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 .
Status
The filing on 09/09/2025 amended claims 1, 7, 8, and cancelled claims 5 and 6. Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are pending and rejected.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 09/09/2025 appropriately amended the title; hence the objection/s to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cornelissen (US 20220221129 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cornelissen teaches an illuminator (Fig. 1A-3E) comprising: a light source (10) that emits first light that belongs to a first wavelength band; a wavelength converter (100, 150) that converts the first light into second light that belongs to a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band; and an optical element (200) that transmits the second light emitted from the wavelength converter (100, 150), wherein an air layer is provided between the wavelength converter (100, 150) and the optical element (200), a length of the air layer (d2, d2a) along a direction of an optical axis of the optical element (200) is greater than or equal to 0.3 μm but smaller than or equal to 9.0 μm ([0053], [0054], [0099], [0104], [0131]), and the optical element (200) has a coefficient of linear expansion smaller than or equal to 65×10.sup.−7/° C. at temperatures ranging from 100° C to 200° C, and a thermal conductivity greater than or equal to 1.0 W/m*K ([0039], [0100]), the optical element (200) includes a planar plate part (220) and a lens part (210; Fig. 3B), and the illuminator further comprises a heat dissipating member (315; Fig. 3B) thermally coupled about side surfaces of the planar plate part (220) of the optical element (200; [0137]).
Claim Rejections - AIA 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelissen.
Regarding claim 2, Cornelissen does not teach a spacer that maintains a distance between the wavelength converter (100, 150) and the optical element (200) in the embodiment of Fig. 3B.
Cornelissen further teaches a spacer (316) that maintains a distance between the wavelength converter (100, 150) and the optical element (200) in the embodiment in Fig. 3A.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Fig. 3B embodiment with Fig. 3A embodiment; because it allows maintaining secured alignment between the wavelength converter (100, 150) and the optical element (200).
Regarding claim 3, Cornelissen does not teach a surface, of the wavelength converter (100, 150), that faces the optical element (200) having irregularities in the embodiment of Fig. 3B.
Cornelissen further teaches a surface, of the wavelength converter (100, 150), that faces the optical element (200) has irregularities (Fig. 1C; [0104]) in the embodiment of Fig. 1C.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Fig. 3B embodiment with Fig. 1C embodiment; because it allows outputting a desired illumination uniformity pattern.
Regarding claim 7, Cornelissen does not explicitly teach the planar plate part and the lens part are separate parts from each other in the embodiment of Fig. 3B. Cornelissen in Fig. 2B suggest the planar plate part and the lens part are separate parts from each other. Furthermore, making parts separable is prima facie obvious. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelissen in view of Hirano (US 20220099863 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cornelissen does not explicitly teach the surface roughness of the surface is greater than or equal to 0.05 μm but smaller than or equal to 0.2 μm.
Hirano teaches the surface roughness of the surface is greater than or equal to 0.05 μm but smaller than or equal to 0.2 μm ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Cornelissen with Hirano; because it allows controlling the direction of output light. Furthermore, controlling the light output direction by surface roughness is well known in the art. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is deemed obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelissen in view of Obinata (US 20220082847 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cornelissen does not explicitly teach a reflection mirror provided at a portion of the lens part, the reflection mirror configured to reflect the second light emitted from the wavelength converter (100, 150) toward the wavelength converter (100, 150).
Obinata teaches a reflection mirror (12) provided at a portion of the lens part (10), the reflection mirror (12) configured to reflect the second light emitted from the wavelength converter (30) toward the wavelength converter (30; Fig. 1-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Cornelissen with Obinata; because it allows controlling the spreading of the output light.
Regarding claim 9, Cornelissen further teaches the illuminator being used in projection systems, but does not explicitly teach the component of the projection system ([0088], [0144]).
Obinata teaches the illuminator being used in a projector comprising: a light modulator (130) that modulates light emitted from the illuminator and containing the second light; and a projection optical apparatus (140) that projects the light modulated by the light modulator.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Cornelissen with Obinata; because it is suggested by Cornelissen ([0088], [0144]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are found not persuasive; hence rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant/s argue,
However, as seen and explained above in relation to Comelissen FIG. 3A, there is a completely different thermal mounting and lens arrangement of Cornelissen such that there isno heat dissipating member thermally coupled about side surfaces of a planar plate part of the optical element. Therefore, amended claim 1 patentably distinguishes from Cornelissen, and no other citations cure such deficiencies of Cornelissen. (Remarks; p. 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cornelissen clearly teaches “the optical element (200) includes a planar plate part (220) and a lens part (210; Fig. 3B), and the illuminator further comprises a heat dissipating member (315; Fig. 3B) thermally coupled about side surfaces of the planar plate part (220) of the optical element (200; [0137]).”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882