DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the informalities, below.
Re Claim 1:
On line 2, “a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs)” should be changed to – a primary light source including a plurality of light-emitting didoes (LEDs) –;
on line 3, “a collimating optical system” should be changed to – a secondary light source including a collimating optical system –;
on line 11, “forward of a primary light source” should be changed to – forward of [[a]] the primary light source –;
on line 13, “a collimated” should be changed to – [[a]] the collimated –; and
on lines 17-18, “a secondary light source” should be changed to – [[a]] the secondary light source – in order to put the claim in proper form.
Re Claims 2-11:
The claims are objected to due to their dependence on base claim.
Re Claim 3:
On lines 2-3, “is a secondary light source” should be changed to – a secondary light source exit surface – in order to put the claim in proper form.
Re Claim 4:
On line lines 15-16, “on the outer side” should be changed to – on the outer side – in order to put the claim in proper form. See also lines 15-16 of claim 3.
Re Claim 8:
The claim is objected to due to its dependence on intervening claim 3.
Re Claim 9:
The claim is objected to due to tis dependence on intervening claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 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:
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by a Japanese publication (JP 2016200787 A; listed as Cite No. 1 in the IDS filed on 07/25/2026; described in the Notice of Refusal for a related Japanese application, the Notice of Refusal listed as Cite No. 1 under Foreign Patent Documents in the IDS filed on 06/15/2026; English translation provided by Applicant and referred to hereinafter as “D1”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D1 in view of a Japanese application (JP 7177415 B2; listed as Cite No. 1 under Foreign Patent Documents in the IDS filed on 06/15/2026; described in the Notice of Refusal for a related Japanese application, the Notice of Refusal listed as Cite No. 1 in the IDS filed on 06/15/2026; English translation provided by Applicant and referred to hereinafter as “D2”).
Re Claim 1:
D1 discloses a light source device (light irradiation device 1; shown in at least Fig 1; described in at least ¶¶ 0024-0025 as well as below) comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (plurality of LED chips 11a on LED array light source 11);
a collimating optical system (1st illumination optical system 12) that is disposed corresponding to the plurality of LEDs (correspondence to 11a shown in Fig 1) and into which light exiting from the plurality of LEDs is incident (shown in Fig 1);
a condensing optical system (2nd illumination optical illumination system 13) that condenses light exiting from the collimating optical system (shown in Fig 1); and
a fly-eye integrator (fly-eye integrator 14) into which light exiting from the condensing optical system is incident (Fig 1), wherein a maximum effective acceptance angle of the fly-eye integrator is a maximum incident angle at which light can be accepted on a light incident surface of the fly-eye integrator (a maximum effective acceptance angle necessarily occurs because all light outside of the maximum effective acceptance angle will not be accepted on a light incident surface of the fly-eye integrator (14)),
wherein a virtual primary light source (space in f1, between 12 and 13; Fig 1) is defined as condensed light point that is virtually disposed forward of a primary light source (11) and at a back focus position of the condensing optical system (entry surface B of 14; shown in Fig 1; described in at least ¶ 0028), and
wherein a virtual secondary light source is defined as a collimated light source (the illuminated space in focus distance f1, that is between 12 and 13; “illuminated space”) obtained by tracing from light traveling from the virtual primary light source (B) toward the condensing optical system (13) with the maximum effective acceptance angle of the fly-eye integrator (9) as a divergence angle and then passing through the condensing optical system (this is necessarily occurring because all light outside of the maximum effective acceptance angle would not be accepted into the integrator), the virtual secondary light source (“illuminated space”) having a width that substantially coincides with a width of a secondary light source (width shown in Fig 1) determined according to a shape of a light exit surface of the collimating optical system (it necessarily occurs that the collimated optical system (12), specifically including the light exit surface thereof).
It is the Examiner’s position that all limitations are either explicitly disclosed by or inherent due to the disclosure of D1. However, if the limitations, specifically including regarding the limitations of the maximum effective acceptance angle, the Examiner has provided a secondary reference for the explicit teachings of a maximum effective acceptance angle as well as a supporting obviousness rationale to utilize the process teachings of utilizing the maximum effective acceptance angle.
Alternatively
D2 teaches:
a maximum effective acceptance angle (acquisition, entry angle θ, Fig 10, at least ¶ 0010) of the fly-eye integrator (of lens array integrator, fly-eye integrator 103) is a maximum incident angle at which light can be accepted on a light incident surface of the fly-eye integrator (described in at least the last sentence of ¶ 0010 as (the) range of entry angle θ[°] of the element lens 103B refers to the entire range within the incident angle the incident surface 103a of the element lens 103b car receive light from), and
the maximum effective acceptance angle (θ) of a fly-eye integrator (103b specifically) as a divergence angle (Fig 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the teachings of the maximum effective acceptance angle as taught (in at least principle) by D2 into the light source device of D1 for the benefit of design a lighting sight source device that captures sufficient light (D2: ¶ 0013).
Further, upon careful review of Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner notes that the exact shape of the condenser lens is not critical in light if Fig 1 transposed with Fig 2; however, the critical element is that the maximum effective acceptance angle is utilized so that converging light from the condensing optical element does not exceed the maximum effective acceptance angle or the amount that exceeds is mitigated. This criticality is explicitly taught in D2. Because both D1 and D2 utilize converging light and fly-eye integrators, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have an expectation of success of optimizing the lighting efficiency of the light source device of D1 by utilizing the maximum effective acceptance angles teachings of D2.
Re Claim 2:
With regard to the collimating optical system (12) and the virtual secondary light source (space in f1, between 12 and 13; Fig 1), drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein in a case where an inner side of a convex polygon or a closed curved surface, the convex polygon or the closed curved surface being formed by drawing virtual straight lines or an envelope so as to connect an outer edge of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system with a straight line or an envelope is set as a secondary light source (Fig 1 transposed with Fig 4), and the virtual secondary light source is set at a position of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system (at exit of 12), a length D of a line segment is defined (corresponding to length of f1), the line segment passing through a center of the virtual secondary light source from a first point on an outer edge of the virtual secondary light source and reaching a second point different from the first point on the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source (Fig 1 transposed with Fig 4).
With further regard to virtual secondary light source (space in f1, between 12 and 13; Fig 1), 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting an equivalent virtual light source dimension to the claimed range for the purpose of defining an outline for emitted light, the claimed dimensional comprising
an outer edge of the secondary light source is positioned between a first reference boundary offset by 0.1D from the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source toward a side approaching the center and a second reference boundary offset by 0.1D from the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source toward a side separating from the center.
Re Claim 3:
D1 further discloses the light exit surface of the collimating optical system (exit surface of 12) is a secondary light source (exit surface of 5, Fig 1), and the virtual secondary light source is set at a position of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system (Fig 1).
With further regard to the virtual secondary light source and collimating optical system, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and 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)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting the necessarily occurring dimensional range correspondence as an equivalent dimensional range correspondence for the purpose of defining an outline for emitted light, the claimed dimensional range correspondence comprising:
in a case where the light exit surface of the collimating optical system is a secondary light source, and the virtual secondary light source is set at a position of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system,
the light source device satisfies
0 < S3b/S1 < 0.4 and 0 < S2b/S1 < 0.4 where:
S1 is an area of an acceptable region that is an occupied region of the virtual secondary light source;
S2b is an area of an unused region that is a region sandwiched between an outer edge of the secondary light source and an outer edge of the virtual secondary light source on an inner side of the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source when the virtual secondary light source is projected onto the secondary light source; and
S3b is an area of an unacceptable region that is a region sandwiched between the outer edge of the secondary light source and the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source on an outer side of the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source when the virtual secondary light source is projected onto the secondary light source.
Re Claim 4:
D1 further discloses the light exit surface of the collimating optical system (exit surface of 12) is a secondary light source (exit surface of 5, Fig 1), and the virtual secondary light source is set at a position of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system (Fig 1).
With further regard to the virtual secondary light source and collimating optical system, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and 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)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting the necessarily occurring dimensional range correspondence as an equivalent dimensional range correspondence to a claimed dimensional range correspondence for the purpose of defining an outline for emitted light, the claimed dimensional range correspondence comprising:
in a case where the light exit surface of the collimating optical system is a secondary light source, and the virtual secondary light source is set at a position of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system,
the light source device satisfies
|S3a - S2a|/S1 ≤ 0.17|, where:
S1 is an area of an acceptable region that is an occupied region of the virtual secondary light source;
S2a is an area of an unused region that is a region sandwiched between an outer edge of the secondary light source and an outer edge of the virtual secondary light source on an inner side of the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source when the virtual secondary light source is projected onto the secondary light source; and
S3a is an area of an unacceptable region that is a region sandwiched between the outer edge of the secondary light source and the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source on an outer side of the outer edge of the virtual secondary light source when the virtual secondary light source is projected onto the secondary light source.
With further regard to the light exit surface, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting a necessarily occurring shape equivalent to a claimed shape for the purpose of defining an outline for emitted light, the claimed shape comprising: an inner side of a circumscribed circle.
Further the claimed shape is an obvious variant due to the claimed shapes in claim 2, at least the configuration shown in Figs 17-19, and the description in ¶¶ 0020-021 as well as ¶¶ 0061-0067 and 0071.
Re Claims 5-9:
D1 further discloses wherein the light exit surface of the collimating optical system is disposed in a vicinity range of a front focus position (f1) of the condensing optical system (shown in Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D2 as applied to claims 2-3 above, and further in view of a Chinese publication (CN 114838298 A; English machine translation provided and referred to as “D3”).
D1 further discloses wherein the fly-eye integrator includes a plurality of lens elements (necessarily occurring).
With further regard to the lens elements, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the shape of the necessarily occurring lens elements to be a shape that is equivalent to the claimed shapes of quadrangular or hexagonal for the purpose of emitting uniform light from the light captured.
Further, D3 teaches (in at least Figs 7-9 and Page 23) a fly-eye integrator (fly-eye lens, Figs 1-2 ) including a plurality of lens elements (micro-lens unit) having a hexagonal shape (Figs 7-9, Page 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the shape of the necessarily occurring lens elements of D1 (or D1 in view of D2) into a hexagonal shape as taught (in at least principle) by D3 for the benefit of having a definite shape for the lens elements.
Furthermore, the shape of the lens elements are obvious variants due to at least to the description in ¶¶ 0023 and 0028. Therefore, the exact shape of the lens element lacks criticality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights