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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 comprises a repeated term of “output from the from the light source” in line 5 of claim 7. 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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cooling portion" in line 2 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “the cooling portion” will be understood as “the cooling unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka et al. (hereinafter Yamaoka) (US 20210367398 A1) in view of Harrison et al. (hereinafter Harrison) (US 5668823 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaoka discloses in Fig. 1,
A light source module [100] (Para. [0022]) comprising:
a housing [1] (Para. [0022]);
a cooling unit [2] (Para. [0027]) provided to the housing [1] (Para. [0027]) to be contained in the housing [1] (Para. [0027]);
a light source [4] (Para. [0029]) provided to the cooling unit [4] (Para. [0029]) and configured to output light [L1] (Para. [0030]);
a lens [5] (Para. [0031]) provided to the cooling unit [2] (Para. [0031]), on which the light output from the light source [4] is incident (Para. [0030]); and
an optical output unit [1d] (Para. [0022]) provided to the housing [1] (Para. [0022]) and configured to output the light output from the lens [5] to the outside of the housing [1] (Para. [0022]).
Yamaoka fails to disclose,
the lens configured to deflect a travelling direction of the incident light toward the cooling unit and output the deflected light
Harrison discloses in Fig. 6,
a lens [34] (Col. 2, lines 54-56) configured to deflect a travelling direction of an incident light [light from 30] (Col. 2, lines 35,54-56) in a downward vertical direction (see Fig. 6) and output the deflected light (Col. 4, lines 2-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the offset lens and laser incidence of as shown in Harrison in place of the lens as shown in Yamaoka for the purpose of allowing highly coupled emission to predetermined locations in the device and directing the emission relative to the lens axis. (Harrison Col. 1, line 67- Col. 2, lines 5 and 60-63)
Regarding claim 2, Yamaoka in view of Harrison discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein
an optical axis of the light output from the light source [light from 30 incident to 34 Harrison Fig. 6] is parallel to an axis of the lens [Harrison 34 Fig. 6] (see parallel emission of 30 Harrison Fig. 6) (Harrison Col. 2, lines 57-60), and
the light output from the light source enters the lens at a position apart from the axis of the lens by a predetermined distance (Harrison Col. 2, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaoka in view of Harrison discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Yamaoka Fig. 1,
wherein
the cooling portion [2] is provided on an inner surface of the housing [1] (Para. [0027]),
the light source [4] and the lens [5] are provided on an opposite surface of the cooling unit [2] opposite to a surface attached to the housing [1] (4 and 5 provided on upper surface of 2) (Para. 0028]), and
the light [L1] output from the light source [4] is output in a direction parallel to the opposite surface of the cooling unit [2] (see Fig. 1) (Para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaoka in view of Harrison discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Yamaoka Fig. 1,
wherein
the housing [1] includes a bottom plate [1a] (Para. [0022]) on which the cooling unit [2] is provided (Para. [0027]), a top plate [1c] (Para. [0022]) that faces the bottom plate [1a] (Para. [0022]) and is parallel to the bottom plate [1a] (Para. [0022]), and a side plate [1b] (Para. [0022]) that is perpendicular to the bottom plate [1a] and the top plate [1c] (Para. [0022]), and connects the bottom plate [1a] and the top plate [1c] (Para. [0022]), and
the optical output unit [1d] is provided on the side plate [1b] not to interfere with the bottom plate [1a] and the top plate [1c] (Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaoka in view of Harrison discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Yamaoka Fig. 1,
further comprising an isolator [6] (Para. [0032]) provided on the cooling unit [2] and on which the light [L2] output from the lens [5] is incident (Para. [0032]), wherein
the light [L2] output from the lens [5] is incident on an incident surface of the isolator [6] at a predetermined incident angle (Para. [0032]),
the light [L2] incident on the incident surface is further deflected in a direction toward the cooling unit [2] by refraction (downward vertical direction) (Paras. [0032,0039]) and propagates through the isolator [6] (Para. [0039]), and
the light propagating through the isolator [6] and reaching an emission surface of the isolator [6] is deflected in a direction opposite to the cooling unit [2] by refraction (Paras. [0032,0039]) and output at an emission angle that is the same as the incident angle [L2 and L3 shown to both be parallel to 1a] (Paras. [0034,0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaoka discloses in Fig. 1,
A method of outputting light (Para. [0022]) comprising:
outputting light from a light source [4] (Para. [0030]) provided to a cooling unit [2] (Para. [0027]) that is provided to a housing [1] (Para. [0027]) to be contained in the housing [1] (Para. 0027]);
by a lens [5] (Para. [0031]) provided to the cooling unit [2] (Para. [0031]), and
by an optical output unit [1d] (Para. [0022]) provided to the housing [1] (Para. [0022]), outputting the light output from the lens [5] to the outside of the housing [1] (Para. [0022])
Yamaoka fails to disclose,
deflecting a travelling direction of the light output from the from the light source and incident on the lens toward the cooling unit and outputting the deflected light;
Harrison discloses in Fig. 6,
a lens [34] (Col. 2, lines 54-56) configured to deflect a travelling direction of an incident light [light from 30] (Col. 2, lines 35,54-56) in a downward vertical direction (see Fig. 6) and output the deflected light (Col. 4, lines 2-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the offset lens and laser incidence of as shown in Harrison in place of the lens as shown in Yamaoka for the purpose of allowing highly coupled emission to predetermined locations in the device and directing the emission relative to the lens axis. (Harrison Col. 1, line 67- Col. 2, lines 5 and 60-63)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka in view of Harrison as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Furuya (US 20160372886 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaoka in view of Harrison discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the isolator is provided to the cooling unit by being partially inserted through a hole provided in the cooling unit.
Furuya discloses in Fig. 2,
an isolator [21b] (Para. [0053]) partially inserted through a hole [35] (Para. [0053]) in a base [17] (Para. [0053])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the recessed implantation of the isolator of the modified device of Yamaoka as shown in Furuya for the purpose of secure positioning of the isolator. (Furuya Para. [0053])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 20030039279 A1) which discloses an optical element the deflects an incident beam in a downward vertical direction. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights