DETAILED ACTION
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 2, 8-16 and 18 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the limitation ‘positively associated with a Lagrangian invariant’ is indefinite. Claim 1 and 17 claim a Lagrangian invariant of the laser beam in the fast axis direction and a Lagrangian invariant of the laser beam in the slow axis direction. The claim is indefinite inasmuch as it is unclear whether claims 2 refer to one of these two Lagrangian invariants or whether it refers to a new Lagrangain invariant. Paragraph 0081 of the USPGPub describes also refers to the Lagrangian invariant but does not specify which one it refers to. For the purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as requiring the etendue of the laser spot increases after passing through the fly-eye lens component (see paragraph 0081 of the USPGPub of this application).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation ‘wherein a number of the red laser chips is greater than a number of the green laser chips and is greater than a number of the green laser chips is indefinite inasmuch as the second instance of the green laser chips appears to refer to the same green laser chips in the immediately preceding phrase. Examiner believes that the second instance of the green laser chips is not supposed to be a different group of green laser chips but instead is intended to be the blue laser chips, which according to claim 8 are arranged in the array also. For the purpose examination this limitation will be interpreted as ‘a number of the red laser chips is greater than a number of the green laser chips and is greater than a number of the blue laser chips’.
Claims 9-16 are rejected inasmuch as they depend from claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, 17 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 and 17, prior art (CN113960868 A) teaches a laser device configured to emit different color laser light, wherein the laser device comprises at least two different colors of laser chips, the laser chips being arranged in a line and fast axis directions of the laser light emitted from the laser chips being parallel to each other (figures 2-3); and
A fly-eye lens (400, figure 4) component disposed in a light path of the laser device, wherein the fly-eye lens component comprises a plurality of microlenses arranged in an array, and each of the microlenses extends along a dimensional direction and a second dimensional direction, the second dimensional direction being perpendicular to the first dimensional direction.
Prior art does not teach the NA value in the slow axis direction is less than an NA value of at least one of the microlenses in the first dimensional direction and the NA value in the slow axis direction is less than an NA value of at least one of the microlenses in the second dimensional direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights