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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification includes multiple grammatical and typographical errors throughout.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1, 5, and 8(a) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the second effective surface (231) forms a second angle (β) with respect to the second direction (D2), the refractive index of the lens body (100) is n, and n>1, then the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: when α ≥ β, α ≤ θ ≤ β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)]; or when α < β, β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)] ≤ θ ≤ α” as claimed in claim 2, “the third included angle (θ)” satisfying “θ = β + arcsin [n*sin (α – β)]” as claimed in claim 3, “the effective surface (211) of the respective protruding teeth (21) of the light exit surface (2) are opposite to each other, the included tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (D0)” of claim 5, “the angle (212) of the ineffective surface (212) of each projection (21) of said light exit surface (2) with respect to said first direction (D1) tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (D0)” of claim 6, “the effective surface (211) of each of the protruding teeth (21) of said light exit surface (2) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said second direction (D2), and the ineffective surface (212) of each of the protruding teeth (21) of said light exit surface (2) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said first direction (D1)” of claim 7,” and the “elongate” lamp with “light sources (3)…linearly distributed along a third direction” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because they do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics as every line, number, and letter is not sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, or heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. Specifically, the various lines and labels of the angles in each of Figures 1-8 are illegible and indistinguishable from other lines in the figures.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 is described as “a structural comparison diagram between the Fresnel lens structure of FIG. 3 and the prior art” but only a single Fresnel lens is shown in Fig. 5. As such, it cannot be discerned if Fig. 5 is showing a prior art Fresnel lens, or the lens of the instant application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include multiple grammatical and typographical errors throughout. For example, claims 1, 2, and 10 include limitations that appear to be erroneously capitalized, the claims include multiple limitations that are apparently misspelled (e.g. “theeth”), and the claims appear to include reference characters referring to multiple different features of the figures (e.g. “the angle (212)” and “the ineffective surface (212)” has the reference character 212 referring to both an angle and a surface). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims include multiple instances of limitations lacking antecedent basis. For example, “the direction” in claim 1, “the optical axis” in claim 1, “the second direction” in claim 1, “said protruding theeth” in claim 1, “said first protruding tooth (22) and second protruding tooth (23)” in claim 1, “the exiting light ray (L1’)” in claim 1, “the refractive index of the lens body (100) is n” in claim 2, “the direction away from the optical axis (D0)” in claim 5, “the respective protruding teeth (21)” in claim 5, “the included tapers” in claim 5, “the angle (212) of the ineffective surface (212) of each projection (21)” in claim 6, “the angle of said second direction (D2)” in claim 7, “the angle of said first direction (D1)” in claim 7, and “said light sources (3)” in claim 11 all lack antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 recites that “the light exit surface (2) is provided with a plurality of protruding teeth (21) in adjacent sequence.” However, it is unclear what constitutes teeth “in adjacent sequence.” Specifically, any plurality of teeth would be adjacent or in sequence in some manner and it is unclear what structure is intended to be required by the claim limitation.
For the purposes of examination, any Fresnel lens having a light exit surface with a plurality of protruding teeth will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 additionally recites “said protruding teeth (21) being formed by an effective surface (211) and an ineffective surface (212).” However, it is unclear what constitutes an “effective” or an “ineffective” surface. It is unclear if there must be some structure provided such that the surfaces are effective or ineffective, or if the claim is merely naming the surfaces provided in some manner. The terms “effective” and “ineffective” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “effective” or “ineffective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what surfaces would be effective or ineffective and a surface that may be effective for one light source could be ineffective for another.
For the purposes of examination, any protruding teeth having two surfaces joined at an acute angle will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 further recites “For a first light ray (L1) exiting from a light source (3) through said light incident surface (1) to reach said first valley point (O), said first light ray (L1) forms a first included angle (α) with respect to said first direction (D1), said first ineffective surface (222) forms a third included angle (θ) with respect to said first direction (D1), and the exiting light ray (L1’) of said first light ray (L1) through the first valley point (O) forming a fourth included angle (γ) with respect to said first direction (D1), then the magnitude of said third angle (θ) is set between said first angle (α) and said fourth angle (γ).” However, it is unclear if the claims positively require a “light source” as the limitation merely describes rays exiting a light source. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the exiting light ray (L1’)” should be the light ray exiting from the light source or another light ray exiting from another element of the lens.
Moreover, the angles of the light rays with the first direction, the various surfaces, or the first valley point is not dependent upon solely the structure of the Fresnel lens, but also on the location and structure of the light source itself. For example, a diverging light source located along the optical axis of the Fresnel lens would have rays forming a different angle than a collimated light source along the optical axis or a light source off the optical axis. As such, it is unclear what structure is required of the Fresnel lens to achieve the claimed angles of the light rays.
This limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the Fresnel lens performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the Fresnel lens to provide the function of forming the included angles of light rays from a light source. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Further, it is unclear how the claim can include a first, third, and fourth included angle without including a second included angle.
For the purposes of examination, any Fresnel lens having a length of the effective surface that is larger than a length of the ineffective surface and formed at oblique angles will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 2 recites “the second effective surface (231) forms a second angle (β) with respect to the second direction (D2), the refractive index of the lens body (100) is n, and n>1, then the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: when α ≥ β, α ≤ θ ≤ β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)]; or when α < β, β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)] ≤ θ ≤ α.” However, it is unclear what should be met by the claim as the term “then” makes it unclear what should be satisfied as there is no “if.” Moreover, the value of α depends not only on the structure of the Fresnel lens but also on the location and structure of the light source, as the ray exiting the light source forms a different angle based on where it is located. Thus, the condition is relative and variable. As such, it is unclear how to define a structure meeting the claimed condition as the light source could simply be moved to achieve the condition.
Furthermore, the term “arcsin[n*sin(α – β)]” is simply the angle of the light refracted through the exit surface, satisfied by any refractive surface, for the angle of the exiting light ray from the effective/ineffective surface. Specifically, the value α – β is equal to the angle of incidence of a light ray on the surface, given the defined values of α and β. Given that claim 1 defines α to be between θ and γ, it follows that any surface will satisfy one of the two equations of claim 2, otherwise there would be no light ray through the first valley point. Thus, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim, as any surface must necessarily satisfy the claimed conditions in order to have α between θ and γ as required in claim 1, and it is unclear how the claim further limits claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, any Fresnel lens satisfying the features of claim 1 will be interpreted as reading on the limitations of claim 2.
Claims 3-4 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 2 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites “the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: θ = β + arcsin [n*sin (α – β)].” However, such a relationship is variable and depends on the location of the light source and it is therefore unclear how to construct a Fresnel lens satisfying the relationship. Moreover, given the definitions of θ, β, and α, the relationship defined merely indicates that the light refracted by the first surface is parallel to the ineffective surface, and it is unclear if the claim is intended to require some different configuration.
For the purposes of examination, any Fresnel lens satisfying the features of claim 1 will be interpreted as reading on the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “along the direction away from the optical axis (D0), the effective surface (211) of the respective protruding teeth (21) of the light exit surface (2) are opposite to each other, the included tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (D0).” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the direction away from the optical axis” and it is unclear which direction should be “away from the optical axis.” Moreover, it is unclear with what reference the effective surface should be considered “opposite to each other” and it is unclear what constitute the “respective protruding teeth.” Additionally, it is unclear what constitutes “the included tapers” as it is unclear that any teeth should include any tapers and it is unclear how “the included tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis” as there is no verb in the clause.
For the purposes of examination, any protruding teeth arranged in relation to the optical axis will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 6-7 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 5 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 6 recites “the angle (212) of the ineffective surface (212) of each projection (21) of said light exit surface (2) with respect to said first direction (D1) tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (D0).” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the angle” and it is unclear how such an angle should be defined. Moreover, it is unclear how an angle can “taper sequentially” as it is unclear what is meant by an angle “tapering” and how such a sequential taper should be defined.
Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 6 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 7 further recites “along a direction away from the optical axis (D0), the effective surface (211) of each of the protruding teeth (21) of said light exit surface (2) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said second direction (D2), and the ineffective surface (212) of each of the protruding teeth (21) of said light exit surface (2) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said first direction (D1).” However, it is unclear how the effective or ineffective surface can “increase asymptotically in a sequential manner” as it is unclear how a surface can increase with respect to an angle or how such an increase can be “asymptotic.” It is unclear if the claim is referring to a surface shape of the surfaces, if it is referring to a size of sequential surfaces, or some other feature. Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes “the angle” of the first or second direction, as the directions are not angles.
For the purposes of examination, any surface that extends from the light exit surface will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 9 recites “the light incident surface (1) is a surface, and the light incident surface (1) is arranged perpendicular to the optical axis (D0).” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that “the light incident surface (1) is a surface” as any incident surface would necessarily be a surface. For the purposes of examination, any light incident surface perpendicular to the optical axis will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 recites “A lamp, characterized in that it includes: The Fresnel lens according to claim 1; The light source (3) is located on the optical axis (D0) and is arranged on the side of the Fresnel lens close to the light incident surface (1).” The term “close” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distances should be considered “close to the light incident surface” or if the claim is merely referring to one side of the Fresnel lens or another. For the purposes of examination, any lamp with a light source located on a side facing the light incident surface of the Fresnel lens will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 10 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 11 further recites “said lamp is elongate, said light sources (3) are linearly distributed along a third direction (D3), said third direction (D3) being perpendicular to the first direction (D1) and to the second direction (D2), and said Fresnel lens is stretched along said third direction (D3).” The term “elongate” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elongate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what dimensions are required such that a lamp would be considered “elongate” or if any lamp with multiple light sources should be considered “elongate.” Moreover, the term “said light sources” lacks antecedent basis in the claim as only a single light source has been defined. Further, claim 11 depends upon claim 10 which recites that the light source is “located on the optical axis.” As such, it is unclear how “said light sources” can simultaneously be linearly distributed along a third direction while being on the optical axis.
For the purposes of examination, any light source provided on the optical axis or including a plurality of light sources extending along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morino et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,618,161; hereinafter – “Morino”).
Regarding claim 1, Morino teaches a Fresnel lens comprising a lens body (1) with a first direction in the direction in which the optical axis of said lens body (1) is located, said lens body (1) being provided with an light incident surface (14) and an light exit surface (11, 12) opposite to each other along the first direction, and characterized in that in the second direction (VI-VI), which is perpendicular to said first direction, the light exit surface (11, 12) is provided with a plurality of protruding teeth (12) in adjacent sequence, said protruding teeth (12) being formed by an effective surface (21) and an ineffective surface (22), wherein said ineffective surface (22) is provided inclined at an acute angle with respect to said first direction (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47);
For said first protruding tooth (12) and second protruding tooth (12) adjacent to each other on said light exit surface (11, 12), said first protruding tooth (12) comprising a first effective surface (21) and a first ineffective surface (22), said second protruding tooth (12) comprising a second effective surface (21) and a second ineffective surface (22), said first ineffective surface (22) and said second effective surface (21) intersecting to form a first valley point (24) (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47);
For a first light ray (50) exiting from a light source (2) through said light incident surface (14) to reach said first valley point (24), said first light ray (50) forms a first included angle with respect to said first direction, said first ineffective surface (22) forms a third included angle with respect to said first direction, and the exiting light ray (E1, E2, E3, F1, F2) of said first light ray (50) through the first valley point (24) forming a fourth included angle with respect to said first direction, then the magnitude of said third angle is set between said first angle and said fourth angle (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 7, L. 8 – C. 8, L. 53).
Regarding claim 2, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Morino further teaches that the second effective surface (21) forms a second angle (β) with respect to the second direction, the refractive index of the lens body (1) is n, and n>1, then the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: when α ≥ β, α ≤ θ ≤ β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)]; or when α < β, β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)] ≤ θ ≤ α (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 7, L. 8 – C. 8, L. 53).
Regarding claim 3, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 2, as above.
Morino further teaches that the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: θ = β + arcsin [n*sin (α – β)] (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 7, L. 8 – C. 8, L. 53).
Regarding claim 4, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 2, as above.
Morino further teaches that the third included angle (θ) is equal to the first included angle (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 7, L. 8 – C. 8, L. 53).
Regarding claim 5, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Morino further teaches that, along the direction away from the optical axis, the effective surface (21) of the respective protruding teeth (12) of the light exit surface (11, 12) are opposite to each other, the included tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47).
Regarding claim 6, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens as claimed in claim 5, as above.
Morino further teaches that the angle of the ineffective surface (22) of each projection (12) of said light exit surface (11, 12) with respect to said first direction tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47).
Regarding claim 7, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens as claimed in claim 6, as above.
Morino further teaches that, along a direction away from the optical axis, the effective surface (21) of each of the protruding teeth (12) of said light exit surface (11, 12) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said second direction, and the ineffective surface (22) of each of the protruding teeth (12) of said light exit surface (11, 12) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said first direction (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47).
Regarding claim 8, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Morino further teaches that, each protruding tooth (12) on the light exit surface (11, 12) is arranged symmetrically with respect to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47).
Regarding claim 9, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Morino further teaches that the light incident surface (14) is a surface, and the light incident surface (14) is arranged perpendicular to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 5-7, 9, and 15-18; C. 5, L. 61 – C. 6, L. 50; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 19; C. 10, L. 24-47).
Regarding claim 10, Morino teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Morino further teaches a lamp, characterized in that it includes: The Fresnel lens according to claim 1; The light source (2) is located on the optical axis and is arranged on the side of the Fresnel lens close to the light incident surface (14) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 8, 10; C. 4, L. 48 – C. 5, L. 50).
Regarding claim 11, Morino teaches the lamp as claimed in claim 10, as above.
Morino further teaches that said lamp is elongate, said light sources (2) are linearly distributed along a third direction, said third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and to the second direction, and said Fresnel lens is stretched along said third direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 8, 10; C. 4, L. 48 – C. 5, L. 50).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Lamberterie et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0079217; hereinafter – “De Lamberterie”).
Regarding claim 1, De Lamberterie teaches a Fresnel lens comprising a lens body (1) with a first direction in the direction in which the optical axis of said lens body (1) is located, said lens body (1) being provided with an light incident surface (10) and an light exit surface (20) opposite to each other along the first direction (X), and characterized in that in the second direction (Y), which is perpendicular to said first direction, the light exit surface (20) is provided with a plurality of protruding teeth (11, 12) in adjacent sequence, said protruding teeth (11, 12) being formed by an effective surface (21) and an ineffective surface (22), wherein said ineffective surface (22) is provided inclined at an acute angle with respect to said first direction (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066);
For said first protruding tooth (12) and second protruding tooth (12) adjacent to each other on said light exit surface (11, 12), said first protruding tooth (12) comprising a first effective surface (21) and a first ineffective surface (22), said second protruding tooth (12) comprising a second effective surface (21) and a second ineffective surface (22), said first ineffective surface (22) and said second effective surface (21) intersecting to form a first valley point (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055, 0066, and 0079-0080);
For a first light ray (r1, r2, r5, r6) exiting from a light source through said light incident surface (10) to reach said first valley point, said first light ray (r1, r2, r5, r6) forms a first included angle with respect to said first direction, said first ineffective surface (22) forms a third included angle with respect to said first direction, and the exiting light ray (r1, r2, r5, r6) of said first light ray (r1, r2, r5, r6) through the first valley point forming a fourth included angle with respect to said first direction, then the magnitude of said third angle is set between said first angle and said fourth angle (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 2, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that the second effective surface (21) forms a second angle (β) with respect to the second direction (Y), the refractive index of the lens body (1) is n, and n>1, then the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: when α ≥ β, α ≤ θ ≤ β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)]; or when α < β, β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)] ≤ θ ≤ α (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 3, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 2, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: θ = β + arcsin [n*sin (α – β)] (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 4, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 2, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that the third included angle (θ) is equal to the first included angle (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 5, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that, along the direction away from the optical axis, the effective surface (21) of the respective protruding teeth (11, 12) of the light exit surface (10) are opposite to each other, the included tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 6, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens as claimed in claim 5, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that the angle of the ineffective surface (22) of each projection (11, 12) of said light exit surface (10) with respect to said first direction tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 7, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens as claimed in claim 6, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that, along a direction away from the optical axis, the effective surface (21) of each of the protruding teeth (11, 12) of said light exit surface (10) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said second direction, and the ineffective surface (22) of each of the protruding teeth (11, 12) of said light exit surface (10) increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said first direction (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 8, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that, each protruding tooth (11, 12) on the light exit surface (10) is arranged symmetrically with respect to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 9, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that the light incident surface (20) is a surface, and the light incident surface (20) is arranged perpendicular to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0066-0080).
Regarding claim 10, De Lamberterie teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches a lamp, characterized in that it includes: The Fresnel lens according to claim 1; The light source (2) is located on the optical axis and is arranged on the side of the Fresnel lens close to the light incident surface (20) (See e.g. 1-5; Paragraphs 0054 and 0084-0090).
Regarding claim 11, De Lamberterie teaches the lamp as claimed in claim 10, as above.
De Lamberterie further teaches that said lamp is elongate, said light sources (2) are linearly distributed along a third direction, said third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and to the second direction, and said Fresnel lens is stretched along said third direction (See e.g. 1-5; Paragraphs 0054 and 0084-0090).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheelwright et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2018/052493; hereinafter – “Wheelwright”).
Regarding claim 1, Wheelwright teaches a Fresnel lens comprising a lens body (260, 430, 606, 622, 702, 704, 830, 832) with a first direction in the direction in which the optical axis of said lens body is located, said lens body being provided with an light incident surface and an light exit surface opposite to each other along the first direction, and characterized in that in the second direction, which is perpendicular to said first direction, the light exit surface is provided with a plurality of protruding teeth (262, 603) in adjacent sequence, said protruding teeth (262) being formed by an effective surface (slope facet) and an ineffective surface (draft facet, 614), wherein said ineffective surface (draft facet, 614) is provided inclined at an acute angle with respect to said first direction (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098 and 00194-00204);
For said first protruding tooth and second protruding tooth adjacent to each other on said light exit surface, said first protruding tooth comprising a first effective surface (slope facet) and a first ineffective surface (draft facet, 614), said second protruding tooth comprising a second effective surface (slope facet) and a second ineffective surface (draft facet, 614), said first ineffective surface (draft facet, 614) and said second effective surface (slope facet) intersecting to form a first valley point (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098 and 00194-00204);
For a first light ray (628) exiting from a light source through said light incident surface to reach said first valley point, said first light ray (628) forms a first included angle with respect to said first direction, said first ineffective surface (draft facet, 614) forms a third included angle with respect to said first direction, and the exiting light ray (628) of said first light ray (628) through the first valley point forming a fourth included angle with respect to said first direction, then the magnitude of said third angle is set between said first angle and said fourth angle (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 2, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that the second effective surface (slope facet) forms a second angle (β) with respect to the second direction, the refractive index of the lens body is n, and n>1, then the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: when α ≥ β, α ≤ θ ≤ β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)]; or when α < β, β + arcsin[n*sin(α – β)] ≤ θ ≤ α (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 3, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 2, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that the third included angle (θ) satisfies the following relationship: θ = β + arcsin [n*sin (α – β)] (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 4, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 2, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that the third included angle (θ) is equal to the first included angle (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 5, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that, along the direction away from the optical axis, the effective surface (slope facet) of the respective protruding teeth of the light exit surface are opposite to each other, the included tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 6, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens as claimed in claim 5, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that the angle of the ineffective surface (draft facet) of each projection of said light exit surface with respect to said first direction tapers sequentially along a direction away from the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 7, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens as claimed in claim 6, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that, along a direction away from the optical axis, the effective surface (slope facet) of each of the protruding teeth of said light exit surface increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said second direction, and the ineffective surface (draft facet) of each of the protruding teeth of said light exit surface increases asymptotically in a sequential manner with respect to the angle of said first direction (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 8, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that, each protruding tooth on the light exit surface is arranged symmetrically with respect to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 9, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that the light incident surface is a surface, and the light incident surface is arranged perpendicular to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 6-7; Paragraphs 0096-0098, 00103-00105, 00170, 00189-00204, 00210, 00220, and 00225-00226).
Regarding claim 10, Wheelwright teaches the Fresnel lens according to claim 1, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches a lamp, characterized in that it includes: The Fresnel lens according to claim 1; The light source (display, 602, 612) is located on the optical axis and is arranged on the side of the Fresnel lens close to the light incident surface (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 00189, 00197, and 00233).
Regarding claim 11, Wheelwright teaches the lamp as claimed in claim 10, as above.
Wheelwright further teaches that said lamp is elongate, said light sources (2) are linearly distributed along a third direction, said third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and to the second direction, and said Fresnel lens is stretched along said third direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 6-7; Paragraphs 00189, 00197, and 00233).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lin et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0250310) teaches a Fresnel lens having a similar structure of effective and ineffective surfaces.
Wheelwright et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0074323) teaches a Fresnel lens with dynamic draft for reduced optical artifacts.
McKendry et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0363288) teaches a low-profile optical warning system having a lamp with a similar Fresnel lens.
Ieda et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2008/0106804) teaches a light emitting module and light receiving module having a similar Fresnel lens structure.
Lee (U.S. Patent No. 7,061,677) teaches a screen for projection display in which the light is uniformly transmitted throughout the screen with a Fresnel lens of a similar configuration.
Funazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,407,860) teaches a Fresnel lens sheet having a similar structure of effective and ineffective surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights