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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 13, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 10 have been fully considered and, in combination with the amendment to claim 10, are persuasive. The objection to claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument the expressions in claims 4, 7 and 8 should be considered a functional limitation, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner has no idea what new/further “function” limitation is being required – for such an argument to be persuasive the claim should state what function is limited and how the expressions clearly further limit the device. The examiner maintains that a mathematical formula which describes/defines an inherent feature (e.g. phase modulation) of the claimed device with no further limitation on the device, per se, would fail to further limit the device (e.g. such as requiring a range would). It remains (at best) unclear what the further limitation (functional or structural) the mathematical formula – which describes/defines an inherent feature that necessarily flows from the claimed invention, as set forth in claim 2, 5 and 1 – provides.
Regarding applicant’s argument “structural identity cannot be established through semantic generalization” the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant particularly takes issue with the examiner’s use of the term “circular shift” as a “semantic generalization” to describe claim 1 lines 7-46. Said lines 7-46 layout in exacting detail the arrangement of 10 thin light sheets in a 10x10 array, schematically shown as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
A “circular shift” (or cyclic shift) rearranges sequence elements by moving the end elements to the beginning (right shift) or start elements to the end (left shift), creating a rotating effect1. As seen above, element arrangement painstakingly laid out in claim 1 lines 7-46 is the exact definition of a right shift circular shift. The examiner was not, in any way, generalizing the arrangement of elements as required by claim 1 lines 7-46, but instead using a term that precisely describes said arrangement of elements.
Regarding applicant’s statement that the examiner has stripped the claims of specific structural constraints and effectively rewritten the claim to a broader scope than what is actually recited, the examiner is unpersuaded. While applicant may not agree with the examiner analysis the examiner has not “rewritten the claims” or left any limitations unaddressed. It is noted that the rejections are not anticipation rejections (under 35 USC 102) but obviousness rejections (under 35 USC 103). 35 USC 103 states: “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.” It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” and in addition it has been further held that "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" and taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141.
Regarding applicant’s statement that: “The specific mathematical ordering and the distinct orientation angles of the sheets are material limitations that the Examiner has failed to address with any degree of technical specificity.” The examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner addressed the orientation angles in the rejection, as set forth below.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on the combination of Liu and Basquin failing to disclose an array of variously angled sheets that have been arranged with a right shift circular shift, the examiner is unpersuaded. Basquin teaches an array of variously angled sheets that have been arranged with a right shift circular shift, see annotated figure A below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that 10 sheets with 10 orientations (b1-b10), as claimed, is different from 3 sheets with 3 orientations (e.g. see annotated figure A below), as taught by Basquin, and it would be unobvious to change the number of sheets in Basquin, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner contends that one skilled in the art, having basic knowledge of the art, and having of ordinary creativity – as opposed to an automaton – would know that more sheets with a smaller changes in orientation would more evenly distribute light. Evidence of this can be found in Basquin:
notes in lines 22-38 that multiple sections with different orientations is used because “the light is more thoroughly diffused throughout the room, such light being thrown in several different directions instead of being projected straight forward” as opposed to a diffuser with a single orientation, and lines 90-94 states: “Now to secure a comparatively even distribution of such light it is necessary to set the prisms which go to make up such prism-plate angularly with reference to each other or to tilt them.”
when the ordinary prismatic glass is used when discussing the positioning of sections with different orientation lines 51-54 states “positioned that the projecting ribs or prisms face in several different directions. The position of the prisms or ribs will of course depend upon the conditions to be met.”
repeatedly refers to several sections projecting light in different directions (i.e. distributing light)
figure 2 show 2 orientations and figure 3 shows 3 orientations with a smaller angular change, and 2 is different than 3, much the same as 3 is different from 10
line 78-81 states: “Of course I do not wish to be understood as indicating that I have shown all of the arrangements of such prisms as might be made to accomplish the desired result.”
The guidelines to establish obviousness, based on the Office’s current understanding of the law and believed to be fully consistent with the binding precedent of the Supreme Court, may be found in the MPEP. Following this guidance, in this case, it is clear that Basquin is distributing light by using arrays with multiple sections with a right shift circular shift to distributing light. While the examiner used figure 3 with 3 sections as an exemplar, it is clear that the invention is not restricted to only 3 sections (indeed the figures shows different number of sections) but that the invention “will of course depend upon the conditions to be met”. Further, there is legal precedent for duplication of parts (in this case increasing the number of sections with different orientations), see MPEP 2144.04. Thus, while the examiner agrees that 10≠3, it is clear that Basquin is not limited to only 3 sections, since it shows non-limiting examples with different numbers of sections, and that the design depend upon the conditions to be met that a person of ordinary skill in the art having ordinary creativity with a wish to more evenly distribute light (conditions to be met) would increase the number of sections with appropriate orientations to spread the light more evenly. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s statement “The result-effective variable of ‘uniformity’ in the present application is achieved by a complexity of structure that Basquin expressly avoids in favor of directing light to ‘definite points.’” The examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner notes that when Basquin discusses directing light “toward any given point” it is clear that Basquin means light is directed to an area in a room and does not mean light is focused to a point. Further, it is clear that read in toto Baquin is distributing light, e.g. lines 8-11 “My invention relates to light-diffusing devices for windows or the like, and has for its object to provide a new and improved light-diffusing device for this purpose.” Applicant and the examiner agree that the prism/sawtooth ridges in the different sections/thin light sheets direct light in different directions. It is obvious that if one wanted light more evenly distributed that more orientations would inherently result in the light to be distributed to more areas of the room, i.e. more evenly distributed. As evidence of this Basquin lines 22-38 discusses one orientation versus multiple orientation causing the light to be more even distributed. See MPEP 2144.
Regarding applicant’s arguments centered on the 10 sheets with 10 orientations (b1-b10) is not a duplication of part, the examiner is unpersuaded. Regarding applicant’s statement that the Seventh Circuit largely abolished the reasoning of St. Regis Paper in Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock Co., 592 F.2d 963 (7th Cir. 1979), ruling that the valid test for obviousness is the one established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The examiner notes that St. Regis Paper was not overturned and remains a precedential case. Similarly, while Graham v. John Deere remains as a framework for determining obviousness it is largely overshadowed by KSR. Regardless, using Graham and/or KSR, the invention is an obvious, as set forth below.
Regarding applicant’s statement that In re Harza is misplaced, since the parts are not identical, particularly indicating Ex parte Rippolone. Rippolone is a non-precedential case, which the Board has declined to use it when referenced. Further, in arguendo, in Rippolone the three gutter parts were ruled to not be a duplication of parts since the second gutter includes multiple modifications (changing linear air flow passages to non-linear air flow passages and adding a connection section) and the third gutter modified in a different manner (including adding a return connector) and the modifications were not explained. On the other hand, in Harza the only distinction was of a plurality of ribs on each side of the web whereas the prior art shows only a single rib on each side of the web. In the current case, Liu teaches a single section/thin light sheet with a single orientation/b. Liu fails to show 10 sections/thin light sheets with a 10 orientations/b1-b10, arranged in a right shift circular shift. Basquin in the same art teaching a similar invention teaches 2 sections/thin light sheets with a 2 orientations/b1-b2, arranged in an alternating pattern (see figure 2) and 3 sections/thin light sheets with a 3 orientations/b1-b3, arranged in a right shift circular shift (see annotated figure A below). Basquin provides a motive to increase the number of sections with different orientations is to distribute the light in different directions so the light is more thoroughly diffused, as set forth below. The combination of Liu and Basquin does fail to have an exemplar or specific language to increase the number of sections/thin light sheets to 10 with a specific orientations/b1-b10. Insofar as increasing the number of sections/thin light sheets to 10 with a specific orientations/b1-b10 – the combination of Liu and Baskin teach increasing the number of sections at different orientations works to better distribute the light in a room. The examiner maintains that the 10 sections/thin light sheets with a 10 specific orientations/b1-b10 is duplication of the progression from Liu to Basquin figure 2 to Baquin figure 3. While there is a modification to adjust the orientation/b this would be duplicating what is readily apparent from the prior art. Further, no new and unexpected result would be produced. The examiner maintains application of case law holding that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced is proper.
Since applicant did not argue that In re Aller was improper. The examiner maintains that since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the combination of Liu and Basquin that the specific values of b1-b10 is discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as set forth below.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant objects to the examiner noting that applicant’s stated issue in paragraph [0006] amounted to hindsight. Addressing applicant’s stated issue is not hindsight. Indeed, one test if prior art is applicable is if it addresses applicants issue, since it has been held that the reference is not required to be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212, Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 721 F.2d 1563, 220 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see MPEP 2141. Further, in this case, Bisquin is in the same art, as discussed above, and clearly provides a motive to have multiple sections/thin light sheets with a different orientations/b’s, for the purpose of having the light is more thoroughly distributed in a room, as set forth 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 4 and 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 4 “a phase modulation j1 added to natural light by the continuous concave lens arrays is expressed as
φ
1
=
-
π
x
3
2
+
y
3
2
λ
f
”, raises clarity issues. It is unclear what the further limitation is. The claim notes a mathematical formula to describe/define the inherent phase modulation (i.e. j1) of the claimed device. However, there appears to be no limitation, either structural or functional, on the device, per se, such as a range of j1. For purposes of examination the examiner will treat the claim as stating an inherent physical property.
Regarding claim 7 “wherein a phase modulation j1 added to incident light by the continuous convex free-form surface lens arrays is expressed as
φ
1
=
-
π
x
3
2
+
y
3
2
λ
f
1
-
2
π
λ
y
3
∙
s
i
n
θ
3
”, raises clarity issues. It is unclear what the further limitation is. The claim notes a mathematical formula to describe/define the inherent phase modulation (i.e. j1) of the claimed device. However, there appears to be no limitation, either structural or functional, on the device, per se, such as a range of j1. For purposes of examination the examiner will treat the claim as stating an inherent physical property.
Regarding claim 8 “wherein a phase modulation j2 added to incident natural light by the continuous sawtooth gratings is expressed as
φ
2
=
-
2
π
λ
y
4
∙
sin
θ
4
”, raises clarity issues. It is unclear what the further limitation is. The claim notes a mathematical formula to describe/define the inherent phase modulation (i.e. j2) of the claimed device. However, there appears to be no limitation, either structural or functional, on the device, per se, such as a range of j2. For purposes of examination the examiner will treat the claim as stating an inherent physical property.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. foreign patent document CN114294611A, using US Patent Application Publication 2023/0220967 as an English translation, in view of Basquin US Patent 586,211.
Regarding claim 1 Liu discloses a combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings (title e.g. figures 1 and 4), wherein the device comprises a thin light sheet (e.g. see figures 1 and 4) with an outer side surface is a continuous lens array (abstract “first surface is a free-form surface array” e.g. see figures 1 and 4), and inner side surface is continuous sawtooth gratings (abstract “second surface is a sawtooth surface array” e.g. see figures 1 and 4).
Liu does not disclose ten thin light sheets with different, specific orientations in an array where the sequence of the ten thin light sheets being right shift circularly shifted. Specifically Liu does not disclose wherein the device comprises ten first thin light sheets (1), ten second thin light sheets (2), ten third thin light sheets (3), ten fourth thin light sheets (4), ten fifth thin light sheets (5), ten sixth thin light sheets (6), ten seventh thin light sheets (7), ten eighth thin light sheets (8), ten ninth thin light sheets (9) and ten tenth thin light sheets (10), which are arranged in a matrix to form a daylighting matrix; a first row of the daylighting matrix comprises a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), and a tenth thin light sheet (10) in order from left to right; a second row of the daylighting matrix comprises a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), and a ninth thin light sheet (9) in order from left to right; a third row of the daylighting matrix comprises a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), and an eighth thin light sheet (8) in order from left to right; a fourth row of the daylighting matrix comprises an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), and a seventh thin light sheet (7) in order from left to right; a fifth row of the daylighting matrix comprises a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), and a sixth thin light sheet (6) in order from left to right; a sixth row of the daylighting matrix comprises a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), and a fifth thin light sheet (5) in order from left to right; a seventh row of the daylighting matrix comprises a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), and a fourth thin light sheet (4) in order from left to right; an eighth row of the daylighting matrix comprises a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), a second thin light sheet (2), and a third thin light sheet (3) in order from left to right; a ninth row of the daylighting matrix comprises a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), a first thin light sheet (1), and a second thin light sheet (2) in order from left to right; a tenth row of the daylighting matrix comprises a second thin light sheet (2), a third thin light sheet (3), a fourth thin light sheet (4), a fifth thin light sheet (5), a sixth thin light sheet (6), a seventh thin light sheet (7), an eighth thin light sheet (8), a ninth thin light sheet (9), a tenth thin light sheet (10), and a first thin light sheet (1) in order from left to right; an angle (β1) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the first thin light sheet (1) and a horizontal plane is 50°; an angle (β2) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the second thin light sheet (2) and a horizontal plane is 30°; an angle (β3) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the third thin light sheet (3) and a horizontal plane is 20°; an angle (β4) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the fourth thin light sheet (4) and a horizontal plane is 10°; an angle (β5) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the fifth thin light sheet (5) and a horizontal plane is 5°; an angle (β6) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the sixth thin light sheet (6) and a horizontal plane is 175°; an angle (β7) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the seventh thin light sheet (7) and a horizontal plane is 170°; an angle (β8) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the eighth thin light sheet (8) and a horizontal plane is 160°; an angle (β9) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the ninth thin light sheet (9) and a horizontal plane is 150°; and an angle (β10) between a sawtooth line of a sawtooth grating on an inner surface of the tenth thin light sheet (10) and a horizontal plane is 130°.
Applicant’s state issue is to evenly distribute sunlight into a room, see instant application paragraph [0006].
Basquin teaches a similar sheet (page 1 lines 8-11 “light-diffusing devices for windows”) with a sawtooth profile (page 1 line 22 “prismatic glass” e.g. see figure 4); and further teaches a series of a series of differently oriented prismatic sections (e.g. figure 3 prismatic sections D, D1 & D2) which has a right shift circular shift (see annotated figure A below) for the purpose of projecting the light in several different directions (page 1 lines 68-71) so the light is more thoroughly diffused (page 1 lines 33-38), thereby addressing applicant’s state issue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for device disclosed by Liu to be arranged in an array of sections with the grating having different orientations where the sections are right shift circularly shifted as taught by Basquin for the purpose of projecting outside light in several different directions so the light is more thoroughly diffused in a room, thereby addressing applicant’s state issue.
[AltContent: textbox (D2)][AltContent: textbox (D2)][AltContent: textbox (D1)][AltContent: textbox (D)]
PNG
media_image1.png
224
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated portion of Bisquin figure 3 showing claimed right shift shifting pattern of sections.
Basquin only teaches three differently orientated sections. Basquin does not teach ten thin sheets with ten specific orientations (i.e. b1-b10). Regarding ten (instead of three), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the number of sheets , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977); and further it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04. One would be motivated to increase the number of sections to more evenly distribute the light. Regarding the specific orientation (i.e. b1-b10), 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 routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Liu and Basquin has multiple sections of thin sheets with lenses and sawtooth gratings arranged with a right shift circular shift to evenly distribute outside light in a room, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to choose specific orientation angles (i.e. b1-b10) for the purpose of evenly distributing the light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device as disclosed by the combination of Liu and Basquin to have ten sections with the specified orientation angles (i.e. b1-b10) for the purpose of evenly distributing the light and since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and said duplication has no new or unexpected result, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein the continuous lens arrays refer to continuous concave lens arrays (paragraph [0010] e.g. see figure 3).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 2, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein a thickness z1 of different positions x1 and y1 on a surface of each concave lens of the continuous concave lens arrays is expressed as
z
1
=
-
x
1
2
+
y
1
2
r
1
+
r
1
2
-
x
1
2
+
y
1
2
, wherein is a radius of curved surface of a concave lens (mathematical definition of an inherent physical property), and the radius of curved surface is 1-5 times a minimum spacing between the concave lens and a sawtooth grating (paragraph [0011] “concave free-form surface, which makes the light propagate in the horizontal direction through refraction, and the radius of curvature is 1-5 times the minimum spacing between the free-form surface and the sawtooth grating”).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 2, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein a phase modulation j1 added to natural light by the continuous concave lens arrays is expressed as
φ
1
=
-
π
x
3
2
+
y
3
2
λ
f
, wherein x3 and y3 are positions of an incident wavefront of the lens arrays, λ represents a center wavelength of the natural light, and f represents a focal length of the lens (inherent physical property, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein the continuous lens arrays refer to continuous convex free-form surface lens arrays (paragraph [0010] e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 5, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein a thickness d1 of different positions x1 and y1 on each convex free-form surface of the continuous convex free-form surface lens arrays is expressed as
d
1
x
1
,
y
1
=
1
n
-
1
x
1
2
+
y
1
2
r
1
+
r
1
2
-
x
1
2
+
y
1
2
+
y
1
∙
s
i
n
θ
1
, wherein n represents a refractive index, r1 represents a radius of curvature at a vertex of the convex free-form surface, and θ1 represents a surface-type inclination angle of the convex free-form surface, which makes the light propagate in a horizontal direction through refraction (mathematical definition of an inherent physical property), and the radius of curvature is 1-5 times a minimum spacing between the free-form surface and the sawtooth grating (paragraph [0011] “convex free-form surface, which makes the light propagate in the horizontal direction through refraction, and the radius of curvature is 1-5 times the minimum spacing between the free-form surface and the sawtooth grating”).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 5, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein a phase modulation j1 added to incident light by the continuous convex free-form surface lens arrays is expressed as
φ
1
=
-
π
x
3
2
+
y
3
2
λ
f
1
-
2
π
λ
y
3
∙
s
i
n
θ
3
, wherein θ3 represents an incident angle of the natural light on the free-form surface, λ represents a center wavelength of the incident light, f1 represents an equivalent focal length of the free-form surface, and x3 and y3 are positions of an incident wavefront of free-form surface arrays (inherent physical property, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein a phase modulation j2 added to incident natural light by the continuous sawtooth gratings is expressed as
φ
2
=
-
2
π
λ
y
4
∙
sin
θ
4
, wherein y4 represents a position of an incident wavefront of the sawtooth surface array, and θ4 represents an incident angle of natural light on a sawtooth surface (inherent physical property, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 1 including ten thin light sheets, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein the thin light sheets of the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on light sheets and sawtooth gratings provided in this embodiment are all made of transparent materials with a transmittance greater than 85% (paragraph [0014] “device material is the high-transmittance material with a transmittance above 85%”).
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Liu and Basquin disclose the combined monolithic uniform lighting device based on lenses and sawtooth gratings according to claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein each lens of the continuous lens arrays corresponds to each sawtooth of the sawtooth gratings of the continuous sawtooth gratings, a center position of the sawtooth matches an optical axis of the lens (paragraph [0013] “free-form surface array corresponds to the sawtooth surface array one to one, and the center position of the sawtooth matches the optical axis of the free-form surface lens unit”), and a range of an sawtooth inclination angle of the continuous gratings θ is 20°-70° (paragraph [0012] “the inclination angle of the sawtooth in the sawtooth surface array is ϑ, and the range of ϑ is 20°-70°”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wikipedia webpage “Circular shift” as of 2023, to clarify the definition of an arrangement having elements circularly shifted, as discussed above.
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 23, 2026
1 As evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “Circular shift” as of 2023.
Prosecution Insights