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 an amendment filed 12/2/2025.
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 1-3, 5, 7-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 7548376) in a view of Bourdelais et al (US 6846098).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a diffuser to distribute an ultra-wide field of illumination (abstract; figs. 1-5) comprising:
a light diffusing element (fig. 5, 52), wherein incident light rays enter through the light diffusing element first side at respective incident angles (fig. 5, 52a-- optical incidence surface; col. 2, line 4-6, where the input light source is either a collimated or divergent light beam, --in case of divergent light beam, light rays entering at respective incident angles); and
a plurality of extensions (fig. 5. 56- prismatic units); wherein each extension comprises:
a reflective surface arranged at a respective first angle to optical incidence surface (fig. 5, 52a) to cause total internal reflection of one or more respective light rays of the incident light ray (fig. 5, 54s- reflective surfaces and lights reflected at 54s; fig. 1, 1-light source and incident light ray; col. 4, line 1-4, Light incident from the incident surface 52a is totally internally reflected by the reflecting surface 54 of the prismatic unit 56, and the reflected light is refracted by the refractive surface 55 and exits); and
an exit surface arranged at a respective second angle relative to the reflective surface (fig. 5, 55s- exit surfaces) and configured to direct the one or more respective light rays at one or more transmission angles that differ from their respective incident angles (fig. 5, 58a, 58b….--outgoing beams).
But Kim does not specifically disclose that wherein a base comprising a base first side and a base second side opposite the base first side, and a plurality of extensions that extend from the base second side, wherein the base is formed from a first material having a first refractive index and the plurality of extensions are formed from a second material having a second refractive index that differs from the first refractive index.
However, Bourdelais teaches a light diffuser (abstract; fig. 1),
wherein a base comprising a base first side and a base second side opposite the base first side (fig. 1, 20), and a plurality of extensions that extend from the base second side (fig. 1, 22),
wherein the base is formed from a first material having a first refractive index and the plurality of extensions are formed from a second material having a second refractive index that differs from the first refractive index (fig. 1, 20, 22; abstract, line 1-6, the diffuser comprises a base and a plurality of convex or concave complex lenses on the surface of the base; col. 14, line 54-67, Variable light diffusion film 12 comprises transparent polymer base 20, onto which major lenses 22 are applied to the surface of transparent polymer base 26; col. 28, line 27-33, Formed polyolefin lenses; Transparent polyester base).
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 diffuser of Kim by the light diffuser of Bourdelais for a purpose for an improved light diffusion of image illumination light sources to provide improved diffuse light transmission while simultaneously diffusing specular light sources (col. 4, line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of extensions comprise:
a first extension having a first shape to direct one or more received first light rays of the incident light rays with a first transmission angle of the one or more transmission angles (fig. 5, the prismatic unit 56 on left of center line, as disclosed in Kim); and
a second extension having a second shape to direct one or more received second light rays of the incident light rays with a second transmission angle of the one or more transmission angles (fig. 5, the prismatic unit 56 on right of center line, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 2, wherein the first extension is arranged opposite the second extension relative to a centerline (fig. 5, the prismatic units 56 on left and right of center line, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 2, wherein the first shape has one or more dimensions substantially similar to one or more dimensions of the second shape (fig. 5, the prismatic units 56 on left and right of center line, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 2, wherein the first shape or the second shape is generally triangular (fig. 5, the prismatic units 56 on left and right of center line, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 1, wherein a first extension of the plurality of extensions is adjacent a second extension (fig. 5, the prismatic units 56 on left and right of center line, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches wherein the
first refractive index of the base and the second refractive index of apply a gradient index (GRIN) optic effect to the incident light rays (col. 8, line 24-28, A light diffuser wherein the diffusion efficiency variation comprises a gradient preferred. Have a gradient allows for the smooth transition from one diffusion efficiency to another diffusion efficiency, as disclosed in Bourdelais).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 1, wherein a first extension of the plurality of extensions is separated from a second extension by a portion of the base (fig. 1, peaks 2s, separated portions of 20s by 20A, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 1, wherein at least one of the reflective surface or the exit surface is substantially linear (fig. 3, 24, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 1, wherein at least one of the reflective surface or the exit surface has a predetermined curvature (fig. 4, reflecting surfaces, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 1, wherein the second refractive index of the plurality of extensions is greater than 1.4 (fig. 1, 20, 22; abstract, line 1-6, the diffuser comprises a base and a plurality of convex or concave complex lenses on the surface of the base; col. 28, line 27-33, Formed polyolefin lenses; Transparent polyester base, as disclosed in Bourdelais; --- polyolefins have refractive indices around 1.52 to 1.53).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the diffuser of claim 13, wherein the second material of the plurality of extensions is a polymeric material (col. 1, line 30-35, Various kinds of materials are used for the micro lens array production, and the most common is a transparent polymethyl methacrylate. The refractive index of this material is 1.49, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches an opto-electronic device to distribute an ultra-wide field of illumination (abstract; figs. 1-5) comprising:
an optical source to generate light rays(fig. 1, 1; col. 2, line 4-6, where the input light source is either a collimated or divergent light beam); and
a diffuser (fig. 5, 52) comprising the diffusing optical structure (fig. 5, 52) and a plurality of extensions extending from the structure (fig. 5, 52a-- optical incidence surface, 56- prismatic units, 54s/56s—extensions);
wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions includes a respective reflective surface arranged at respective first angle to one or more respective light rays received via the diffusing optical structure at a respective incident and to cause total internal reflection of the one or more respective light ray (fig. 5, 54s- reflective surfaces; fig. 1, 1-light source and incident light ray; col. 4, line 1-4, Light incident from the incident surface 52a is totally internally reflected by the reflecting surface 54 of the prismatic unit 56, and the reflected light is refracted by the refractive surface 55 and exits); and
wherein each extension of the plurality of extensions (fig. 5, 56s) includes an exit surface arranged at a respective second angle relative to its respective reflective surface (fig. 5, 55s- exit surfaces) and to direct the one or more respective light rays at one or more transmission angles different from the respective incident angle (fig. 5, 58a, 58b….--outgoing beams).
But Kim does not specifically disclose that wherein a diffuser comprising a base coupled to the diffusing optical structure second side and a plurality of extensions extending from the base; and wherein a diffusing optical structure comprising a diffusing optical structure first side and a diffusing optical structure second side opposite the diffusing optical structure first side.
However, Bourdelais teaches a light diffuser (abstract; fig. 1),
a diffuser comprising a base (fig. 1, 20) coupled to the diffusing optical structure second side and a plurality of extensions extending from the base (fig. 1, 20, 22);
wherein a diffusing optical structure comprising a diffusing optical structure first side and a diffusing optical structure second side opposite the diffusing optical structure first side (co;. 9, line 59-66, the concave or convex lenses are located on both sides of the transparent polymer sheet; By placing the lenses on both sides of the transparent sheet, more efficient light diffusion is observed compared to the lenses of the invention on one side).
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 diffuser of Kim by the light diffuser of Bourdelais for a purpose for an improved light diffusion of image illumination light sources to provide improved diffuse light transmission while simultaneously diffusing specular light sources (col. 4, line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the opto-electronic device of claim 15, wherein the diffusing optical structure comprises one or more of a diffractive optical element (DOE), a collimator, a filter diffusing surface (abstract, line 1-9, The micro lens array includes a plurality of Fresnel lens structures formed on a same optical incidence surface;--- a Fresnel lens is of one of diffractive optical elements (DOEs) , as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the opto-electronic device of claim 16, wherein the opto-electronic device is one or more of a standalone illuminator, a camera system, or a light-based three- dimensional (3D) sensing system (fig. 1, 1, 2, 3; col. 4, line 56-59, the optical microstructure producing highly homogeneous illumination intensity, as disclosed in Kim; col. 4, line 1-15, image illumination light sources; a light diffuser for rear projection displays; backlighted imaging media, a liquid crystal display component and device, as disclosed in Bourdelais).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches the opto-electronic device of claim 15, wherein the optical source is one or more of an edge emitting laser (EEL) array, a ridge type single quantum well (SQW) or multiple quantum well (MOW) semiconductor laser, a buried heterostructure (BH) SOW or MOW laser, a distributed-feedback (DFB) or Distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a Vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), photonic crystal surface-emitting lasers, InP based laser, GaAs based laser, GaSb based laser, or GaN based laser (col. 3, line 50-52, a coherent radiation, --- the coherent radiation from a laser, which may be a semiconductor laser of InP based laser, GaAs based laser, GaSb based laser, or GaN based laser, as disclosed in Kim).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches The opto-electronic device of claim 15, wherein the light has a wavelength of 850 nanometer, 940 nanometers, or 1380 nanometers (col. 3, line 48-52, In example 1 of this patent, the reported 90% transmission includes wavelengths between 400 and 1500 nm integrating the visible and invisible wavelengths, as disclosed in Bourdelais).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim – Bourdelais combination teaches The opto-electronic device of claim 15, wherein the diffusing optical structure reduces divergence of the light rays as the light rays pass from the optical source through the diffusing optical structure to the diffuser (col. 2, line 4-6, where the input light source is either a collimated or divergent light beam, --in case of divergent light beam, fig. 1 shows that the divergent light beam from light source 1 is collimated, as disclosed in Kim).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 7548376) in a view of Bourdelais et al (US 6846098), further in a view of Perlo et al (US 5997156).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim – Bourdelais combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the diffuser of claim 2, wherein the first and second extensions are arranged as a mirror image of third and fourth extensions of the plurality of extensions relative to a centerline.
However, Perlo teaches a lighting device (abstract; figs. 1-4), wherein the first and second extensions are arranged as a mirror image of third and fourth extensions of the plurality of extensions relative to a centerline (fig. 4, 6;-- microprisms on left and right center line).
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 diffuser of Kim – Bourdelais combination by the lighting device of Perlo for the purpose of providing of a lighting device able to generate a light beam which forms a defined and uniform rectangular pattern at the work area (col. 1, line 5-10).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim – Bourdelais - Perlo combination teaches the diffuser of claim 2, wherein the first shape has one or more dimensions different to one or more dimensions of the second shape (figs. 6-7, 6,-- microprisms 6 may have different shapes, as disclosed in Perlo).
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 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
Prosecution Insights