DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, dated 3/5/26, has been entered.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii [10209506] in view of Aanegola [US 10309587] and Conner [US 7246923]
As to claim 1, Fujii discloses a light-emitting device [see figure 4] comprising: a light source that outputs light [242, see lines, figure 4]; a light-guiding unit [256 and right half of 254] that guides the light from the light source to a predetermined position [see lines, figure 4]; and a heat-absorbing member [left side of 254] that is disposed between the light source and the light-guiding unit and that absorbs some or all of heat of the light while allowing the light to pass through the heat-absorbing member [note 254 is a lens which allows light to pass through. Fujii is silent as to the materials of the lens. Aanegola teaches the use of glass or plastic, which are known to absorb some or all heat while allowing light to pass, was well known [see Aanogola, column 11, lines 39-56]. It would have been obvious to use such materials as they are well known in the art for their ease of manufacture, robustness and clarity [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56]. Fujii also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heat absorbing member includes a planar surface that is brought into contact with the light guiding unit. Conner teaches orienting and configuring pre light guide lenses and optics such that the closest one to the light guide is planar and touching the light guide is well known [see figure 1, wherein lens 16 has a planar surface which abuts and is in contact with the light guide 19]. It would have been obvious to configure the lenses as taught in Conner with the lighting unit of Fujii, in order to reduce overall size of the lighting unit and space necessary between the light and the light guide [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56].
As to claim 3, Fujii discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the heat-absorbing member is disposed at an arrangement position at which the heat-absorbing member 1s in contact with the light-guiding unit and is not in contact with the light source [see figure 4].
As to claim 4, Fujii discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the heat-absorbing member is disposed in such a manner as to be in contact with a surface of the light-guiding unit [see figure 4], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the surface facing the light source, and a distance between the heat-absorbing member and the light source is 0.5 millimeters (mm) to 0.7 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as such, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, one would have been motivated based on the overall size of the lighting unit desired [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56].
As to claim 6, Fujii fails to explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the light-guiding unit and the light source facing each other with the heat-absorbing member interposed between the light-guiding unit and the light source is 1.5 millimeters (mm) or smaller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as such, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, one would have been motivated based on the overall size of the lighting unit desired [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56].
As to claim 8, Fujii discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 7, wherein a shape, a size, and an arrangement position of the heat-absorbing member are set in accordance with a positional relationship between the light source and the light-guiding unit in a state in which the heat-absorbing member is not disposed and an angle at which the light enters the light-guiding unit [see arrows, figure 4].
As to claim 9, Fujii discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 8, wherein the shape of the heat-absorbing member is a semicircular shape [see left side of 254, figure 4, note that lens makes a roughly semi-circular shape, also note that lens is comprised of two semi-circles together forming a circular lens].
As to claim 11, Fujii discloses a light-emitting device [250, figure 4] comprising: a light source [252] that outputs light [see arrows]; light-guiding means for guiding the light from the light source to a predetermined position [256]; and a heat-absorbing member that is disposed between the light source and the light-guiding means and that absorbs some or all of heat of the light while allowing the light to pass through the heat-absorbing member [254]. Fujii is silent as to the materials of the lens. Aanegola teaches the use of glass or plastic, which are known to absorb some or all heat while allowing light to pass, was well known [see Aanogola, column 11, lines 39-56]. It would have been obvious to use such materials as they are well known in the art for their ease of manufacture, robustness and clarity [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56]. Fujii also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heat absorbing member includes a planar surface that is brought into contact with the light guiding unit. Conner teaches orienting and configuring pre light guide lenses and optics such that the closest one to the light guide is planar and touching the light guide is well known [see figure 1, wherein lens 16 has a planar surface which abuts and is in contact with the light guide 19]. It would have been obvious to configure the lenses as taught in Conner with the lighting unit of Fujii, in order to reduce overall size of the lighting unit and space necessary between the light and the light guide [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56].
Note that means plus function language is not imputed in this claim as the means are undefined within the specification.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Aanegola, Conner, and Yoneda [US 2004/0012965].
As to claim 7, Fujii fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heat-absorbing member has a higher light refractive index than air. Yoneda teaches this was well known [see paragraph 29]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the materials of Yoneda with the lighting unit of Fujii, as such materials are well known for their ease of manufacture, clarity, and robustness [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56].
As to claim 10, Fujii fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light source is a light-emitting diode (LED), wherein the light-guiding unit is a light guide made of a resin, and wherein the heat-absorbing member is a member containing at least one of transparent glass and a transparent resin. Yoneda teaches the configuration wherein the light source is a light-emitting diode (LED) [see abstract], wherein the light-guiding unit is a light guide made of a resin, and wherein the heat-absorbing member is a member containing at least one of transparent glass and a transparent resin [see Yoneda, paragraph 29] was well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the materials of Yoneda with the lighting unit of Fujii, as such materials are well known for their ease of manufacture, clarity, and robustness [see Fujii, column 15, lines 49-56].
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 BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875