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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1,13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Hough (US 6809869)
Regarding Claim 1,
Hough discloses (Fig. 14 to Fig. 18) a lens assembly with a high uniform rectangular focused halo, comprising: a first lens (30) and an adjacent second lens (20), wherein, the first lens (30) includes a first incident surface (side of 30 facing away from 20), a first non-spherical surface, and a first convex array emitting surface (side of 30 facing 20), and the second lens (20) includes a second concave array incident surface (side of 20 facing 30) and a second non-spherical surface emitting surface (side of 20 facing 79); wherein the second concave array incident surface consists of multiple non-spherical concave arrays (20) having rectangular openings (column 6, lines 13-26) corresponding to the first convex array emitting surface (side of 30 facing 20).
Regarding Claim 13,
Hough discloses (Fig. 14 to Fig. 18) wherein the material of the lens assembly includes plastic materials or glass materials (column 5, lines 55-60)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2,3,14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) in view of (CN 213690086 U)
Regarding Claim 2,3,
Hough discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough does not disclose wherein a curvature radius of each non-spherical convex or concave array with the rectangular openings is between -1mm and -10mm specifically -4mm and -10mm (Claim 3)
(CN 213690086 U) discloses wherein a curvature radius of each non-spherical convex or concave array with the rectangular openings is between -1mm and -10mm specifically -4mm and -10mm.(ABSTRACT)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough to include (CN 213690086 U)’s curvature radius of each non-spherical convex or concave array with the rectangular openings is between -1mm and -10mm specifically -4mm and -10mm motivated by the desire to provide a reliable optical imaging lens.
Regarding Claim 14,15,
In addition to Hough and (CN 213690086 U), Hough discloses wherein the material of the lens assembly includes plastic materials or glass materials (column 5, lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) and of (CN 213690086 U) in view of Hara et al (US 20220221717)
Regarding Claim 4
Hough and (CN 213690086 U) discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough and (CN 213690086 U) does not disclose wherein the first lens is a Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens.
Hara et al discloses wherein the first lens is a Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough and (CN 213690086 U) to include Hara et al’s Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens [0030] motivated by the desire to have the light from the light source be efficiently emitted to the optical member.
Claim(s) 5,6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) in view of Hara et al (US 20220221717)
Regarding Claim 5,6
Hough discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough does not disclose wherein the first lens is a Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens.
Hara et al discloses wherein the first lens is a Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough to include Hara et al’s Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens [0030] motivated by the desire to have the light from the light source be efficiently emitted to the optical member.
Claim(s) 7,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) in view of (CN 116149069 B)
Regarding Claim 7,10,
Hough discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough does not disclose wherein the curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface is between -10mm and -100mm and -30mm and -100mm.
(CN 116149069 B) discloses wherein the curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface is between -10mm and -100mm (Claim 1) and -30mm and -100mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough to include (CN 116149069 B)’s curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface is between -10mm and -100mm and -30mm and -100mm motivated by the desire to improve the adjusting efficiency of the laser beam filtering system (background).
Claim(s) 8,9,11,12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) and of (CN 213690086 U) in view of (CN 116149069 B)
Regarding Claim 8,9,
Hough and (CN 213690086 U) discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough and (CN 213690086 U) does not disclose wherein the curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface is between -10mm and -100mm and -30mm and -100mm..
(CN 116149069 B) discloses wherein the curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface is between -10mm and -100mm (Claim 1) and -30mm and -100mm..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough and (CN 213690086 U) to include (CN 116149069 B)’s curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface is between -10mm and -100mm and -30mm and -100mm.motivated by the desire to improve the adjusting efficiency of the laser beam filtering system (background).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) in view of Motohashi (US 20190257492)
Regarding Claim 16,
Hough discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough does not disclose wherein the glass materials comprise Flint Glass, Crown Glass, Silica Glass, Calcium Fluoride Glass, or Fused Quartz.
Motohashi discloses wherein the glass materials comprise Flint Glass, Crown Glass, Silica Glass, Calcium Fluoride Glass, or Fused Quartz [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough to include Motohashi’s glass materials comprise Flint Glass, Crown Glass, Silica Glass, Calcium Fluoride Glass, or Fused Quartz motivated by the desire to include a light transmitting glass having a refractive index and dispersion lower than those of the second lens [0029].
Claim(s) 17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 6809869) and of (CN 213690086 U) in view of Motohashi (US 20190257492)
Regarding Claim 17,18,
Hough and of (CN 213690086 U) discloses everything as disclosed above.
Hough and of (CN 213690086 U) does not disclose wherein the glass materials comprise Flint Glass, Crown Glass, Silica Glass, Calcium Fluoride Glass, or Fused Quartz.
Motohashi discloses wherein the glass materials comprise Flint Glass, Crown Glass, Silica Glass, Calcium Fluoride Glass, or Fused Quartz [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hough and of (CN 213690086 U) to include Motohashi’s glass materials comprise Flint Glass, Crown Glass, Silica Glass, Calcium Fluoride Glass, or Fused Quartz motivated by the desire to include a light transmitting glass having a refractive index and dispersion lower than those of the second lens [0029].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 19,
The prior art does not disclose A method of adjusting the halo size of the lens assembly with a high uniform rectangular focused halo, comprising the following steps: providing the lens assembly with a high uniform rectangular focused halo according to claim 1; adjusting parameters of the lens assembly with a high uniform rectangular focused halo based on the following formulas (1) and (2); and directing a light source L from the light source focus on the first incident surface to enter into the first incident surface and being collimated by the first lens, emitting from the first convex array emitting surface and entering into the second concave array incident surface to be split, and finally focusing on a projection plane through the second non-spherical emitting surface to create a size adjustable rectangular focused halo;…Formula (1);…Formula (2); wherein, in formulas (1) and (2): r1 is the curvature radius of each non-spherical convex array having the rectangular openings in the first convex array emitting surface; r2 is the curvature radius of each non-spherical concave array having the rectangular openings in the second concave array incident surface; r3 is the curvature radius of the second non-spherical emitting surface; the distance between the first lens and the second lens is twice r1; the distance between the rectangular focused halo position and the second non-spherical emitting surface is twice r3; aw and ah are the length and width of each non-spherical array having the rectangular openings in the first convex array emitting surface and the second concave array incident surface, respectively; and w and h are the obtained dimensions of the rectangular focused halo, respectively.
Claims 20-24 depends on Claim 19, therefore are objected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871