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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated October 8th, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wavelengths at least one input port” in line 3 should read “wavelengths at the at least one input port”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, these claims recite two instances of “an output port” and thus it is unclear how many output ports are required to meet this limitation as one could interpret this to mean there are either 1 or 2 output ports reasonably. Accordingly for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “an output port” for the first instance and then “the output port” for the second instance.
Regarding claims 2-11, 13, and 14, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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) 1-3, 6, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbers et al. (US 2009/0103293 A1) in view of Ichihara (US 4,851,978).
Regarding claim 1, Harbers teaches an illumination source comprising:
a light integrating device for coupling to at least one optical structure at an output port (See, e.g., Figs. 3, 4, and 10A-D which shows device 100 which is a light integrating device coupled to an optical structure in the form of reflector 140 at an output port corresponding to the end of mixing cavity 101 in Figs. 3-4, also shown as output port 520 in Figs. 10A-D. Note the specific light integrating device embodiment cited corresponds to the configuration of Figs. 10A-D), where the light integrating device includes at least one input port (See, e.g., the underside of lens 522 in Figs. 10A-D which the light is input into); and
at least one source provides light input into the at least one input port (See, e.g., LEDs 102 in Fig. 2), wherein
the light integrating device homogenizes the light input from the at least one source at an output port of the light integrating device (See, e.g., Figs. 3 and 4 which show the structure of the device, note that with the LED light passing the reflecting walls/cavity this is necessarily the case as the output illumination will be a uniform illumination spot).
Harbers lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the at least one source is a laser source couple to a vibration source and emits speckle-free laser illumination at an output port of the light integrating device.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Ichihara teaches the use of a laser source coupled to a vibration source configured to emit speckle-free illumination (See, e.g., laser light source 30 in Fig. 1, which outputs a vibrated laser beam per the abstract, and is configured to emit speckle-free illumination per column 3 lines 26-34).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Harbers to include a laser light source as taught by Ichihara, for the purpose of having more wavelengths to work with and more optionality for a user in the form of choosing between LEDs and lasers for the light source instead of being restricted to just one.
Regarding claim 2, Harbers in view of Ichihara teaches the device set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the at least one input port and the output port are positioned not to face each other on the at least one internal surface of the light integrating device (Note the claim language is extremely broad here and one can cite the input port as “facing” the light source(s) as modified above, in Fig. 10A-D & the output port as “facing” the reflector in Figs. 3-4 and in this situation they are “positioned not to face each other on the at least one internal surface” as they would be facing opposite directions).
Regarding claim 3, Harbers in view of Ichihara teaches the device set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the light integrating device comprises an internal shape nominally conical (See, e.g., Fig. 4 which shows this).
Regarding claim 6, Harbers in view of Ichihara teaches the device set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the internal surface of the light integrating device comprises a diffused reflective material (See, e.g., paragraph [0050] which indicates the side walls 534 in Figs. 10A-D may include wavelength converting materials, i.e. materials diffused into the structure, and note that as the device is intended to mix light and then send it out of the output port into the reflector there is necessarily reflection taking place internally especially when the screw is moved to the position of Fig. 10B and the light is being dispersed into a wide beam. Accordingly, the sidewalls having wavelength converting materials correspond to “diffused reflecting material” in this way).
Regarding claim 8, Harbers in view of Ichihara teaches the device set forth above and as modified above further teaches wherein the at least one laser source comprises a plurality of laser sources for providing light input to the integration device at the same or different wavelengths at the at least one input port (Note that given the modification above, Harbers would meet this limitation as Ichihara explains a secondary light source is created by the vibration of the first laser light source, and this would necessarily output wavelengths of the same or different wavelengths as those are the only two choices).
Regarding claim 12, Harbers teaches a method for producing illumination, the method comprising:
providing a light integrating device for coupling to at least one optical structure at an output port (See, e.g., Figs. 3, 4, and 10A-D which shows device 100 which is a light integrating device coupled to an optical structure in the form of reflector 140 at an output port corresponding to the end of mixing cavity 101 in Figs. 3-4, also shown as output port 520 in Figs. 10A-D. Note the specific light integrating device embodiment cited corresponds to the configuration of Figs. 10A-D), where the light integrating device includes at least one input port (See, e.g., the underside of lens 522 in Figs. 10A-D which the light is input into); and
producing, using at least one source light input into the at least one input port (See, e.g., LEDs 102 in Fig. 2), and
delivering at an output port of the light integrating device, illumination, where the light integrating device homogenizes the light input. (See, e.g., Figs. 3 and 4 which show the structure of the device, note that with the LED light passing the reflecting walls/cavity this is necessarily the case as the output illumination will be a uniform illumination spot).
Harbers lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the at least one source is a laser source couple to a vibration source and emits speckle-free laser illumination at an output port of the light integrating device.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Ichihara teaches the use of a laser source coupled to a vibration source configured to emit speckle-free illumination (See, e.g., laser light source 30 in Fig. 1, which outputs a vibrated laser beam per the abstract, and is configured to emit speckle-free illumination per column 3 lines 26-34).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Harbers to include a laser light source as taught by Ichihara, for the purpose of having more wavelengths to work with and more optionality for a user in the form of choosing between LEDs and lasers for the light source instead of being restricted to just one.
Regarding claim 13, Harbers in view of Ichihara teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the at least one laser source comprises a plurality of laser sources for providing light input to the integration device at the same or different wavelengths at the at least one input port (Note that given the modification above, Harbers would meet this limitation as Ichihara explains a secondary light source is created by the vibration of the first laser light source, and this would necessarily output wavelengths of the same or different wavelengths as those are the only two choices).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbers et al. (US 2009/0103293 A1) in view of Ichihara (US 4,851,978) and further in view of Weber et al. (US 2010/0165660).
Regarding claim 7, Harbers in view of Ichihara teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the light integration device comprises polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE).
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Weber teaches the use of an illumination system where an optical reflective device can comprise PTFE (See, e.g., paragraphs [0194] and [0200] which explain this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in the combination of Harbers and Ichihara to include PTFE as taught by Weber, for the purpose of optimizing the reflectance and diffusion of the device (See, e.g., paragraph [0200] which explains the material for the reflective element is chosen for these properties).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the light integrating device comprises an apex at the output port coupling to the at least one optical structure.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the at least one laser source comprises at least one fiber-coupled laser delivering the at least one optical illumination into the light integrating device through a fiber.
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 11, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITCHELL OESTREICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Wyatt Stoffa can be reached at 571-270-1782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights