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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office 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.
Claims 1-20 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 claim 1, the claim subject matter comprises “a light emitting diode (LED) source directly coupled to the first surface of the heatsink assembly…a back culminating lens directly coupled to the second surface of the heatsink assembly”. However, specification does not make this clear; the distinction between the first surface 112 and the second surface 114 is not evident, see e.g. FIG. 8 of the originally filed specification. From the figure, it appears that both the LED source and the back collimating lens are not opposite to one another; they can be understood as being integrated into the heartsink assembly 110 at most as depicted in the figure. Furthermore, the claimed “directly” is ambiguous since it is not clear how this direct coupling is carried out on the first and second surface, i.e. screw on, glue and/or other fasteners etc. The LED source is depicted as going through the first surface than coupled to the first surface; similarly, the back collimating lens appears to go through the second surface and can be considered as being integrated into the heatsink assembly 110. The specification does not elaborate this concept any further than the claimed language. Therefore, metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly established and the claim is rejected as such.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for at least comprising the rejected claim subject matter as discussed above.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (Walker; US 20120223255) in view of Kachru et al. (Kachru; US 20040207923) and further in view of Schimke et al. (Schimke; US 2022/0404008).
As per claim 1, Walker teaches a system, comprising:
a heatsink assembly (a heatsink [assembly]; see e.g. para. [0055]); and
a plurality of optical channels (a plurality of optical channels comprising LEDs 366, 367, lens 362 and so forth; see e.g. FIGS. 4, 5, and para. [0061-62]), wherein each optical channel of the plurality of optical channels comprises:
a light emitting diode (LED) source (LED 366, see e.g. FIG. 5 and para. [0062-63]) coupled to a first surface of the heatsink assembly (a heat sink 364 is mounted behind PCB 361, see e.g. para. [0055], which means at least one surface of the heatsink is coupled to the PCB which is coupled to the LED 366 as shown in the figure 5);
a back collimating lens (collimating lens 362, see e.g. FIG. 5 and para. [0055]), wherein the LED source is configured to emit light through the back collimating lens to provide collimated light (the outputted light from LED through the collimating lens 362 is collimated light);
an optical filter disposed to interact with a first portion of the collimated light to form filtered light (in addition, walker suggests that the light can be passed through a filter, see e.g. para. [0012], similarly it would have been obvious to a skilled person to include a filter for intended light filtration. Nonetheless, the disclosed waveguides 37, see e.g. FIG. 5 and para. [0061], can be interpreted as filters since the guides filters out any stray light).
Walker does not explicitly teach the claimed a front collimating lens configured to interact with the filtered light and a second portion of the collimated light to form output light.
Kachru, in a same or similar field of optics, teaches a front collimating lens (a second collimating lens 218, see e.g. FIG. 3) configured to interact with filtered light (the light passing through the second collimating lens interacts with light which goes thought filtered stack 217, see e.g. FIG. 3 and para. [0021]) and a second portion of the collimated light to form output light (the second collimating lens interacts with the first and second portion [light paths 222, 224] of the collimated light which is coming from the first collimating lens 214). Walker and Kachru are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reduced optical distortion.
Walker and Kachru do not explicitly teach that the back collimating lens coupled to a second surface of the heatsink assembly.
Schimke, however, teaches a lens coupled to a surface of a heatsink assembly (a lens 206 to contact and/or form a sealing interface with heatsink [assembly] 210; see e.g. para. [0050]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed back collimating lens is coupled or in contact with one or the surfaces of a heatsink as suggested by Schimke.
Walker, Kachru and Schimke are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of heat dissipation from one or more components as suggested by Schimke (see e.g. para. [0051]).
[Even though the claimed first and the second surface being opposite and the LED source and the back collimating lens being coupled to the first and the second surface is indefinite for failing to clearly establish the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, the claims are addressed for the sake of compact prosecution.] Walker, Kachru and Schimke fail to teach the claimed first and the second surface being opposite and the LED source and the back collimating lens being coupled to the first and the second surface.
Ellerton, however, teaches that the disclosed system comprises an LEDs in a light source are individually lensed for back or pre-collimation (see e.g. para. [0037]), wherein back or pre-collimating lens would be applied directly to left surface of the LED for the disclosed collimation. Furthermore, it would be an obvious design choice for a design engineer to dispose the LED through a back surface and the pre-collimating lens through a front surface based on system constrains, associated cost, desired size and/or regulatory requirements. Similarly, similar teachings can be applicable to the disclosed system of Walker, for example.
Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of integrating one or more components into a single structure for reducing overall size of the system and/or power efficiency due smaller or reduced power pathways and/or reduce power usage due to smaller size.
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, wherein the heatsink assembly comprises: a plurality of cooling fins along the first surface (heatsink with associated fins or fans; see e.g. para. [0055] of Walker); and a plurality of optical mounts, each optical mount corresponding to respective optical channels of the plurality of optical channels (one or more mounts for the mounting assemble for mounting the heatsink behind the PCB 361, see e.g. para. [0055] of Walker, wherein the mounts need openings for the disclosed PCB and the disclosed LEDs 366; see e.g. FIG. 4).
As per claim 10, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, wherein the optical filter corresponding to each optical channel is arranged so as to cover different amounts of respective top portions of the collimated light (the waveguides are associated with different light sources, see e.g. FIG. 5, so they will cover different top potions of the respective outputted and collimated light).
Claims 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Sharma et al. (Sharma; US 2024/0391316).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein at least one back collimating lens comprises a plano-convex lens or a Fresnel lens.
Sharma teaches that at least one lens comprises a plano-convex lens or a Fresnel lens (one or more plano-convex lenses; see e.g. para. [0054]). It would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the one or more disclosed lenses of Walker can be plano-convex lenses.
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Sharma are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reduced optical distortion.
As per claim 6, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein at least one front collimating lens comprises a plano-convex lens or a Fresnel lens.
Sharma teaches that at least one lens comprises a plano-convex lens or a Fresnel lens (one or more plano-convex lenses; see e.g. para. [0054]). It would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the one or more disclosed lenses of Walker can be plano-convex lenses.
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Sharma are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reduced optical distortion.
Claims 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Schenck et al. (Schenck; US 2015/0131057).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein at least one back collimating lens comprises a double convex lens.
Schenck, however, teaches at least one collimating lens comprises a double convex lens (at least double convex collimating lens 28 to project light; see e.g. para. [0028]).
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Schenck are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reduced optical distortion.
As per claim 5, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein at least one front collimating lens comprises a double convex lens.
Schenck, however, teaches at least one collimating lens comprises a double convex lens (at least double convex collimating lens 28 to project light; see e.g. para. [0028]).
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Schenck are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reduced optical distortion.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Tiean et al. (Tien; US 2010/0123398).
As per claim 7, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru and Schimke, except the claimed wherein the optical filter comprises a red filter.
Tian, however, teaches an optical filter comprises a red filter (a red light filter coating for a projection surface; see e.g. para. [0025-26]). Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Tian are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of providing guidance using different colors as suggested by Tian (see e.g. para. [0023]).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Kawakami et al. (Kawakami; US 2021/0119126).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton, except the claimed wherein the optical filter provides a chromaticity wherein a Y Chromaticity Coordinate value does not exceed 0.320.
Kawakami, however, teaches the optical filter provides a chromaticity wherein a Y Chromaticity Coordinate value does not exceed 0.320 (see e.g. para. [0304]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings and/or specification of Kawakami for light output in desired configuration
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Kawakami are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of providing guidance with desired configuration.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Kishimoto (Kishimoto; US 2011/0063115).
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru and Schimke, Ellerton, except the claimed wherein the optical filter comprises a flat optical filter.
Kishimoto, however, teaches an optical filter 17 may have a flat board shape or a lens shape (see e.g. para. [0123]). Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Kishmoto are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of to allow passage of the light emitted by the internal LEDs and to prevent the passage of light from another outside source.
Claims 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Arik et al. (Arik; US 2024/0167664).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein the LED source comprises a multifaceted reflector.
Arik, however, teaches an LED source comprising a multifaceted reflector (see e.g. para. [0005]). Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Arik are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved beam control.
As per claim 12, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein the LED source comprises a MR16 housing.
Arik, however, teaches an LED source comprising MR16 housing (see e.g. para. [0005]). Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Arik are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved beam control.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Kremesec et al. (Kremesec; 20240260499).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except the claimed wherein the LED source is configured to provide 3000-5000K temperature.
Kremesec, however, teaches an LED source is configured to provide 3000-5000K temperature (see e.g. para. [0057]). Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Kremesec are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved user control in various ranges.
Claims 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Wang et al. (Wang; US 2008/0007430).
As per claim 14, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, even though Walker teaches a distinct transition between the red and white sectors (see e.g. para. [0019]), Walker does not explicitly show that output light comprises a transition line defining a transition between white light corresponding to the second portion of the collimated light and red light corresponding to the filtered light.
Wang, however, teaches that output light comprises a transition line defining a transition between white light corresponding to the second portion of the collimated light and red light (outputted light has a transition region or line, see e.g. para. [0012] and FIG. 4, wherein the outputted light red and white [collimated] light; see e.g. para. [0026] and [0028]) corresponding to the filtered light (the outputted light can be filtered as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1).
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Wang are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved system with clear signage for landing.
As per claim 15, The system of claim 14 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Wang, wherein the transition line is no more than 3 arc minutes in width (see e.g. para. [0028] of Wang).
As per claim 16, the system of claim 14 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Wang, wherein the transition line is arranged based on a 3.00° nominal glide path of an aerial vehicle (the LED module can be adjusted in a range 2 ͦ-8 ͦ to adapt for different glide slope requirements, see e.g. para. [0028] of Wang, which means a range of glide path angles can be accommodated).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Covelli et al. (Covelli; US 2016/0159446).
As per claim 17, The system of claim 1 Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, further comprising: providing input power from at least one of: 120/240V (the unit will be powered by the existing main electricity supply; see e.g. para. [0035] of Walker) or 6.6A constant current regulator (CCR), except the claimed a printed wire assembly (PWA), wherein the PWA is configured to provide the power.
Covelli, however, teaches a printed wiring assembly 296 which is connected to a power generation source 298 (see e.g. para. [0142]), wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a printed wire assembly in the disclosed system of Walker for the inherent benefit of optimized heat dissipation or reduced cost.
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Covelli are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for reducing heat or manufacturing cost.
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and further in view of Altman (Altman; US 2025/0052780).
As per claim 18, the system of claim 1 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Ellerton, except where the claimed subject further comprising a tilt sensor, wherein the tilt sensor comprises an accelerometer, wherein the accelerometer is configured to measure a tilt of the system in real time.
Altman, however, teaches a tilt sensor, wherein the tilt sensor comprises an accelerometer, wherein the accelerometer is configured to measure a tilt of the system in real time (an accelerometer for measuring tilt and receiving acceleration data, see e.g. para. [0063], wherein the data needs to be determined real-time or constantly otherwise the notification may not be timely generated; see e.g. para. [0005]).
Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Altman are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved system which timely reports a hazardous situation of tilting.
As per claim 19, the system of claim 18 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Altman, further comprising a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to execute program instructions so as to carry out operations as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke and Altman, the operations comprising: receiving tilt data from the accelerometer (step 302, FIG. 9 of Altman); determining whether the tilt data indicates an angle greater than a threshold angle (determine if tilt angle is greater than a threshold angle or satisfies a threshold; see e.g. para. [0024-25] of Altman); and in response to the tilt data being greater than the threshold angle, generating a fault indication (generating a notification as discussed earlier, see e.g. para. [0040] of Altman, wherein the notification is a fault indication; see also para. [0033] of Walker).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton, Altman and further in view of Ertl et al. (Ertl; US 2023/0048445)
As per claim 20, the system of claim 19 as taught by Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Altman, except the claimed wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the tilt data being greater than the threshold angle, disabling normal operation of the system.
Ertl, however, in response to tilt data being greater than the threshold angle, disabling normal operation of system (see e.g. para. [0012-13]). Walker, Kachru, Schimke, Ellerton and Altman are in a same or similar field of optics, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of avoiding injuries or accidents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights