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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Thus the rejection of Claims 1-6 are sustained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohtaki (US 5917660 A) in view of Lin (US 20210132334 A1).
Re Claim 1, Ohtaki discloses om Fig. 1(a-b), a light device comprising: a light source (semi-conductor laser LD); and an optical lens (Converting lens 2) having an incidence plane (incident surface 3) extending in both a first axis (Fig. 1a is a cross section in the X-Z plane, and surface 3 extends in the X direction) and a second axis (Fig. 1b is a cross section in the YZ plane; it can be seen Fig 1a and 1b surface 3 is extending in the Y direction) intersecting the first axis and an emission plane (incident surface 4 also extends in the X-Y direction ) extending in both the first axis and the second axis , wherein the optical lens converts incident light emitted from the light source and incident on the incidence plane into parallel light and emits the parallel light from the emission plane (light from laser LD is converted by lens 2 into parallel light that is emitted from surface 4), and wherein the incidence plane has a convex portion provided in a first direction (Fig. 1a shows surface 3 being convex in a X direction) in which the first axis extends and a concave portion provided in a second direction in which the second axis extends (Fig. 1a-1b show surface 3 being concave in a Y direction), and wherein the convex portion (convex portions can be seen in Fig. 1a and Fig. 2 below) is provided in a central portion of the optical lens in the second direction (Fig. 1(a) and 2 show surface 3 and the convex portion of surface 3 located at the junction to the periphery of lens 2 are in a central portion of the lens, wherein surface 3 has depth in the Y direction as shown in Fig. 1 ), and the concave portion (portion of surface 3 that is not at the junction of the periphery of lens 2) is provided in a central portion of the optical lens (surface 3 has a concave portion in the central portion of optical lens 2) in the first direction (surface 3 extends in the Y direction as can be seen in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure 1a of Ohtaki
PNG
media_image2.png
484
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure 2 of Ohtaki
But Ohtaki does not explicitly disclose, wherein the convex portion is provided in the center of the lens in the second direction, and the concave portion is in the center of the lens in the first direction.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in lenses for the convex portion to be provided in the center of the lens in the second direction (object side A1 of lens 100 has convex portion in the center of the vertical direction at CP1), and the concave portion (image side of the lens 100) to be in the center of the lens in the first direction (image side of lens 100 is concave in the horizontal direction at CP2) [Par 56].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ohtaki with Lin in order to provide, a larger field of view, as taught by Lin [Par 005].
Re Claim 2, Ohtaki in view of Lin discloses, the light device according to claim 1, and Ohtaki further discloses on Fig. 1a-1b, wherein a far-field pattern of the incident light is elliptical (laser LD produces an oval cross-sectional beam ) [Col 2, Lines 40-50].
Re Claim 3, Ohtaki in view of Lin discloses, the light device according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1a-1b, wherein the parallel light emitted from the emission plane of the optical lens is a circular beam (lens 2 converts the light beam into a circular beam)[Col 2, Lines 40-50].
Re claim 4, Ohtaki in view of Lin discloses, the light device according to claim 1, and Ohtaki further discloses, wherein the emission plane (surface 4) of the optical lens has a first convex portion provided in the first direction (Fig. 1a: X direction) and a second convex portion provided in the second direction (Fig. 1a: Z direction), and wherein a curvature of the first convex portion and a curvature of the second convex portion are different from each other (Ohtaki teaches that either surface 3 or 4 can be non-circular or oval shaped in the XZ plane, and are referred to as a “non-spherical cylindrical lens” surface, hence they definitely have different curvatures across the plane, and thus have different curvatures across directions) [Col 3, Lines 45-60].
Re Claim 5, Ohtaki in view of Lin discloses, the light device according to claim 1, and Ohtaki further discloses, wherein the optical lens is made of glass (Fig. 1a-1b: Ohtaki teaches glass molding as an efficient method for production of the lens embodiment) [Col 4, Lines 0-5].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtaki in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmid (DE 3830119 A1).
Re Claim 6, Ohtaki in view of Lin discloses the light device according to claim 1 .
But Ohtaki in view of Lin, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light source has an end face including a waveguide of an optical element, wherein the light device further comprises an aspherical lens having a flat plane being bonded to the end face of the light source; and wherein the incident light emitted from the aspherical lens is incident on the incidence plane of the optical lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Schmid teaches, on Fig. 1c, that it is desirable in light generators for the light source (generated light passed through waveguide 20, for example laser chip 11 from Fig. 1A) to have an end face including a waveguide (wave guide 20) of an optical element, wherein the light device further comprises an aspherical lens (aspherical lens 10) having a flat plane (lens 10 is plano-convex) being bonded to the end face of the light source (See Fig. 1c); and wherein the incident light emitted from the aspherical lens is incident on the incidence plane of the optical lens (light emitted from lens 10 is incident on the plane of the opposite lens 10) [Page 2, Par 14-16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ohtaki with Schmid in order to provide lens simplification and reduced manufacturing cost, as taught by Schmid [Page 2, Par 3].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US 20130128369 A1) teaches a variety of aspheric surfaces that are both convex, and concave in different directions.
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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights