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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed April 29, 2026. Claim 2 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 4-6 of the Remarks, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, applicant argues that Osawa et al. fails to disclose applicant’s claimed condenser. However, as set forth below the lens 65 of Osawa may be used as a condensing lens, as it focuses the light on element 2, in Figure 17a,b. Applicant further argues that the previously cited references fail to disclose “the line light source generated by the line light source generator being a virtual image”. However, as set forth below, the limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Osawa et al. satisfies the structural limitations of the line light source generator and thus may satisfy the functional limitation.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (WO 2016/124281).
In regard to claim 1, Osawa discloses a narrow beam generation device 11 (denoted “illumination optical system”, see e.g. page 16, fourth full paragraph) comprising (see e.g. Figure 17a,b):
a line light source generator (see e.g. annotated Figure 17b and page 16, fourth full paragraph where the line light source includes light from optical fiber 13, collimator lens 14, and axicon lens 69) comprising a light source (i.e. light from optical fiber 13, see e.g. annotated Figure 17b and page 16, fourth full paragraph), a collimator optical system 14 (denoted “collimator lens”, see e.g. annotated Figure 17b and page 16, fourth full paragraph), and an optical axicon 69 (denoted “axicon lens”, see e.g. annotated Figure 17b and page 16, fourth full paragraph); and
a beam shaper configured (i.e. comprising at least condenser 65a, see e.g. Figures 17a,b) to shape a beam emitted from a line light source (see e.g. page 16, fourth full paragraph and annotated Figure 17 b and note the line light source is generated by elements including light from optical fiber 13, collimator lens 14, and axicon lens 69),
the beam shaper comprising a condenser 65 (see e.g. Figures 17a,b and page 16, fourth full paragraph),
the line light source generated by the line light source generator being a virtual image (Note that this limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Osawa et al. satisfies the structural limitations of the line light source generator and thus may satisfy the functional limitation),
the line light source (i.e. generated by elements including light from fiber l3 and elements 14, 69) being arranged on an optical axis AX1 (see e.g. Figure 17a-b) of the condenser 65 (see e.g. Figure 17a-b).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Osawa fails to disclose
the line light source having a center position on the optical axis arranged at a position farther from the condenser than a focal position of the condenser.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the line light source having a center position on the optical axis arranged at a position farther from the condenser than a focal position of the condenser, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Osawa with the line light source having a center position on the optical axis arranged at a position farther from the condenser than a focal position of the condenser.
Selecting the position of the line light source outside of the focal point of the condenser would prevent unwanted divergence of the light generated by the line light source.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (WO 2016/124281) in view of Gross et al. (“Handbook of Optical Systems, pages 377-278, 2007).
In regard to claim 3, Osawa discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the narrow beam generation device 11 comprises:
wherein the optical axicon 69 (denoted “axicon lens”, see e.g. annotated Figure 17b and page 16, fourth full paragraph )is a lens 69 having an axicon surface (see e.g. page 16, fourth full paragraph).
Osawa fails to disclose
wherein the condenser is a lens having an aspheric surface, and wherein the lens having the axicon surface and the lens having the aspherical surface are integrated.
However, Gross et al. discloses making lens surfaces aspheric in order to optimize an optical system (see e.g. page 377, items 9 and 10).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize it would have been obvious to use a configuration in which the lens having the axicon surface and the lens having the aspherical surface are integrated, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965))
Given the teachings of Gross et al., 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 device of Osawa with wherein the condenser is a lens having an aspheric surface, and wherein the lens having the axicon surface and the lens having the aspherical surface are integrated.
Providing an aspheric surface to the lens prevents unwanted aberration and other detrimental phenomena. Further, integrating the lens into one structure would prevent the lens from becoming displaced laterally which could cause a deterioration of the optical system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (WO 2016/124281) in view of Kumkar et al. (US 2017/0276951 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Osawa discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but
fails to disclose
wherein the optical axicon is an axicon mirror, and
wherein the condenser comprises a parabolic mirror.
However, Kumkar et al. discloses
wherein the optical axicon is an axicon mirror 131c, and (see e.g. paragraphs [0157]-[0158] and Figure 11b),
wherein the condenser comprises a parabolic mirror (see e.g. paragraph [0158]).
Given the teachings of Kumkar et al., 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 device of Osawa with wherein the optical axicon is an axicon mirror, and wherein the condenser comprises a parabolic mirror.
Providing the reflective elements would allow the beam shaping element to use reflective configuration.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (WO 2016/124281) in view of Park et al. (US 2007/0081214 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Osawa discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the collimator optical system emits a plurality of collimated light of different wavelengths.
However, Park et al. discloses
wherein the collimator optical system emits a plurality of collimated light of different wavelengths (see e.g. paragraph [0029] for light sources of different wavelength, 111, 115, 118 and collimation lenses 114, 116, 119, correspond to the light sources).
Given the teachings of Park et al., 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 device of Osawa with wherein the collimator optical system emits a plurality of collimated light of different wavelengths.
Choosing the wavelength or wavelengths of the system allows the system to be customized to a particular excitation wavelength.
In regard to claim 6, Osawa discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the collimator optical system comprises a plurality of collimator lenses on which light emitted from a plurality of light sources is incident, and
wherein the narrow beam generation device comprises an optical axicon on which the plurality of collimated light of different wavelengths emitted from the plurality of collimator lenses is incident.
Osawa does disclose collimated light incident on an optical axicon 69 (denoted “axicon lens”, see e.g. annotated Figure 17b and page 16, fourth full paragraph).
Further, Park et al. discloses
wherein the collimator optical system comprises a plurality of collimator lenses on which light emitted from a plurality of light sources is incident (see e.g. paragraph [0029] for light sources of different wavelength, 111, 115, 118 and collimation lenses 114, 116, 119, correspond to the light sources).
Given the teachings of Park et al., 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 device of Osawa with wherein the collimator optical system comprises a plurality of collimator lenses on which light emitted from a plurality of light sources is incident, and wherein the narrow beam generation device comprises an optical axicon on which the plurality of collimated light of different wavelengths emitted from the plurality of collimator lenses is incident.
Incorporation of the plurality of light sources and collimating lenses into the device of Osawa would allow the device to utilize multiple wavelengths, which has the advantage of being used in more applications requiring various wavelengths.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (WO 2016/124281) in view of Mamada et al. (WO 2019/193918).
In regard to claim 7, Osawa discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the beam shaper comprises an aperture.
However, Mamada et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 18):
wherein the beam shaper comprises an aperture 26 (denoted “plate-shaped shield”, see e.g. page 22, second full paragraph).
Given the teachings of Mamada et al., 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 device of Osawa with wherein the beam shaper comprises an aperture.
Providing the aperture allows unwanted stray light to be blocked outside the region of the rings of light generated by axicon lens.
Conclusion
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights