Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/092,448

LASER LIGHT SOURCE COMBINER SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jan 03, 2023
Examiner
OESTREICH, MITCHELL T
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Delta Electronics Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
292 granted / 395 resolved
+5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
419
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 395 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Applicant’s arguments, filed on January 7th, 2026, with respect to the 112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered. Accordingly, the 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitano (US 2013/0088471 A1). Regarding claim 1, Kitano teaches a laser light source combiner system, comprising: a laser light source configured to emit a first blue light traveling along a first direction (See, e.g., laser light source 405 in Fig. 4 and paragraph [0002] indicates a blue laser may be used; note there are a variety of references to the wavelength of the laser used and they correspond to the color blue); a phosphor wheel (See, e.g., phosphor wheel 400 in Fig. 4 and note here the wheel is taken to be the combination of motor 404, substrate 401, and phosphor 402), wherein the phosphor wheel and the laser light source are arranged along the first direction (See, e.g., Fig. 4), the phosphor wheel is configured to reflect a portion of the first blue light so as to form a second blue light and to convert a portion of the first blue light into a fluorescent light, and the second blue light travels along a reversed direction of the first direction (See, e.g., Fig. 4 which shows this, and paragraphs [0099]-[0102] which explain this); a first dichroic filter located between the laser light source and the phosphor wheel, wherein the first dichroic filter overlaps the second blue light, the first dichroic filter is configured to partially transmit and partially reflect the second blue light and to transmit the fluorescent light (See, e.g., dichroic mirror 411 in Fig. 4 which is a dichroic filter located between the light source and wheel and note that given how these optical elements work, and the light paths shown, this mirror necessarily partially reflects/transmits the second blue light, and transmits the fluorescent light); and a filter assemble located between the first dichroic filter and the laser light source, wherein the filter assemble is configured to reflect the second blue light that has passed the first dichroic filter and reflect the fluorescent light (See, e.g., dichroic mirror 415 in Fig. 4 and note that at least in the view of Fig. 4 it is partially located between the filter and light source insofar as the left half of mirror 415 is between the right half of mirror 411 and light source 405. Further note that given the light paths shown the two lights are reflected. Moreover, the language “passed the first dichroic filter” can have at least two meanings: the light has been transmitted through the filter, and the light has moved past the filter in the optical train of elements. In the instant case as the light in Fig. 4 can be seen to move from the mirror 411 and reflect off mirror 415 which corresponds to the second interpretation described previously). Regarding claim 3, Kitano teaches the system set forth above and further teaches wherein the filter assemble is configured to transmit the first blue light (See, e.g., Fig. 4). Regarding claim 4, Kitano teaches the system set forth above and further teaches a combiner lens (See, e.g., lens 416 in Fig. 4), wherein the combiner lens and the first dichroic filter are arranged along a second direction (Here the second direction corresponds to the “vertical” direction shown in Fig. 4 which is orthogonal to the cited first direction), and the combiner lens and the filter assemble are arranged along the second direction (See, e.g., Fig. 4). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-10 and 12-18 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 11 is allowable. The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first region overlaps the first blue light, the first region of the second dichroic filter is configured to transmit the first blue light, and a reflector located between the second dichroic filter and the laser light source, and the reflector overlaps the second region of the second dichroic filter. Regarding claim 9, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the third dichroic filter is configured to transmit the first blue light. Regarding claim 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first region is configured to transmit the first blue light. Regarding claim 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein a transmittance for the second blue light of the first dichroic filter is greater than a transmittance for the second blue light of the second region of the filter assemble, and a transmittance for the second blue light of the first region of the filter assemble is different from the transmittance for the second blue light of the second region of the filter assemble. Regarding claims 6-8 and 12-18, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments, filed on January 7th, 2026 with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection applied to the newly amended claim 1. 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 Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT. 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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. /MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 03, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 07, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596285
PIXEL STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585138
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAYING THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585093
Zoom Lens and Imaging Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585095
PROJECTION OPTICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571945
DIFFUSOR AND OPTICAL SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+21.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 395 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month