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, see response, filed 2/27/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Curtis et al (US 2024/0061249 A1
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0145651 A1 of record, “Liu”) in view of Curtis et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0061249 A1, “Curtis”).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses an optical system (Figure 1), comprising:
A light source module emitting a light source, wherein the light source comprises a first light and a second light (Figure 1, light source module 200; light sources 201); and
An adjustment assembly corresponding to the first light and the second light (Figure 1, adjustment assembly 500).
Liu fails to disclose that the wavelength of the first light and the wavelength of the second light are different.
However, Curtis discloses a similar optical system where the wavelength of the first light and the wavelength of the second light are different (Curtis, Figure 7, first light 701c, second light 701b; Paragraph 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light source as disclosed by Liu to include multiple wavelengths as disclosed by Curtis. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of providing a uniform and efficient light source.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustment assembly comprises:
A first surface and a second surface parallel to each other, wherein the first surface and second surface both have a planar structure, and the first surface and the second surface are on different planes (Figure 1, element 501 comprises a first surface 501/401and element 502 comprises a second surface 502/401, where both surfaces are parallel to each other but on different planes);
A first adjustment component disposed on the first surface corresponding to the first light, and the first adjustment component has a periodic microstructure (Figure 1, first adjustment component 4031 corresponding to element 501 comprises one of a periodic microstructure); and
A second adjustment component disposed on the second surface corresponding to the second light, and the second adjustment component has a periodic microstructure ((Figure 1, second adjustment component 4031 corresponding to element 502 comprises another of a periodic microstructure).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the change in the first light after passing through the first adjustment component is greater than the change in the second light after passing through the first adjustment component (Figure 1 discloses that the first light passes through the first adjustment component 501 whereas the second light does not, so the first light is changed more than the second light is).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein a maximum change in an angle of the first light after passing through the first adjustment component is greater than a maximum change in an angle of the second light after passing through the first adjustment component (Figure 1 discloses that the first light passes through the first adjustment component 501 whereas the second light does not, so the first light is changed more than the second light is).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the change in the first light after passing through the second adjustment component is smaller than the change in the second light after passing through the second adjustment component (Figure 1 discloses that the second light passes through the second adjustment component 502 and the first light does not, so the change in the second light would be greater than that of the first light).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein a maximum change in an angle of the first light after passing through the second adjustment component is smaller than a maximum change in an angle of the second light after passing through the second adjustment component (Figure 1 discloses that the second light passes through the second adjustment component 502 and the first light does not, so the change in the second light would be greater than that of the first light).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the adjustment assembly further comprises a first substrate, the first surface and the second surface are on both sides of the first substrate, and the first surface and the second surface are facing different directions (Figure 1, substrate 402, where first surface 501/401 is disposed on both sides and second surface 502/401 are disposed on both sides and the first surface and second surface face different directions).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the light source further comprises a third light, and the adjustment assembly further comprises a third surface and a third adjustment component, wherein the third adjustment component has a periodic microstructure, and the third adjustment component is disposed on the third surface (Figure 1, third light 503, where third adjustment component 503 has a third surface 503/401 and another one of a periodic microstructure 4031).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the change in the third light after passing through the third adjustment component is greater than the change in the second light after passing through the third adjustment component (Figure 1, third light 201 passes through the third adjustment component 503 while second light does not, so the change to the third light would be greater).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 8, wherein a maximum change in an angle of the third light after passing through the third adjustment component is greater than a maximum change in an angle of the second light after passing through the third adjustment component (Figure 1, third light 201 passes through the third adjustment component 503 while second light does not, so the change to the third light would be greater).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first surface and the third surface face the same direction (Figure 1, the third surface of 503 and first surface of 501 face the same direction).
Regarding Claim 12, Liu in view of Curtis discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the adjustment assembly further comprises a second substrate, and the third surface is on the second substrate (Figure 1, second substrate 100, where the third surface of 503 is disposed on the second substrate 100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871