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy further discloses the light emitter (140) comprises a laser diode (140; ¶0034), wherein the laser diode (140) emits light that has a first divergence in a first direction (inherent to laser diodes)2 and a second divergence in a second direction (inherent to laser diodes), and wherein the first divergence is greater than the second divergence (inherent to laser diodes).
Dunphy does not disclose the lens at least partially collimates the emitted light in the first direction so as to reduce the divergence in the first direction.
However, Yang teaches the lens (104) at least partially collimates the emitted light in the first direction so as to reduce the divergence in the first direction (¶n0032). Additionally, Yang also explicitly teaches the laser emits light that has a first divergence in a first direction (¶n0002) and a second divergence in a second direction (¶n0002), and wherein the first divergence is greater than the second divergence (¶n0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis.
Regarding claim 3, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 2, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy further discloses the first direction corresponds to a fast axis of the laser diode (140) (inherent to laser diodes, this is a known definition) and the second direction corresponds to a slow axis of the laser diode (140) (inherent to laser diodes, this is a known definition).
Additionally, Yang explicitly teaches the first direction corresponds to a fast axis of the laser (¶n0002) and the second direction corresponds to a slow axis of the laser (¶n0002).
Regarding claim 4, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the convex surface of the lens is spaced apart from the light emitter (140) by an air gap.
However, Yang teaches the convex surface of the lens (140) is spaced apart from the light emitter by an air gap (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis.
Regarding claim 5, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the lens has an anti-reflection coating on the convex surface.
However, Yang teaches the lens (104) has an anti-reflection coating on the convex surface (¶n0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis and reducing reflections.
Regarding claim 6, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy further discloses a substrate (186; Fig. 1B, ¶0035) wherein the optical waveguide (150) is disposed on the substrate (186; Fig. 1B; ¶0035).
Dunphy does not disclose the mounting surface of the lens is disposed on the substrate (186).
However, Yang teaches the mounting surface of the lens (104) is disposed on the substrate (308; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter.
Regarding claim 7, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 6, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the mounting surface of the lens is bonded to the substrate by an adhesive.
However, Yang teaches the mounting surface of the lens (104) is bonded to the substrate (308) by an adhesive (implicit that the lens would have to be bonded to the substrate by an adhesive from Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis.
Regarding claim 9, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the output surface is spaced apart from the optical waveguide (150) by an air gap.
However, Yang teaches the output surface (Figs. 1-2) is spaced apart from the next optical element (105; Figs. 1-2) by an air gap (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis.
Regarding claim 10, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 9, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the lens has an anti-reflection coating on the output surface.
However, Yang teaches the lens (104) has an anti-reflection coating on the output surface (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis and reducing reflections.
Regarding claim 12, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the output surface is a flat surface.
However, Yang teaches the output surface (Figs. 1-2) is a flat surface (Figs. 1-2; ¶n0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis.
Regarding claim 21, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the mounting surface is flat.
However, Yang teaches the mounting surface is flat (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy to incorporate the lens of Yang for the purpose of collimating the light emitted by the light emitter along the fast axis.
Regarding claim 23, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 6, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy further discloses the substrate (186) comprises a material that is transparent to the light emitted by the light emitter (140) (¶0031).
Regarding claim 24, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 6, including the lens, as set forth above. Dunphy further discloses the substrate (186) comprises glass (¶0031).
Regarding claim 25, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 5, including the lens and the anti-reflection coating, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the anti-reflection coating reduces reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 1%.
However, Yang teaches the lens (104) has an anti-reflection coating (¶n0028). Yang does not specifically teach that the anti-reflection coating reduces reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 1%.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Dunphy in view of Yang discloses all the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to use an anti-reflection coating that reduces reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 1% for the purpose of making sure the light transmits into the lens and reducing internal reflection within the lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the anti-reflection coating to reduce reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 1% for the purpose of making sure the light transmits into the lens and reducing internal reflection within the lens.
Regarding claim 26, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 5, including the lens and the anti-reflection coating, as set forth above. Dunphy does not disclose the anti-reflection coating reduces reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 1%.
However, Yang teaches the lens (104) has an anti-reflection coating (¶n0028). Yang does not specifically teach that the anti-reflection coating reduces reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 0.1%.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Dunphy in view of Yang discloses all the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to use an anti-reflection coating that reduces reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 0.1% for the purpose of making sure the light transmits into the lens and reducing internal reflection within the lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the anti-reflection coating to reduce reflections of the light emitted by the light emitter to less than 0.1% for the purpose of making sure the light transmits into the lens and reducing internal reflection within the lens.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20210124020 A1), hereinafter Dunphy, in view of Yang (CN 213401853 U) and further in view of Nagano et al. (US 20030048819 A1), hereinafter Nagano.
Regarding claim 7, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 6, including the lens, as set forth above. Neither Dunphy nor Yang explicitly disclose the mounting surface of the lens is bonded to the substrate by an adhesive.
However, Nagano teaches a similar optical system, wherein the lens array (414; Fig. 12; ¶0149) is bonded to the heat block (411; Fig. 12; ¶0149) by an adhesive (¶0149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy and Yang to incorporate bonding the lens to the substrate using an adhesive for the purpose of securely fixing the lens to the substrate in the optical system.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20210124020 A1), hereinafter Dunphy, in view of Yang (CN 213401853 U) and further in view of Karlsen (US 20070086501 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dunphy in view of Yang discloses the optical system of claim 1, including the lens, as set forth above. Neither Dunphy nor Yang disclose the optical system further comprises: a plurality of light emitters that includes the light emitter; and a plurality of optical waveguides that includes the optical waveguide, wherein the lens optically couples each light emitter of the plurality of light emitters to a respective optical waveguide of the plurality of optical waveguides.
However, Karlsen teaches a plurality of light emitters (103; Fig. 1; ¶0022) that includes the light emitter (103); and a plurality of optical waveguides (109; Fig. 1; ¶0022) that includes the optical waveguide (109), wherein the lens (107; Fig. 1; ¶0022) optically couples each light emitter (103) of the plurality of light emitters (103) to a respective optical waveguide (109) of the plurality of optical waveguides (109) (Fig. 1; ¶0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dunphy and Yang to incorporate the plurality of light emitters and optical waveguide of Karlsen for the purpose of providing better beam quality and brightness. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the light emitters and optical waveguides, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 December 10th, 2025
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 It has been held the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
2 The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995), see MPEP 2112.
Prosecution Insights