DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has overcome the 35 USC § 112 (b) rejections raised in the Office Action filed on 01/08/2026. However, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new rejections under 35 USC § 112 (b), see below.
Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new interpretation of Matsushima, specifically including the secondary light source.
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments on Pages 6-15, but the Examiner is not persuaded, see rejections under 35 USC § 103, below, as well as the Response to Arguments section, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Re Claim 1:
On lines 10-11, the claim recites “a virtual primary light source is defined as a primary light source that is virtually disposed at a back focus position of the condensing optical system”. It is unclear how a primary light source may be virtually disposed at a location, rather than a physically located one. It is also unclear how a primary light source can be both virtual and not virtual. The Examiner carefully reviewed Applicant’s disclosure, specifically including Fig 1 and 5 transposed with Figs 14-20 and the accompanying descriptions of ¶¶ 0011-0012 and 0042-0045 transposed with ¶¶ 0046, 0049, 0051, and 0061. After the careful review, the Examiner best understands the virtual primary light source as a reference point at a back focus position of the condensing optical system. Further, the Examiner best understands the plurality of LEDs 3 and collimation system 5 of lens elements 6 to be the primary light source. Accordingly, the Examiner has interpreted – a virtual primary light source is defined as a reference point at a back focus position of the condensing optical system – in order to execute compact prosecution.
One lines 12-13, the claims recite “wherein a virtual secondary light source is defined as a secondary light source that emits parallel light obtained from light traveling from the virtual primary light source toward the condensing optical system”. It is unclear virtual secondary light source may emit light. It is also unclear how a secondary light source may be virtual and not virtual. Furthermore, it is not clear how the claim is supported. Applicant’s Fig 1 is provided below to illustrate this point.
Figure 1 of Applicant
PNG
media_image1.png
530
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Applicant’s Fig 1, above, Applicant discloses arrows that indicate a trace direction that is opposite to the light propagation direction of light beams, wherein the light propagation directions begins at collimating system 5, passes through condensing optical system 7 (secondary light source), then light beams are condensed down to virtual source (VS1) as back focal point 7f. Further, the trace direction is indicated by the two arrows representing perimeter or enveloping light beams in the light beam etendue trace between 7f and 7 and the parallel light beam trace between 7 and 5. Therefore, a virtual secondary light source (VS2) is an area of parallel light beams that are emitted from the primary light source (3 and 6 of 5) towards the condensing system/secondary light source (7). Accordingly, the Examiner has interpreted – wherein a virtual secondary light source is defined as an area of parallel light obtained from parallel light beams emitted from the primary light source
Re Claims 2-11:
The claims are indefinite due to their dependence on base claim 1.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima (JP 2016184126 A; previously relied upon) in view of Hu et al (US 9904160 B2; previously relied upon; “Hu”).
Re Claim 1:
Matsushima discloses light source device (light source device, Fig 2, in the third embodiment, Fig 11; described below) comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (plurality of LED elements 3);
a collimating optical system (first optical system 5) that is disposed corresponding to the plurality of LEDs and into which light exiting from the plurality of LEDs is incident (described in the fourth ¶ on page 21 as first optical system 5 is an optical system that collimates the light emitted from the plurality of LED elements 3, and is configured by arranging a plurality of collimating lenses 6 corresponding to the LED elements 3);
a condensing optical system (second optical system 7) that condenses light exiting from the collimating optical system (described in the fifth ¶ on page 21 as second optical system 7 is an optical system that condenses the light emitted from the first optical system 5 at the focal point 7 f of the second optical system 7); and
an integrator (rod integrator 9) into which light exiting from the condensing optical system is incident (described in the sixth ¶ on page 21 as rod integrator 9 is arranged such that the incident surface 9a is positioned at the focal point 7f of the second optical system 7),
wherein a maximum effective acceptance angle of the integrator is a maximum incident angle at which light can be accepted on a light incident surface of the integrator (interpreted as angles of light that can be received on the light entrance face of the integrator (9a of 9) as shown in Fig 12A with Fig 12B and described of the third embodiment on page 26; the Examiner notes that the second embodiment describes the coordinate system for incident light rays (including maximum ones, for example 31Y11 in Fig 9A),
wherein a virtual primary light source (shown at focal point 7f in Fig 2 of Matsushima with the Examiner annotations, below) is defined as a primary light source that is virtually disposed at a back focus position of the condensing optical system (shown in Fig 2 of Matsushima, below), and wherein a virtual secondary light source is defined as a secondary light source that emits parallel light being obtained from light traveling from the virtual primary light source toward the condensing optical system (7) with the effective acceptance angles (due to the interpretation in the 35 USC § 112 section above: interpreted as an area of parallel light obtained from parallel light beams emitted from the primary light source toward the condensing optical system; shown in Fig of Matsushima with the Examiner’s annotations, below) which produces the perimeter for incident light upon the integrator (9) shown in Fig 12A, and the third embodiment describes the alignment of the sides of the LEDs (3) which enable to incident light to be effectively utilized inside of the integrator (9)) of the integrator (9) as a divergence angle (divergence given a coordinate system in Figs 9A and 9B and described in the second embodiment) and then passing through the condensing optical system (passing from right to left though 7), the virtual secondary light source having a width that substantially coincides with a width of a secondary light source determined according to a shape of a light exit surface of the collimating optical system (shown in Fig 2 of Matsushima, below).
Figure 2 of Matsushima with the Examiner's annotations
PNG
media_image2.png
402
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to a maximum effective acceptance angle, the Examiner has interpreted the angle to be the maximum divergence angle of light from the virtual primary light source to the light exiting face of the condensing optical system (7) that would produce a portion of a border of 9L that gets as close to the border of 9a without exceeding it and becoming unacceptable (unacceptability shown for example in Fig 12A wherein light from 9L is outside the border of 9a), regardless of proper alignment and shape (as shown in Fig 12B). Under this interpretation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (PHOSITA) to recognize Matsushima as at least suggesting this capability of optimizing the effective acceptance angles to obtain a maximum effective due to the following rationale: in the first and second embodiments, Matsushima describes a coordinate system of LEDs to match with incident angles that reach the light entrance surface (9a); in the second embodiment, Matsushima describes optimizing placement of the LEDs to maximize luminance, specifically including by the description of it is possible to realize light with a uniform illuminance distribution while suppressing a decrease in luminance of light emitted from the light source unit 2; in the third embodiment, Matsushima describes orienting the sides of the LEDs (3) to enable all light to be acceptable by being inside the border of 9a. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Matsushima as at least suggesting the capability of optimizing an effective acceptance angle to be a maximum effective acceptance angle because Matsushima discloses optimized uninform luminance that does not form a portion of 9L that is unacceptable. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the specific instance, Matsushima discloses effective acceptance angles as evident in Fig 12B. Therefore (with regard to optimizing rationale), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to optimize the effective acceptance angle of Matsushima to obtain a maximum effective acceptance angle for the benefit of optimized uniform luminance.
Matsushima does not disclose that the integrator is a fly-eye integrator. Instead, Matsushima discloses that the integrator (9) is a rod integrator.
Hu teaches equivalence (in Col 11, 1st ¶) of integrators between rod integrator (light homogenizing rod 13, Fig 2A, at least Col 7, ~ lines 31-34) and a fly-eye integrator (fly-eye lens pair, Col 11, 1st ¶) for the purpose of homogenizing light (homogenization of light also described in Col 10, line 54 – Col 11, line 18).
Prior art recognized equivalence for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.06. Therefore (with regard to primary rationale), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Matsushima as disclosing an equivalent integrator (rod integrator) to the claimed fly-eye integrator for the purpose of homogenizing light.
Alternatively (with regard to alternative rationale, relevant to at least claims 6 and 10-11), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to substitute the fly-eye integrator as taught (in at least principle) by Hu for Matsushima’s disclosed rod integrator for the purpose of homogenizing light. Further, a PHOSITA would have had an expectation of success because Hu teaches two light sources (first laser array 111 and second layer array 112, Fig 2A) that emit light having two respective etendues that they fly-eye integrator is capable of homogenizing (Col 11, 1st ¶), whereas Matsushima only requires the homogenization of one light source.
Re Claim 2 (primary and alternative rationale):
With regard to drawing, 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 Matsushima as at least suggesting an inner side of a convex polygon, the convex polygon being formed by drawing straight lines to connect an outer edge of the light exit surface of the collimating optical system due to the configurations shown in Fig 7 transposed with Fig 12A and Fig 11 transposed with Fig 12B.
With regard to a case, due to the structure and functionality at least suggested above combined with the optimization rationale in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to further optimize the process steps of obtaining a maximum effective acceptable angle, the process steps specifically including:
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 a straight line or an envelope is set as 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,
a length D of a line segment is defined, 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, and 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 (primary and alternative rationale):
With regard to a case, due to the optimization rationale in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to further optimize the process steps of obtaining a maximum effective acceptable angle, the process steps specifically including:
wherein
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 (primary and alternative rationale):
With regard to a case, due to the optimization rationale in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to further optimize the process steps of obtaining a maximum effective acceptable angle, the process steps specifically including:
wherein
in a case where an inner side of a circumscribed circle of 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 - S2aI/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 the 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 Claims 5 and 7-9 (primary and alternative rationale):
Matsushima further discloses wherein the light exit surface of the collimating optical system is disposed in a vicinity range of a front focus position of the condensing optical system (necessarily occurring because front focusing positions for condensing optical systems necessarily occur, and the light exit surface of collimating optical system (5) is disposed within the front vicinity of condensing optical system (7) as shown in at least Fig 2).
Claims 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Hu as applied (with alternative rationale) to claims 1 and 2-3, respectively above, and further in view of Komatsuda et al. (US 5790239 A; “Komatsuda”).
Matsushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the fly-eye integrator includes a plurality of lens elements having a quadrangular shape.
With regard to shape, 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 Matsushima of at least suggesting an equivalent shape of the plurality of lens in the fly-eye integrator (Hu: fly-eye lens pair) to the claimed fly-eye integrator includes a plurality of lens elements having a quadrangular shape.
Alternatively,
Komatsuda teaches a fly-eye integrator (fly-eye lens 50) includes a plurality of lens elements (plurality of lens elements 50a) having a quadrangular shape (shown in Fig 3A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the plurality of lens in the fly-eye integrator of Matsushima (as modified in view of Hu) with the configuration as taught (in at least principle) by Komatsuda for the benefit of having a definitive structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claim 1:
Applicant traverses the Examiner’s rejections and attempts to support the traversal with eight rationales. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the traversal and has addressed each rationale below.
With regard to rationale 1 on pages 7-9, Applicant appears to argue that Matsushima’s form relationship and the claimed relationship are different. Applicant appears to be arguing that specific process of arriving at a maximum effective acceptance angle is different from the process that is at least suggested by Matsushima. Even in arguendo, if the specific process were different, the basic process is the same: a light beam pattern of parallel light beams with a predetermined perimeter are emitted from a primary light source (3 and 5 of 6, Fig 1) to a secondary light source/condensing lens (7), wherein after passing through the light beam pattern condenses to a predetermined size to fit inside a face of an integrator (inside 9a of 9, Fig 12B). It necessarily occurs that virtual light sources and angles from reference points may be assigned and used to calculate widths. Applicant apparently shows this with Figs 1-3 on Pages 7-9. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 1.
With regard to rationale 2 on pages 9-10, as best understood by the Examiner, Applicant argues that the technical background Matsushima is different because Matsushima specifically describes a process of uniform illuminance. However, uniform illuminance does not exclude from the process at least suggested by Matsushima. As described above, the basic process is the same. Applicant also appears to discuss differences describes that Figs 7 and 11 being two different embodiments. The Examiner acknowledges that the embodiments are different and are used to describe proper rotational alignment of light patterns inside a target area. Further, rotational alignment does not exclude from the process at least suggested by Matsushima. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 2.
With regard to rationale 3 on pages 10-11, Applicant appears to argue that the concept of a secondary light source is different between the claimed invention and the Examiner’s interpretation of Matsushima’s disclosure. The Examiner acknowledges this point; however, the argument is moot because Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new interpretation of the secondary light source. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 3.
With regard to rational 4 on page 11, Applicant appears to argue that the Examiner has not properly mapped the limitations of the virtual secondary light source and secondary light source. Although the Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments, the arguments are moot for at least the reasons that the claims are indefinite and the secondary reference has been given a new interpretation. Even in arguendo, with specific regard to a “maximum effective acceptance angle as a divergence angle” necessarily occurs, because light is propagating from the condensing lens to the integrator and the predetermination of condensing is evident in Fig 12B. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rational 4.
With regard to rational 5 on pages 11-12, Applicant appears to argue the Examiner’s interpretation of Matsushima’s in Fig 2 is technically incorrect due to specific process of arriving at a maximum effective acceptance angle is different from the process that is at least suggested by Matsushima. As described above, the basic process is the same. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 5.
With regard to rationale 6 on page 12, Applicant appears to argue that the design concept of Matsushima is different than the claimed invention because Matsushima discloses rotational alignment (Fig 12A transposed with Fig 12B). Rotational alignment does not exclude from the process at least suggested by Matsushima. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 2. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 6.
With regard to rationale 7 on page 13. Applicant appears to traverse the Examiner’s Product-By-Process assessment with regard to the virtual light sources (first and second). Applicant attempts to support this traversal by describing predetermined angle angles and reference points that are used in a “design methodology for specific dimensions of a specific structure” by not a manufacturing process. However, the Examiner is persuaded that the virtual light sources are not process steps in and of themselves, but rather they are used in processes steps of a “design methodology”. Accordingly, the Product-By-Process assessment with regard to the virtual light sources is withdrawn.
With regard to rationale 8 on page 13, Applicant appears argues against the Examiner’s substitution argument is moot because the virtual second light source is not disclosed or suggested by Matsushima. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the mapping in claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by rationale 8.
Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded to withdraw the rejection to claim 1.
With regard to the rationales in general, the arguments appear to be centered on a process of utilizing virtual reference locations that are related physical structures. If the Examiner understands correctly, Applicant is attempting to describe a distinction in a process to arrive at a maximum effective acceptance angle. However, even if Matsushima did not at least suggest as described above, Applicant would be seeking distinction in a method, which is a different statutory category than an apparatus claim. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). In the specific instance, virtual light sources are analogous to calls being made because neither are physical structures and it would be difficult to determine when infringement would occur. Further, as best understood, Applicant is attempting to claim an apparatus capable of utilizing maximum effective acceptance angles and describing a process achieve the angle by the apparatus with the aid of the described virtual light sources. However, virtual light sources in and of themselves due not fall in statutory category under 35 USC § 101.
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 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 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