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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadotani (US 11, 644, 738 B2) in view of Mathis (United States Patent Application Publication 20030053225 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kadotani discloses an afocal optical element (see 52 in fig.3), adapted to reduce a beam diameter of a light beam and comprising an object-side surface facing an object-side through which the light beam passes (see the rear side of 521) and an image-side surface facing an image-side through which the light beam passes (see the front side of 522 facing 54), wherein the object-side surface is convex (see the convex side of 521), the image-side surface is concave (see the concave side of 522), but does not disclose the afocal optical element has only one lens element and wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface.
Mathis discloses an afocal optical element (see fig.3), adapted to reduce a beam diameter of a light beam (see the operation in fig.3) and comprising an object-side surface (see 114 side in fig.3) facing an object-side through which the light beam passes and an front-side surface facing an front-side through which the light beam passes (see 128 side in fig.3), wherein the rear-side surface is convex (see the shape of the surface of 102), the front-side surface is concave (see the shape of the exit surface of 104), and the afocal optical element (see the single lens element formed by bonding 102 and 104 of fig.3) has only one lens element (see. Para. [0005]: the afocal lens system contains no airgap.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadotani with the teaching of Mathis so that the afocal optical element has only one lens element to reduce the size of the afocal system.
Kadotani in view of Mathis does not disclose wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Kadotani in view of Mathis so that the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 11, Kadotani discloses a projection device (see fig.1), comprising: a lighting system (41 in fig.2), adapted to provide a lighting beam, the lighting system comprising: a light source module (see 41), providing a light beam; and discloses an afocal optical element (see 52 in fig.3), adapted to reduce a beam diameter of a light beam and comprising an object-side surface facing an object-side through which the light beam passes (see the rear side of 521) and an image-side surface facing an image-side through which the light beam passes (see the front side of 522 facing 54), wherein the object-side surface is convex (see the convex side of 521), the image-side surface is concave (see the concave side of 522), a light valve (44 RGB), disposed on a transmission path of the lighting beam to convert the lighting beam into an image beam; and a projection lens (46 in fig.1), disposed on a transmission path of the image beam and adapted to project the image beam out of the projection device, but does not disclose the afocal optical element has only one lens element and does not disclose the afocal optical element has only one lens element and wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface.
Mathis discloses an afocal optical element (see fig.3), adapted to reduce a beam diameter of a light beam (see the operation in fig.3) and comprising an object-side surface (see 114 side in fig.3) facing an object-side through which the light beam passes and an front-side surface facing an front-side through which the light beam passes (see 128 side in fig.3), wherein the rear-side surface is convex (see the shape of the surface of 102), the front-side surface is concave (see the shape of the exit surface of 104), and the afocal optical element (see the lens element of fig.3) has only one lens element (see. Para. [0005]: the afocal lens system contains no airgap.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadotani with the teaching of Mathis so that the afocal optical element has only one lens element to reduce the size of the afocal system.
Kadotani in view of Mathis does not disclose wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Kadotani in view of Mathis so that the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadotani (US 11, 644, 738 B2) in view of Mathis (United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0053225 A1) and Raymond (United States Patent Publication 3,094,580).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Kadotani in view of Mathis discloses the afocal optical element according to claims 1 and 11, Kadotani does not disclose the afocal optical element is a spherical lens.
Raymond discloses an afocal optical element (see fig.1, 1) and comprising an object-side surface (see d1 in fig.1) facing an object-side through which the light beam passes and an front-side surface facing an front-side through which the light beam passes (see d2 in fig.1), wherein the rear-side surface is convex (see the shape of the surface of d1), the front-side surface is concave (see d2), and the afocal optical element (see the lens element of fig.1, 1) has only one lens element, wherein the afocal optical element is a spherical lens (see element 1, col.1, lines 30-35: the first one thereof comprising two concentric spherical faces and back surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kadotani in view of Mathis with the teaching of Raymond so that the afocal optical element has only one lens element wherein the afocal optical element is a spherical lens to simplify manufacture and reduce size and cost of the projection system.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Kadotani in view of Mathis discloses the afocal optical element and projection device according to claims 1 and 11 but does not disclose wherein a material of the afocal optical element is glass.
Raymond discloses an afocal optical element (see fig.1, 1) wherein the material of the afocal optical element is glass (col.2, lines 50-55: “the basic indexes (for helium line) of the glasses making up the afocal system elements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kadotani in view of Mathis with the teaching of Raymond so that a material of the afocal optical element is glass to enhance clarity of the light source.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9 ,11, 12, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0259285 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Sawai discloses an afocal optical element (6B in fig.2A), adapted to reduce a beam diameter of a light beam (see para.[0050]: “The cylindrical lens 6B is an afocal system so arranged as to reduce a beam width of illumination light in a long direction of its beam cross section to thereby reduce flatness of the beam cross section (i.e., bring flattening closer to zero)”) and comprising an object-side surface facing an object-side through which the light beam passes (see the side facing 3RGB) and an image-side surface (see the side facing 7B) facing an image-side through which the light beam passes, wherein the object-side surface is convex (see the convex side of 6B), the image-side surface is concave (see the concave side of cylindrical lens 6B), and the afocal optical element (6B) has only one lens element (see the singular element of 6B) but does not disclose wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Sawai so that the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2, Sawai discloses the afocal optical element according to claim 1, wherein the afocal optical element is a meniscus lens (see the meniscus cylindrical lens of 2A).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Sawai discloses the afocal optical element and projection device according to claims 1 and 11, wherein a refractive index of the afocal optical element is greater than or equal to 1.70 and less than or equal to 1.90.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Sawai so that a refractive index of the afocal optical element is greater than or equal to 1.70 and less than or equal to 1.90, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Sawai discloses the afocal optical element and projection device according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤D2/D1<1, wherein D2 is a beam diameter of the light beam after passing through the afocal optical element, and D1 is the beam diameter of the light beam before passing through the afocal optical element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Sawai so that the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤D2/D1<1, wherein D2 is a beam diameter of the light beam after passing through the afocal optical element, and D1 is the beam diameter of the light beam before passing through the afocal optical element, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claims 8, 9 and 18, Sawai discloses the afocal optical element and projection device according to claims 1 and 11, wherein a radius of curvature of the object-side surface is greater than or equal to 4.1 and less than or equal to 5.2, and a radius of curvature of the image-side surface is greater than or equal to 2.8 and less than or equal to 3.9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Sawai so that a radius of curvature of the object-side surface is greater than or equal to 4.1 and less than or equal to 5.2, and a radius of curvature of the image-side surface is greater than or equal to 2.8 and less than or equal to 3.9, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 11, Sawai discloses a projection device (see 2A), comprising: a lighting system (see 5RGB in fig.2A and 6B), adapted to provide a lighting beam, the lighting system comprising: a light source module (see 5RGB in fig.2A), providing a light beam; and an afocal optical element (6B), disposed on a transmission path of the light beam and adapted to reduce a beam diameter of the light beam (see para.[0050]: “The cylindrical lens 6B is an afocal system so arranged as to reduce a beam width of illumination light in a long direction of its beam cross section to thereby reduce flatness of the beam cross section (i.e., bring flattening closer to zero)”), wherein the afocal optical element (see 6B) comprises an object-side surface facing an object-side through which the light beam passes (see the side facing 3RGB) and an image-side surface facing an image-side through which the light beam passes (see 7B in fig.2A), and the object-side surface is convex (see the convex side of fig.2A), the image-side surface is concave (see the concave side of fig.2A), and the afocal optical element (6B) has only one lens element (see 6B), a light valve (10), disposed on a transmission path of the lighting beam to convert the lighting beam into an image beam; and a projection lens (12 in fig.2A), disposed on a transmission path of the image beam and adapted to project the image beam out of the projection device (see the operation of 12 in fig.2A), but does not disclose wherein the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal optical element of Sawai so that the afocal optical element satisfies the following conditional formula: 0.5≤R2/R1<1, wherein R2 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface, since it would predictably facilitate control of the beam shape and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12, Sawai discloses the projection device according to claim 11, wherein the afocal optical element is a meniscus lens (see the meniscus cylindrical lens of 2A).
With respect to claim 20, Sawai discloses the projection device according to claim 11, Sawai discloses wherein the light source module comprises a plurality of laser light-emitters respectively providing a plurality of sub-light beams to form the light beam, and the laser light-emitters are arranged in an array arrangement (see para.[0019]: “The illumination optical system IL1 is composed of: laser array light sources 1R, 1G, and 1B; reflecting mirrors 3R, 3G, and 3B”).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0259285 A1) and Noemie (CN 1950728 A).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Sawai discloses the afocal optical element and projection device according to claims 1 and 11 but does not disclose wherein a material of the afocal optical element is glass.
Noemie discloses the afocal lens comprises fused silica, optical glass, and/or colored filter glass (see para.31 under summary of invention: the substrate is an optical glass or an optical lens, which is selected from the group consisting of glasses, goggles, and a sighting optical system. In a preferred embodiment, the substrate is spectacles, which may be an afocal lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sawai with the teaching of Noemie so that a material of the afocal optical element is glass to reduce manufacturing cost by using a common lens material.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0259285 A1) in view of Akiyama (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0168381 A1).
With respect to claims 10 and 19, Sawai discloses the afocal optical element and projection device according to claims 1 and 11 but does not explicitly wherein the light beam is a parallel light before entering the afocal optical element, and the light beam coming from the afocal optical element is also a parallel light.
Akiyama discloses the light beam is a parallel light (see the effect of collimating lenses 22) before entering the afocal optical system (see 23 in fig.2), and the light beam coming from the afocal optical element is also a parallel light (see the combined effect of 23 in fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sawai with the teaching of Akiyama so that the light beam is a parallel light before entering the afocal optical element, and the light beam coming from the afocal optical element is also a parallel light to enhance the flexibility of the optical chain and facilitate manufacture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 11, rejected over Sawai and Kadotani in view of Mathis, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the amended claim features, including the curvature ratio limitation incorporated into amended claims 1 and 11 from former claims 6 and 16, respectively, since the curvature ratio (R2/R1) in an afocal optical element is not an independently adjustable parameter but is highly coupled with other optical parameters such as beam diameter ratio (D2/D1), beam divergence, wavefront quality, and system-level optical matching. Accordingly, the claimed numerical condition is not a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, and the cited combination does not provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to arrive at the presently claimed integrated optical design relationship.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the curvature ratio (R2/R1) in an afocal optical element is highly coupled with other optical parameters such as beam diameter ratio (D2/D1), beam divergence, wavefront quality, and system-level optical matching, curvature ratio is a result-effective variable and thus optimizable. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would recognize that variations in the curvature ratio affect optical parameters, which include beam divergence and convergence, and would optimize a curvature ratio accordingly. Furthermore, obviousness of ranges does not require the adjustable parameters to be uncoupled from other optical parameters. Therefore, claim 1 and 11 are obvious over Kadotani in view of Mathis and over Sawai.
.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 JERRY L. BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5711. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:00 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/JERRY L BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights