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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on June 15 and September 21 of 2023, and March 11 of 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment, filed concurrently with the instant application on June 15 of 2023, has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-24 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8 and 12 have been cancelled. Claim 25 has been added. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-25 are still pending in this application, with only claim 1 being independent.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (defined by claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15 and 21-25) in the reply filed on March 30 of 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species A.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment, per MPEP 606.01. Any changes to claim scope at time of allowance may also result in an additional title amendment.
At this time, the following title is suggested: Illumination Module with Tilted Curved Reflective Surface.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to concisely describe the subject matter of applicant’s invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. An illumination module includes an emitter configured to emit light along an optical axis of the illumination module and an optical system located on or over the emitter. The optical system includes at least a first surface tilted in a first direction relative to the optical axisto introduce a coma optical aberration in the first direction. The optical system might further include second and thirds surfaces tilted relative to the optical axis. The first tilted surface is a curved surface forming a hyperbolic or parabolic concave mirror, configured to reflect light from the emitter.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11 and 13-25 are objected to because they include grammatical, syntax, and/or typographical errors. Appropriate correction is required to place the claims in proper form for allowance (see proposed claim amendment, below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Section b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 9-11, 13-15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 4 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, how is the “concave mirror” capable of reflecting light from itself (e.g. “reflect light from the curved surface”). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “curved surface” of the “concave mirror” as configured to reflect light from the “emitter”.
Dependent claim 9 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the context of the claim, if the newly recited “first tilted surface” is a new structural feature of the claimed optical system, or if such “first tilted surface” is one and the same as the previously defined “curved surface” (see line 5 of independent claim 1, from which claim 9 directly depends). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “first tilted surface” being a newly defined structural element of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 10, 11, 13-15 and 22 are rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite independent claim 9, as previously detailed.
Section d
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claim 24 appears to merely rename the “illumination module” defined by independent claim 1 (from which claim 24 directly depends) as an “electronic device” without defining any additional structural elements or features differentiating such “electronic device” from the previously defined “illumination module”; therefore, the invention define by dependent claim 24 appears to be substantially identical to that previously defined by independent claim 1.
The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, any illumination module anticipating the invention of claim 1 as inherently anticipating the invention of claim 24.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 1. An illumination module comprising:
an emitter configured to emit light along an optical axis of the illumination module; and
an optical system located on or over the emitter, the optical system comprising a component having a curved surfacesurface introduces a coma[[ ]] aberration in the first direction to the light emitted from the illumination module.
CLAIM 4. The illumination module according to claim 1, wherein the is a concave mirror [[is ]]configured to reflect light from the emitter
CLAIM 6. The illumination module according to claim 1, wherein the curved surface is not tilted in a second direction relative to the optical axis of the emitted light and the curved surface[[ ]] introduces substantially no optical aberration in the second direction.
CLAIM 9. The illumination module according to claim 1, comprising a second surface
CLAIM 10. The illumination module according to claim 9, wherein the curved surface and the second surface[[ ]] comprise s having the same refractive index.
CLAIM 11. The illumination module according to claim 9[[ ]], further comprising micro-optics including the curved surface and the first tilted surface, and a chip including the emitter and the micro-optics.
CLAIM 13. The illumination module according to claim 9,further comprising an optical wedge including the second surface[[ ]], and wherein the component is located directly on the optical wedge[[ ]].
CLAIM 14. The illumination module according to claim 11, further comprising a lens having the curved surface, and[[ ]] at least two optical wedges having tilted s, [[and ]]wherein at least one of the tilted reflecting surfaces is laterally spaced from the curve surface on a surface of the chip.
CLAIM 15. The illumination module according to claim 11, wherein the second surface and the curved surface each comprise a reflecting surface, and second surface is laterally spaced from the curved surface on a surface of the chip.
CLAIM 16. The illumination module according to claim 1, comprising a portion having a second tilted surface.
CLAIM 17. The illumination module according to claim 16, wherein the emitter and the optical system are supported by the second tilted in the first direction.
CLAIM 18. The illumination module according to claim 17, further comprising a wedge shaped substrate including the second
CLAIM 19. The illumination module according to claim 17, comprising a flexible mount configured for attaching the illumination module to a curved structure.
CLAIM 20. The illumination module according to claim 17, wherein the second tilted surface comprises a flat surface and sloped groove on [[a]]the flat surface.
CLAIM 21. The illumination module according to claim 1, wherein the curved surface comprises
CLAIM 22. The illumination module according to claim 9, wherein at least one of the curved surface or the second surface is formed using one or more of etching, replicating, embossing, molding, imprinting, or photolithography.
CLAIM 23. A system comprising the illumination module of claim 1, and an imaging surface for receiving light from the illumination module,
wherein the optical systemon the imaging surface at a non-normal angle
CLAIM 25. The illumination module according to claim 1, wherein the component is a convex lens comprising the curved surface, and the convex lens is configured to emit light from the curved surface.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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.
35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 21, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHUNG et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,975,465).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A of CHUNG et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,975,465) modified and annotated to clearly reference claimed structural elements and features (as applied to claims 1 and 4-6).
Regarding independent claim 1 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. discloses an illumination module (as seen in Figure 1A) including an emitter 3 (as seen in Figure 1A) configured to emit light along an optical axis 6 (as seen in Figure 1A) of the illumination module; and an optical system 2 (as seen in Figure 1A) located on or over the emitter 3 (relative to the emission direction, as seen in Figure 1A), the optical system 2 including a component 2 (as seen in Figure 1A) having a curved surface 2 (as seen in Figure 1A), wherein the curved surface 2 is tilted in a first direction relative to the optical axis of the emitted light (about 45° clockwise from direction 6, as seen in Figure 1A), and the curved surface 2 introduces a coma aberration in the first direction to the light emitted from the illumination module (inherent, as no optical component is perfect).
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the component 2 is a concave mirror 2 (as seen in Figure 1) having the curved surface 2 (as seen in Figure 1) and the concave mirror 2 is configured to reflect light from the curved surface 2 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 5 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the curved surface 2 has a hyperbolic or parabolic shape (as evidenced by Figure 1A).
Regarding dependent claim 6 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the curved surface 2 is not tilted in a second direction relative to the optical axis of the emitted light (as seen in Figure 3) and the curved surface 2 introduces substantially no optical aberration in the second direction (as evidenced by Figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of CHUNG et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,975,465) modified and annotated to clearly reference claimed structural elements and features (as applied to claims 1, 9-11, 13-14 and 25).
Regarding dependent claim 9 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the optical system 2 (as seen in Figure 6) further comprises a first tilted surface 2 (as seen in Figure 6), wherein the first tilted surface 2 is tilted in the first direction (about 45° clockwise from direction 6, as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding dependent claim 10 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the material forming the first tilted surface 2 and the material forming the curved surface (convex output surface of element 2, as seen in Figure 6) comprise or are formed of a material having the same refractive index (inherent, as it is the same material, as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding dependent claim 11 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses wherein the optical system 2 comprises micro-optics 2 (as seen in Figure 6) that are formed on a chip 1 (as seen in Figure 6) comprising the emitter 3 (as seen in Figure 6), wherein the micro-optics 2 comprise the curved surface (as seen in Figure 6) and the first tilted surface 2 (as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding dependent claim 13 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the optical system 2 comprises an optical wedge 2 (as seen in Figure 6) comprising the first tilted surface 2 (as seen in Figure 6), and wherein the component having the curved surface located directly on the optical wedge 2 (as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding dependent claim 14 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the optical system comprises a lens (convex output surface of element 2, as seen in Figure 6) having the curved surface (as seen in Figure 6) and at least two optical wedges (as evidenced by Figure 4) having tilted surfaces 2 (as seen in Figure 6) each comprising a reflecting surface 2 (as seen in Figure 6), and wherein at least one tilted surface 2 and the curved surface are laterally spaced from each other on a surface of the chip 1 (as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding dependent claim 21 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the curved surface 2 is formed by a GaAs lens or a polymer lens (see lines 66-67 of column 7).
Regarding dependent claim 24 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses an electronic device (as seen in Figure 1A) including the illumination module (as seen in Figure 1A).
Regarding dependent claim 25 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. further discloses the component 2 is a convex lens (output surface of element 2, as seen in Figure 6) including the curved surface (as seen in Figure 6), and the convex lens is configured to emit light from the curved surface (as seen in Figure 6).
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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,975,465).
Regarding dependent claim 22 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except at least one of the curved surface or the first tilted surface is formed using one or more of etching, replicating, embossing, molding, imprinting, or photolithography.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of manufacturing processes such as etching, replicating, embossing, molding, imprinting, or photolithography, specifically for forming illuminating modules, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply use a known etching, replicating, embossing, molding, imprinting, or photolithography manufacturing process to form the surfaces of CHUNG et al., as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In addition, the applicant is advised that it has long held by the courts that patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Regarding dependent claim 23 (as best understood), CHUNG et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, further disclosing a system (as seen in Figure 23) including the illumination module (as seen in Figure 23), and an imaging surface (“hologram recording material”, as seen in Figure 23) for receiving light from the illumination module (as seen in Figure 23).
CHUNG et al. fails to explicitly disclose the optical system of the illumination module is tilted relative to the imaging surface such that light from the illumination module is incident at a non-normal angle upon the imaging surface.
However, it has been long held by the courts that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the illumination module tilted relative to the imaging surface. One would have been motivated to achieve the predictable result of projecting light from the illumination module at a non-normal angle upon the imaging surface, as necessitated by the specific illumination requirements of a given application.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakada et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2006/0269182), Uchida et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,149,376), Nishimura (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2011/0064358), Shimizu et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0329397), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0293582), Hayashi (U.S. Pat. 8,882,368), Halbritter et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,283,929), Dykaar (U.S. Pat. 10,527,856), Halbritter et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,741,993), Miura et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,152,758), and Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0022696) disclose illumination devices including a light emitter arranged of a substrate to for a chip, the device further including an optical system coupled to the light emitter, such optical system having at least one reflective surface disposed at an angle to the primary light emitting direction of the light emitter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 (as best understood) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant teaches an illumination module including a light emitter; and an optical component having a curved surface tilted relative to the optical axis of the emitted light, such as to introduce a coma aberration in the first direction. The optical component also includes a first tilted surface, with the curved and tilted surfaces formed as micro- optics on a chip including the light emitter. The curved and first tilted surfaces arranged laterally space from each other on a surface of the chip, with both the curved and first tilted surfaces including reflective surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights