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 Request for Reconsideration
The request for reconsideration filed 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin (CN 109027798) (refer to IDS filed 12/19/2024).
Claim 1: Jin discloses an optical display device arranged to create a perception of a sky scene in output light, the device comprising: a collimated light generation system (1-7, fig. 1) comprising: a collimated light source (1, 2, fig. 1) to produce a collimated light beam (light passed from 2, fig. 1); a first optical expansion system (3, fig. 1), and; a second optical expansion system (4, 5, fig. 1);a diffuse light generation system (6, fig. 3), and; an output aperture (aperture of 7, fig. 1) through which the output light is projected, the diffuse light generation system (6) arranged to generate a diffuse skylight component in the output light, and the collimated light generation system (1-7) arranged to generate a collimated sunlight component in the output light, wherein the first optical expansion system is arranged to expand the collimated light beam in a first expanded direction (see fig. 1) over the output aperture (7) as the collimated sunlight component, and the second optical expansion system (4, 5) is arranged to separately and subsequently expand the collimated light beam in a second expanded direction (see fig. 1) over the output aperture (7) as the collimated sunlight component, and the second expanded direction is different to the first expanded direction (see fig. 1).
Claim 2: Jin discloses the first optical expansion system (3) is separate from and upstream of the second optical expansion system (4, 5) and the first optical expansion system (3) does not expand the collimated light beam in the second direction (see fig. 1) and/or the second optical expansion system (4, 5) does not expand the collimated light beam in the first expanded direction (light expanded downward not upward to 4 like element 3).
Claim 3: Jin discloses the first and second optical expansion system (3, 4, 5) are arranged for uniform expansion (see fig. 1) and/or consist of linear expansion of the collimated light in the associated expansion directions (see fig. 1) (Note: it is implied that the first and second optical expansion 3, 4, 5 of Jin is capable for uniform expansion and/or linear expansion of the collimated light since the claims do not impart additional structural limitations).
Claim 6: Jin discloses the collimated light beam (light passed from 2, fig. 1) is expanded in at least one of said directions to the extent of the output aperture (7) in said direction (see fig. 1).
Claim 9: Jin discloses the first optical expansion system (3) comprises: a prism sheet (beam splitter 3 composed of prism facet, see page 4 second paragraph) arranged inclined to a direction of propagation of the collimated light beam (see fig. 1), and to expand the collimated light beam to a first expanded collimated light beam (see fig. 1).
Claim 10: Jin discloses the prism sheet (3) is arranged for transmission of the collimated light beam (light passed from 2) therethrough (see fig. 1).
Claim 18: Jin discloses a kit of parts (see fig. 1-2) for assembly into the optical display device of claim 1.
Claim 19: Jin discloses a method of creating a perception of a sky scene comprising: expanding light (light from 2, fig. 1) from a collimated light beam (beam passed from 2, fig. 1) in a first direction (see fig. 1) when viewed at an output aperture (7, fig. 1);expanding subsequently said light from the collimated light beam (light from 2) in a different second direction (direction to 4, fig. 1) when viewed at the output aperture (7), and; outputting the expanded collimated light as a collimated sunlight component (see fig. 1).
Claim 20: Jin discloses transmitting light to a diffuse light generation system (5, 6, fig. 11) to generate a skylight component, and; outputting diffuse light as a skylight component (see fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (CN 109027798).
Claim 4: Jin is silent about an average angle of divergence of the light expanded collimated light beam is within 5% or 10% of an angle of divergence of the collimated light beam.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of the beamsplitter of Jin such that an average angle of divergence of the light expanded collimated light beam is within 5% or 10% of an angle of divergence of the collimated light beam to adjust the light output direction of the collimated light, since it has been held that the configuration of the beam splitter was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 5: Jin is silent about the collimated light beam is expanded in both directions by at least 3 or 5 times.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of the beamsplitter of Jin such that an average angle of divergence of the light expanded collimated light beam is within 5% or 10% of an angle of divergence of the collimated light beam to adjust the light output size of the collimated light, since it has been held that the configuration of the beam splitter was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (CN 109027798) in view of Flynn (US 11,307,334).
Claim 7: Jin fails to teach the first and second expansion direction are orthogonal to each other over the output aperture.
Flynn teaches the first and second expansion direction are orthogonal to each other over the output aperture ( prism sheet 40 is also capable of bending slightly, such as in a plane perpendicular, see Col. 9 lines 42-47).
Therefore, in view of Flynn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the position of the beam splitter such that the first and second expansion direction are orthogonal to each other over the output aperture, in order to adjust the light output distribution to a desired size.
Claim 11: Jin fails to teach the prism sheet is arranged inclined to the inclined aperture.
Flynn teaches the prism sheet (334, fig. 9) is arranged inclined to the inclined aperture (see fig. 9)
Therefore, in view of Flynn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the angle of the prism sheet of Jin where the prism sheet is arranged inclined to the inclined aperture, in order to adjust the light output distribution to a desired size.
Claim 12: Jin fails to teach the second optical expansion system comprises: a second prism sheet arranged inclined to a direction of propagation of the first expanded collimated light beam, and to expand the first collimated light beam to a second expanded collimated light beam.
Flynn teaches a second optical expansion system comprises: a second prism sheet (334, fig. 9) arranged inclined to a direction of propagation of the first expanded collimated light beam (see fig. 9), and to expand the first collimated light beam to a second expanded collimated light beam (see fig. 9).
Therefore, in view of Flynn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second prism sheet to the second optical expansion system where the second prism sheet arranged inclined to a direction of propagation of the first expanded collimated light beam, and to expand the first collimated light beam to a second expanded collimated light beam, in order to adjust the light output distribution to a desired size.
Claim 13: Jin teaches the prism sheet (3, fig. 1) is arranged over the output aperture (7) and to project the second expanded collimated light beam through the output aperture as the collimated sunlight component (see fig. 1).
However, Jin fails to teach a second prism sheet.
Flynn teaches a second prism sheet (334, fig. 9).
Therefore, in view of Flynn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second prism sheet to the second optical expansion system where the second prism sheet is arranged over the output aperture and to project the second expanded collimated light beam through the output aperture as the collimated sunlight component, in order to adjust the light output distribution to a desired size.
Claim 14: Jin teaches the prism sheet (3, fig. 1) is arranged planar to the output aperture (7, fig. 1).
However, Jin fails to teach a second prism sheet.
Flynn teaches a second prism sheet (334, fig. 9).
Therefore, in view of Flynn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second prism sheet to the second optical expansion system where the second prism sheet is arranged planar to the output aperture, in order to adjust the light output distribution to a desired size.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (CN 109027798) in view of Di Trapani et al. (US 2017/0016594) (hereinafter Di Trapani).
Claim 15: Jin teaches the collimated light source (1, 2, fig. 1) comprises a light source (1, fig. 1) and a collimating system (2, fig. 1) to receive light from the light source (1) and produce the collimated light beam therefrom (see fig. 1).
However, Jin fails to teach the collimation system is an off-axis parabolic reflector.
Di Trapani teaches a collimation system is an off-axis parabolic reflector (610, fig. 1B).
Therefore, in view of Di Trapani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the collimation lens of Jin with an off-axis parabolic reflector, in order to provide another means of collimating the light source light since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would be routine to one with ordinary skill in the art. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim 16: Jin teaches the collimated light source (1, 2) includes a coupling system (2, fig. 1) to project light from the light source (1) to the collimating system (1-7), wherein the coupling system (2) includes one or more of a prism, a light guide, a lens (fresnel lens, see page 4 first paragraph).
Claim 17: Jin teaches collimated light source (1-2) is arranged not to interfere with light projected from the collimating system (1-7) and an the/or the prism sheet (3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that expansion in an optical context necessitates an increase in the cross-sectional width or diameter of the beam. Thus, this limitation of claim 1 requires that the collimated light beam is expanded over the output aperture” and , the examiner notes that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an increase in the cross-sectional width or diameter of the beam”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument that “One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that expansion in an optical context necessitates an increase in the cross-sectional width or diameter of the beam. Thus, this limitation of claim 1 requires that the collimated light beam is expanded over the output aperture” and “The beam splitter 3 in Jin is a redirecting or steering element not an expansion element”, the examiner notes that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an increase in the cross-sectional width or diameter of the beam” and “an expansion element”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the beam splitter 3 of Jin is a beam splitter with prism facets which is the same as the prism sheet in claim 9. Since the first optical expansion system of Jin and claim 9 are the same, the beam splitter of Jin is capable of performing light expansion as recited in claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “The Office argues that the mirror 4 in Jin is equivalent to the required second optical expansion system. However, mirror 4 of Jin does not form part of a collimated light system for the sunlight component. Instead, mirror 4 forms part of the diffuse light generation system, since it redirects light away from the direct sunlight path to be processed by the diffuser 5 and Rayleigh scattering portion”, the examiner notes that the combination of the mirror 4 with the scattering plate 5 is a part of the collimated light system since it is a part of the light produced by the collimator 2.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Applicant's claimed invention requires "subsequent expansion" of the sunlight component. In Jin, the direct sunlight component (transmitted through splitter 3) never encounters a second expansion system. Conversely, the light reflected toward mirror 4 is utilized solely for generating diffuse skylight. Thus, Jin fails to disclose Feature B's second expansion system that acts upon the already expanded collimated sunlight component”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the collimated light from 2 is split by the beam splitter 3 and then further diffused by scattering light plate 5. It is noted that this portion of the collimated light beam encounters the second expansion system.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “any alleged expansion direction in Jin is restricted to a single plane (across the page). Jin lacks any teaching of a second, non-collinear expansion direction (e.g., into the page) that would be necessary to fill a two-dimensional rectangular aperture”, the examiner notes the claim does not recite “a second, non-collinear expansion direction” and it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a second, non-collinear expansion direction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest the output aperture extends in a longitudinal and lateral direction, wherein the first direction is aligned to the lateral direction and the second direction is aligned to the longitudinal direction with respect to claim(s) 8, as specifically called for in the claimed combinations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (CN 113237037) discloses a similar system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875