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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 20 and 22 in the submission dated 05/29/2026 in response to the office action mailed 03/16/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
New claims 25 and 26, are acknowledged and accepted because the subject matter of the new claims is similar to the subject matter of the originally filed claims.
Cancellation of claims 9 and 24 is acknowledged and accepted. Claims 4, 18-19 were canceled previously. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 20-23, and 25-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see paragraph 7 on page 9 of 16 through paragraph 1 on page 12 of 16 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amended claims and the new grounds of rejection is made in view of Ono et al and further in view of Wippermann et al.
(a) The applicant argues that Ono fails to teach the amended claims 1 and 20, specifically the limitation “a second surface that is opposite the first surface and that comprises a second optical structure, wherein the second optical structure comprises a plurality of third micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses.” The applicant refers to Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 of Ono to show the second optical structures of Ono 36c and 35c are concave and not convex (Remarks, para 8 on page 9 of 16 through para 1 on page 12 of 16). The examiner finds these arguments are persuasive.
(b) The applicant argues Ono’s lens array 33b is a monolithic structure in which the lens segments L and S extend from top to bottom as a single integrated wedge element. The applicant further argues that the exit faces 35p and 36p being considered the “first optical structure” on the “first surface,” and the incident faces 35c and 36c being considered the “second optical structure” on the “second surface” is improper mapping on the examiner’s part (Remarks, para 1 on page 12 of 16).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
(c) The applicant argues that dependent claims 3, 5-7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 20-22 are allowable for the same reasons provided above. The examiner disagrees for the same reasons provided above (Remarks, para 1 page 12 of 16)
Applicant’s arguments, see the last two lines on page 12 of 16 through paragraph 2 on page 15 of 16 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 8, 10, 12,15, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amended claims and the new grounds of rejection is made in view of Ono et al and further in view of Wippermann et.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 20-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., US 2008/0112057 A1 (of record), and further in view of Wippermann et al., US 2010/0033829 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wippermann).
As to claim 1, Ono teaches a lens (33b, para [0056], cylindrical lens array 33b, para [0056], Fig. 33b), comprising:
a first surface (33b, the first surface is the top surface of the lens array 33b as shown in figure 5, para [0056], Fig. 5) comprising a first optical structure (33b, the first surface is where the light transmitted through the lens exits, thus the top surface of 33b as shown in figure 5 is the first optical structure, para [0058], Fig. 5), wherein the first optical structure comprises:
a plurality of first micro-lenses that are cylindrical (L, 35p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of first lens segments L and each first lens segment L has a convex exit section 35p, the convex exit sections 35p are considered the first micro-lenses, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein each of the first micro-lenses includes a first axial meridian (35p, L, the longitudinal axis of the convex exit section 35p the first lens segment L extends in the Y direction and is considered the first axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4), a first curvature radius (R1, the first lens segment L has a radius of curvature R1 of the convex exit section 35p, para [0059], Fig. 5), and a first clear aperture (W1, the first lens segment L has a width W1 of the exit section 35p, para [0057], Fig. 5); and
a plurality of second micro-lenses that are cylindrical (S, 36p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of second lens segments S and each second lens segment S has a convex exit section 36p, the convex exit sections 36p are considered the second micro-lenses, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein each of the second micro-lenses includes a second axial meridian (S, 36p, the longitudinal axis of the convex exit section 36p of the second lens segment S extends in the Y direction and is considered the second axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4), a second curvature radius (R3, the second lens segment S has a radius of curvature R3 of the convex exit section 36p, para [0059], Fig. 5), and a second clear aperture (W2, the second lens segment S has a width W2 of the exit section 36p, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the second axial meridian is parallel to the first axial meridian (L, S, the longitudinal axis of the first and second lens segments are parallel as indicated by the Y direction shown in figure 4, para [0053], Fig. 4), wherein either the first curvature radius is different from the second curvature radius (R1, R3, “the radius of curvature R1 is 2 mm… radius of curvature R3 is 1 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5) or the first clear aperture is different from the second clear aperture (W1, W2, “the ratio of the width of the exit section 35p of the first lens segment L to that of the exit section 36p of the second lens segment S is made to be 9:1”, para [0058], Fig. 5), wherein the first curvature radius and the second curvature radius satisfy the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |R1/R2| ≤ 10 (R1, R3, given the values that follow |R1/R2|=2), wherein R1 is the first curvature radius (R1, “the radius of curvature R1 is 2 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5), and wherein R2 is the second curvature radius (R3, “radius of curvature R3 is 1 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5); and
a second surface (33b, the second surface is the bottom surface of the lens array 33b as shown in figure 5, para [0056], Fig. 5) comprising a second optical structure (35c, 36c, the second surface is where the light is incident on the lens, thus the bottom surface of 33b as shown in figure 5 is the second optical structure, para [0058], Fig. 5), wherein the second surface is opposite the first surface (33b, the second surface is the bottom surface of the lens array 33b as shown in figure 5, thus opposite the first/top surface, para [0056], Fig. 5).
Ono does not teach the lens of claim 6, wherein the second surface is a convex surface and comprises; a middle area, wherein the third micro-lenses are located in the middle area; a first slope area located on a first side of the middle area; and a second slope area located on a second side of the middle area.
Ono and Wippermann are related as microlens arrays.
However, Wippermann teaches (Figs. 5, 16, and 21g) a lens (19, substrate 19, para [0057], Fig. 5), comprising:
a first surface comprising a first optical structure (7, microlens array 7, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the first optical structure comprises:
a plurality of micro-lenses that are cylindrical (1a to 1e, microlens array 1 has cylindrical lenses 1a to 1e, para [0068], Fig. 16), and
a second surface that is opposite the first surface and that comprises a second optical structure (8, microlens array 8, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the second optical structure comprises a plurality of third micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses (the arrangement of the microlens array on a curved surface, para [0080], Fig. 21g), and wherein the second surface is a convex surface (the curved surface of the solid body is a convex surface, Fig. 21g) and comprises:
a middle area, where the third micro-lenses are located in the middle area (shown in the annotated Fig. 21g below);
a first slope area located on a first side of the middle area (shown in the annotated Fig. 21g below); and
a second slope area located on a second side of the middle area (shown in the annotated Fig. 21g below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the convex surface comprising a middle area, wherein the third micro-lenses are located in the middle area; a first slope area located on a first side of the middle area; and a second slope area located on a second side of the middle area of Wippermann, because doing so achieves homogenization of radiation (para [0008]).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Ono’s first embodiment of Figs. 4 and 5 does not teach the lens, wherein the first microlenses are at a middle location of the first surface, and wherein the second micro-lenses are on both sides of the first micro-lenses.
Ono’s embodiments are related as cylindrical lens arrays.
However, Ono’s second embodiment of Fig. 9 teaches a lens wherein the first microlenses are at a middle location of the first surface, and wherein the second micro-lenses are on both sides of the first micro-lenses (L, S, “the optical device 30A shown in Fig. 9A is an example in which two large lens segments L are arranged at the center of the cylindrical lens array, and five small lens segments S are arranged on both sides of the lens segments L”, para [0082], Fig. 9A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono’s first embodiment to have first microlenses at a middle location of the first surface, and the second micro-lenses on both sides of the first micro-lenses as of Ono’s second embodiment, because the effect of canceling unevenness in light intensity such as ringing occurring at both ends is obtained by finely converging the light at both ends (para [0085]).
As to claim 3, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the first optical structure further comprises:
a plurality of first micro-lens groups that each comprise an m number of the first micro-lenses (L, 35p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of first lens segments L, the convex exit sections 35p of the lens segments L are considered the first micro-lens groups, each group comprises one convex exit section 35p, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5); and
a plurality of second micro-lens groups that each comprise an n number of the second micro-lenses (S, 36p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of second lens segments S, the convex exit sections 36p of the lens segments S are considered the second micro-lens groups, each group comprises one convex exit section 36p, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein the second micro-lens groups are alternately distributed from the first micro-lens groups in a first direction (L, S, “the first lens segments L and the second lens segments S are alternately arranged. As a result, a first lens segment L is interposed between a pair of second lens segments S and, conversely, a second lens segment S is interposed between a pair of first lens segments,” as shown in figures 4 and 5 the alternating distribution of convex exit sections 35p and 36p occurs in the X direction, para [0056], Figs. 4 and 5), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the first axial meridian (as shown in figures 4 and 5 the alternating distribution occurs in the X direction which is perpendicular to the first axial meridian in the Y direction, Figs. 4 and 5), and wherein m and n are positive integers (L, S, 35p, 36p, each of the first micro-lens groups comprises one convex exit section 35p and each of the second micro-lens groups comprises one convex exit section 36p, one is a positive integer, Fig. 5).
As to claim 5, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the first clear aperture and the second clear aperture satisfy the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D1/D2| ≤ 10, wherein D1 is the first clear aperture, and wherein D2 is the second clear aperture (W1, W2, “the ratio of the width of the exit section 35p of the first lens segment L to that of the exit section 36p of the second lens segment S is made to be 9:1”, para [0058], Fig. 5).
As to claim 6, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein each of the third micro-lenses comprises a third axial meridian (35c, L, the longitudinal axis of the concave incident section 35c of the first lens segment L extends in the Y direction and is considered the third axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4), and wherein the third axial meridian is parallel to the first axial meridian (35p, 35c, L, the longitudinal axis of the first lens segment L extends in the Y direction, thus the first and third axial meridians are parallel, para [0053], Fig. 4).
As to claim 7, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein each of the third microlenses further comprises a third curvature radius (R2, “the radius of curvature R2 of the concave incident section 35c”, para [0059], Fig. 5), and wherein the first curvature radius and the third curvature radius satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |R3/R1| ≤ 10 (given the values that follow |R3/R1|=0.5, Fig. 5), wherein R1 is the first curvature radius (R1, “the radius of curvature R1 is 2 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5), and wherein R3 is the third curvature radius (R2, “radius of curvature R2 is 1 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5).
As to claim 8, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein each of the third microlenses comprises a third clear aperture (35c, as shown in figure 5 the concave incidence section 35c has a similar width to the convex exit section 36p width W2, para [0057], Fig. 5), and wherein the first clear aperture and the third clear aperture satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10, wherein D1 is the first clear aperture, and wherein D3 is the third clear aperture (35c, “the width of the exit section 35p from which the transmission light exits is larger than that of the incidence section 35c”, para [0057], Fig. 5).
Ono does not explicitly teach the lens wherein the first clear aperture and the third clear aperture satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10, however Ono teaches “the width of the exit section 35p from which the transmission light exits is larger than that of the incidence section 35c.” The third clear aperture is smaller than the first clear aperture and is greater than zero, thus the relationship |D3/D1| must fall within the range 0 < |D3/D1| < 1 which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of first and third clear aperture sizes or diameters such that 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0 < |D3/D1| < 1, since 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).
The instant application at paragraphs [0017] and [0062]-[0063] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0 < |D3/D1| < 1. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the first and third clear aperture sizes to have the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10 for the purposes of preventing disturbances to uniformity (para [0058]).
As to claim 10, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Ono does not teach the lens, wherein a first included angle is between the second slope area and the middle area, and wherein the first included angle is between the first slope area and the middle area.
Ono and Wippermann are related as microlens arrays.
However, Wippermann teaches a lens, wherein a first included angle is between the second slope area and the middle area, and wherein the first included angle is between the first slope area and the middle area (the convex curvature of the second surface is symmetric about its center, thus the included angle between the second slope area and the middle area is the included angle between the first slope and the middle area, Fig. 21g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono to have the first included angle between the second slope area and the middle area, and between the first slope area and the middle area of Wippermann, because doing so achieves homogenization of radiation (para [0008]).
As to claim 11, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the second optical structure further comprises a plurality of fourth micro-lenses that are cylindrical micro-lenses (S, 36c, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of second lens segments S and each second lens segment S has a concave incident section 36c, the concave incident sections 36c are considered the fourth micro-lenses, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein each of the fourth micro-lenses comprises a fourth axial meridian (S, 36c, the longitudinal axis of the concave incident section 36c of the second lens segment S extends in the Y direction and is considered the fourth axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4), a fourth curvature radius (R4, “the radius of curvature R4 of the concave incident section 36c”, para [0059], Fig. 5), and a fourth clear aperture (36c, as shown in figure 5 the concave incidence section 36c has a similar width to the convex exit section 35p width W1, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein each of the third micro-lenses comprises a third curvature radius (R2, “the radius of curvature R2 of the concave incident section 35c”, para [0059], Fig. 5) and a third clear aperture (35c, as shown in figure 5 the concave incidence section 35c has a similar width to the convex exit section 36p width W2, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the fourth axial meridian is parallel to the third axial meridian (L, S, the longitudinal axis of the first and second lens segments are parallel as indicated by the Y direction shown in figure 4, para [0053], Fig. 4), wherein either the third curvature radius is different from the fourth curvature radius (R2, R4, “radius of curvature R2 is 1 mm… radius of curvature R4 is 2 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5) or the third clear aperture is different from the fourth clear aperture (W1, W2, as shown in figure 5 the third clear aperture of 35c is smaller than the fourth clear aperture of 36c, Fig. 5).
Ono does not teach the lens wherein the second optical structure further comprises a plurality of fourth micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses.
Ono and Wippermann are related as microlens arrays.
However, Wippermann teaches a lens wherein the second optical structure further comprises a plurality of fourth micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses (as shown in figure 21g the convex surface comprises a plurality of convex micro-lenses, para [0080], Fig. 21g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the second optical structure including a plurality of fourth micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses of Wippermann, because doing so achieves homogenization of radiation (para [0008]).
As to claim 13, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the second optical structure comprises:
a plurality of third micro-lens groups comprising a p number of the third micro-lenses (L, 35c, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of first lens segments L, the concave incident sections 35c of the lens segments L are considered the third micro-lens groups, each group comprises one concave incident section 35c, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5); and
a plurality of fourth micro-lens groups comprising a q number of the fourth micro-lenses (S, 36c, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of second lens segments S, the concave incident sections 36c of the lens segments S are considered the fourth micro-lens groups, each group comprises one concave incident section 36c, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein the fourth microlens groups are alternately distributed between the third micro-lens groups in a second direction (L, S, “the first lens segments L and the second lens segments S are alternately arranged. As a result, a first lens segment L is interposed between a pair of second lens segments S and, conversely, a second lens segment S is interposed between a pair of first lens segments,” as shown in figures 4 and 5 the alternating distribution of concave incident sections 35c and 36c occurs in the X direction, para [0056], Figs. 4 and 5), wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the third axial meridian (as shown in figures 4 and 5 the alternating distribution occurs in the X direction which is perpendicular to the first axial meridian in the Y direction, Figs. 4 and 5) and wherein p and q are positive integers (L, S, 35c, 36c, each of the third micro-lens groups comprises one concave incident section 35c and each of the fourth micro-lens groups comprises one concave incident section 36c, one is a positive integer, Fig. 5).
As to claim 14, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the third curvature and the fourth curvature radius satisfy the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |R3/R4| ≤ 10 (given the values that follow |R3/R4|=0.5 mm), wherein R3 is the third curvature radius (5, R2, “radius of curvature R2 is 1 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5), and wherein R4 is the fourth curvature radius (R4, “radius of curvature R4 is 2 mm”, para [0060], Fig. 5).
As to claim 15, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the third clear aperture and the fourth clear aperture satisfy the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D3/D4| ≤10, wherein D3 is the third clear aperture, and wherein D4 is the fourth clear aperture (35c, 36c, “the width of the exit section 35p from which the transmission light exits is larger than that of the incidence section 35c,” as shown in figure 5 the fourth clear aperture is similar in width to the first clear aperture, para [0057], Fig. 5).
Ono does not explicitly teach the lens wherein the first clear aperture and the third clear aperture satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D3/D4| ≤ 10, however Ono teaches “the width of the exit section 35p from which the transmission light exits is larger than that of the incidence section 35c,” and the fourth clear aperture is similar to the first clear aperture. The third clear aperture is smaller than the fourth clear aperture and is greater than zero, thus the relationship |D3/D4| must fall within the range 0 < |D3/D4| < 1 which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ |D3/D4| ≤ 10.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of third and fourth clear aperture sizes or diameters such that 0.1 ≤ |D3/D4| ≤ 10, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0 < |D3/D4| < 1, since 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).
The instant application at paragraphs [0022] and [0070]-[0071] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0 < |D3/D4| < 1. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the third and fourth clear aperture sizes to have the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ |D3/D4| ≤ 10 for the purposes of preventing disturbances to uniformity (para [0058]).
As to claim 17, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Ono further teaches the lens, further comprising:
a first lens comprising the first surface (33b, the second cylindrical lens array 33b comprises the first surface as the top surface of the lens array 33b as shown in figure 4, para [0052], Fig. 4); and
a second lens comprising the second surface (33a, the first cylindrical lens array 33a comprises the second surface as the bottom surface of the lens array 33a as shown in figure 4, para [0052], Fig. 4), wherein the second surface is disposed opposite to the first surface (33b, 33a, as shown in figure 4 the second surface on the bottom of 33a is opposite the first surface on the top of 33b in the Z direction, Fig. 4).
As to claim 20, Ono teaches a lens (33b, cylindrical lens array 33b, para [0056], Fig. 5), comprising:
a first surface (33b, the first surface is the top surface of the lens array 33b as shown in figure 5, para [0056], Fig. 5) comprising a first optical structure (33b, the first surface is where the light transmitted through the lens exits, thus the top surface of 33b as shown in figure 5 is the first optical structure, para [0058], Fig. 5), wherein the first optical structure comprises:
a plurality of first micro-lenses that are cylindrical (L, 35p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of first lens segments L and each first lens segment L has a convex exit section 35p, the convex exit sections 35p are considered the first micro-lenses, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein each of the first microlenses includes a first axial meridian (35p, L, the longitudinal axis of the convex exit section 35p the first lens segment L extends in the Y direction and is considered the first axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4) and a first clear aperture (W1, the first lens segment L has a width W1 of the exit section 35p, para [0057], Fig. 5); and
a plurality of second micro-lenses that are cylindrical (S, 36p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of second lens segments S and each second lens segment S has a convex exit section 36p, the convex exit sections 36p are considered the second micro-lenses, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein each of the second micro-lenses includes a second axial meridian (S, 36p, the longitudinal axis of the convex exit section 36p of the second lens segment S extends in the Y direction and is considered the second axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4) and a second clear aperture (W2, the second lens segment S has a width W2 of the exit section 36p, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the second axial meridian is parallel to the first axial meridian (L, S, the longitudinal axis of the first and second lens segments are parallel as indicated by the Y direction shown in figure 4, para [0053], Fig. 4), wherein the first clear aperture and the second clear aperture satisfy the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D1/D2| ≤ 10, wherein D1 is the first clear aperture, and wherein D2 is the second clear aperture (W1, W2, “the ratio of the width of the exit section 35p of the first lens segment L to that of the exit section 36p of the second lens segment S is made to be 9:1”, para [0058], Fig. 5); and a second surface opposite the first surface (33b, the second surface is the bottom surface of the lens array 33b as shown in figure 5, thus opposite the first/top surface, para [0056], Fig. 5) and comprising a second optical structure (35c, 36c, the second surface is where the light is incident on the lens, thus the bottom surface of 33b as shown in figure 5 is the second optical structure, para [0058], Fig. 5).
Ono does not teach the lens of claim 6, wherein the second optical structure comprises a plurality of third micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses, and wherein the second surface is a convex surface and comprises; a middle area, wherein the third micro-lenses are located in the middle area; a first slope area located on a first side of the middle area; and a second slope area located on a second side of the middle area.
Ono and Wippermann are related as microlens arrays.
However, Wippermann teaches (Figs. 5, 16, and 21g) a lens (19, substrate 19, para [0057], Fig. 5), comprising:
a first surface comprising a first optical structure (7, microlens array 7, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the first optical structure comprises:
a plurality of micro-lenses that are cylindrical (1a to 1e, microlens array 1 has cylindrical lenses 1a to 1e, para [0068], Fig. 16), and
a second surface that is opposite the first surface and that comprises a second optical structure (8, microlens array 8, para [0057], Fig. 5), wherein the second optical structure comprises a plurality of third micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses (the arrangement of the microlens array on a curved surface, para [0080], Fig. 21g), wherein the second optical structure comprises a plurality of third micro-lenses that are convex cylindrical micro-lenses (the microlens array of the second optical structure are convex cylindrical micro-lenses, paras [0068] and [0080], Figs. 16 and 21g) and wherein the second surface is a convex surface (the curved surface of the solid body is a convex surface, Fig. 21g) and comprises:
a middle area, where the third micro-lenses are located in the middle area (shown in the annotated Fig. 21g below);
a first slope area located on a first side of the middle area (shown in the annotated Fig. 21g below); and
a second slope area located on a second side of the middle area (shown in the annotated Fig. 21g below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the second optical structure, the convex surface comprising a middle area, and the third micro-lenses are located in the middle area; a first slope area and a second slope area located on the sides of the middle area as of Wippermann, because doing so achieves homogenization of radiation (para [0008]).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 21, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein the first optical structure comprises:
a plurality of first micro-lens groups that each comprise an m number of the first microlenses (L, 35p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of first lens segments L, the convex exit sections 35p of the lens segments L are considered the first micro-lens groups, each group comprises one convex exit section 35p, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5); and
a plurality of second micro-lens groups that each comprise an n number of the second micro-lenses (S, 36p, cylindrical lens array 33b has a plurality of second lens segments S, the convex exit sections 36p of the lens segments S are considered the second micro-lens groups, each group comprises one convex exit section 36p, paras [0056]-[0058], Fig. 5), wherein the second micro-lens groups are alternately distributed between the first micro-lens groups in a first direction (L, S, “the first lens segments L and the second lens segments S are alternately arranged. As a result, a first lens segment L is interposed between a pair of second lens segments S and, conversely, a second lens segment S is interposed between a pair of first lens segments,” as shown in figures 4 and 5 the alternating distribution of convex exit sections 35p and 36p occurs in the X direction, para [0056], Figs. 4 and 5), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the first axial meridian (as shown in figures 4 and 5 the alternating distribution occurs in the X direction which is perpendicular to the first axial meridian in the Y direction, Figs. 4 and 5), and wherein m and n are positive integers (L, S, 35p, 36p, each of the first micro-lens groups comprises one convex exit section 35p and each of the second micro-lens groups comprises one convex exit section 36p, one is a positive integer, Fig. 5).
As to claim 22, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein each of the third micro-lenses comprises a third axial meridian (35c, L, the longitudinal axis of the concave incident section 35c of the first lens segment L extends in the Y direction and is considered the third axial meridian, para [0053], Fig. 4), and wherein the third axial meridian is parallel to the first axial meridian (35p, 35c, L, the longitudinal axis of the first lens segment L extends in the Y direction, thus the first and third axial meridians are parallel, para [0053], Fig. 4).
As to claim 23, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Ono further teaches the lens, wherein each of the third micro-lenses comprises a third clear aperture (35c, as shown in figure 5 the concave incidence section 35c has a similar width to the convex exit section 36p width W2, para [0057], Fig. 5), and wherein the first clear aperture satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10, wherein D1 is the first clear aperture, and wherein D3 is the third clear aperture (35c, “the width of the exit section 35p from which the transmission light exits is larger than that of the incidence section 35c”, para [0057], Fig. 5).
Ono does not explicitly teach the lens wherein the first clear aperture and the third clear aperture satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10, however Ono teaches “the width of the exit section 35p from which the transmission light exits is larger than that of the incidence section 35c.” The third clear aperture is smaller than the first clear aperture and is greater than zero, thus the relationship |D3/D1| must fall within the range 0 < |D3/D1| < 1 which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of first and third clear aperture sizes or diameters such that 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0 < |D3/D1| < 1, since 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).
The instant application at paragraphs [0017] and [0062]-[0063] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0 < |D3/D1| < 1. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the first and third clear aperture sizes to have the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ |D3/D1| ≤ 10 for the purposes of preventing disturbances to uniformity (para [0058]).
As to claim 25, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11.
Ono does not teach the lens, wherein an orthographic projection of the first micro-lenses on
the second surface overlaps with the third micro-lenses.
Ono and Wippermann are related as microlens arrays.
However, Wippermann teaches a lens, wherein an orthographic projection of the first micro-lenses on the second surface overlaps with the third micro-lenses (as seen in figure 21g the micro-lenses on the plano side and the convex side are symmetric from the center to the outside edges, thus the first micro-lenses in the middle region overlap the third micro-lenses, Fig. 21g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the orthographic projection of the first micro-lenses on the second surface overlaps with the third micro-lenses of Wippermann, because doing so achieves homogenization of radiation (para [0008]).
As to claim 26, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11.
Ono does not teach the lens, wherein an orthographic projection of the second micro-lenses on
the second surface overlaps with the fourth micro-lenses.
Ono and Wippermann are related as microlens arrays.
However, Wippermann teaches a lens, wherein an orthographic projection of the second micro-lenses on the second surface overlaps with the fourth micro-lenses (as seen in figure 21g the micro-lenses on the plano side and the convex side are symmetric from the center to the outside edges, thus the second micro-lenses in the outer edge region overlap the fourth micro-lenses, Fig. 21g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the orthographic projection of the second micro-lenses on the second surface overlaps with the fourth micro-lenses of Wippermann, because doing so achieves homogenization of radiation (para [0008]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., US 2008/0112057 A1 (of record) in view of Wippermann et al., US 2010/0033829 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wippermann), and further in view of Aruga, US 2020/0249552 A1 (of record).
As to claim 12, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11.
Ono does not teach the lens, wherein the plurality of third micro-lenses are at a middle location of the second surface, and wherein the plurality of fourth micro-lenses are on both sides of the third micro-lenses.
Ono and Aruga are related as lens arrays.
However, Aruga teaches a lens (10H, “lens array 10H”, para [0097], Fig. 13B) wherein the plurality of third micro-lenses are at a middle location of the second surface (11b2, output lenses 11b2 are located in the middle of the output-lens collective body 11B, para [0097], Fig. 13B), and wherein the plurality of fourth micro-lenses are symmetrically distributed on two sides of the third micro-lenses (11b1, output lenses 11b1 are located on both sides of the output lenses 11b2, para [0097], Fig. 13B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the plurality of third micro-lenses at a middle location of the second surface, and the plurality of fourth micro-lenses on both sides of the third micro-lenses as of Aruga, because a large level difference is not formed, even when a lens configuration having an uneven irradiation distribution is employed (para [0008]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., US 2008/0112057 A1 (of record) in view of Wippermann et al., US 2010/0033829 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wippermann), and further in view of Kishikawa et al., US 2017/0314764 A1 (of record).
As to claim 16, Ono in view of Wippermann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11.
Ono does not teach the lens of claim 11, wherein the lens satisfies at least one of the following relationships: 0.3 ≤ N X R1 / [L1 X (N -1)] and 0.3 ≤ N X R2 / [L2 X (N -1)], wherein N is a refractive index of the lens, wherein L1 is a first thickness of the lens at each of the first micro-lenses, and wherein L2 is a second thickness of the lens at each of the second micro-lenses.
Ono and Kishikawa are related as cylindrical lens arrays.
However, Kishikawa teaches a lens (10, cylindrical lens portion 10, para [0051], Fig. 3A), wherein the lens satisfies at least one of the following relationships: 0.3 ≤ N X R1 / [L1 X (N -1)] (given the values that follow N X R1 / [L1 X (N -1)] = 1.8) and 0.3 ≤ N X R2 / [L2 X (N -1)] (given the values that follow N X R2 / [L2 X (N -1)] = 1.3), wherein N is a refractive index of the lens (10, examples of a material for the light-transmissive member 3 include glass and silicone resin, the average refractive index of these materials is N=1.5, para [0053], Fig. 3A), wherein L1 is a first thickness of the lens at each of the first micro-lenses (h3, the height of the first cylindrical lenses 11B is h3=2.5mm, para [0051], Fig. 3A), and wherein L2 is a second thickness of the lens at each of the second micro-lenses (h1, the height of the second cylindrical lenses 12A is h1=3.5mm, para [0051], Fig. 3A), R1 is the curvature radius of the first micro lens (b3, the diameter of each of the first cylindrical lens 11B is b3=3.0mm, thus the radius is R1 is 1.5mm, para [0051], Fig. 3A), and R2 is the curvature radius of the second micro lens (b1, the diameter of each of the second cylindrical lens 12A is b1=3.0mm, thus the radius is R2 is 1.5mm, para [0051], Fig. 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Ono with the lens satisfying at least one of the following relationships: 0.3 ≤ N X R1 / [L1 X (N -1)] and 0.3 ≤ N X R2 / [L2 X (N -1)], of Kishikawa, because doing so realizes a desired light distribution (para [0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Powell et al. (US 2004/0156130 A1) teaches an optical sheet with microlens arrays formed on its opposite front and back surfaces that can take the form of a curved or non-planar light homogenizing optical sheet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
07/31/2026
Prosecution Insights