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 § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230059918 A1 to Sheng et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Sheng discloses an illumination system for a non-emissive display panel, comprising: a light source array including a plurality of individually addressable illumination units (Fig. 2 light sources 250, para 34), an illumination unit being configured to emit a first light beam having a first solid angle (See Fig. 2 LEDs/lasers 251); a concentrator array coupled with the light source array and including a plurality of concentrators (Fig. 2 collimating optics 228), a concentrator being configured to condition the first light beam into a second light beam associated with a second solid angle that is smaller than the first solid angle, the second light beam providing a substantially uniform illumination at an exit aperture of the concentrator (See para 35 “each set of collimating optics 228 is optically coupled to a respective LED/laser 251 for a color mode of light. Each set of collimating optics 228 can include a single lens, as shown in FIG. 2, or can include multiple lenses in other examples. Each set of collimating optics 228 is configured to project and collimate a beam of light for a respective color mode from the one or more light sources 250”); and an imaging assembly including one or more optical elements (See Fig. 2 apparatus 200) configured to image the substantially uniform illumination at the exit aperture of the concentrator onto the non-emissive display panel (See Fig. 2 HOE 240 and optical combiner 130).
Regarding Claim 16. Sheng further discloses the illumination unit is disposed adjacent to an entrance aperture of the concentrator (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17. Sheng further discloses the illumination unit includes at least one red light source, at least one green light source, and at least one blue light source (See Fig. 2 and para 34).
Regarding Claim 18. Sheng further discloses the plurality of concentrators correspond to the plurality of individually addressable illumination units, respectively (as shown in Fig. 2 and para 35).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2-4, 7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230059918 A1 to Sheng et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20210096450 A1 to Kitahara
Regarding Claim 2. As stated above, Sheng discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Sheng further discloses that the concentrator includes an input facet at a location where an entrance aperture of the concentrator is located, an output facet at a location where the exit aperture of the concentrator is located, and a concentrator body disposed between the input facet and the output facet (as shown in Fig. 2 collimating optics 228 has an input side, and output side and a body between the input and output).
Sheng does not specifically disclose an area of the input facet is smaller than an area of the output facet.
However, Kitahara discloses an area of the input facet is smaller than an area of the output facet (See at least Fig. 4 rod lens elements 11 and para 35), to enable light guides to be provided in a state of being easily mounted in a lighting device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that an area of the input facet is smaller than an area of the output facet.
Regarding Claim 3. Kitahara further discloses that the concentrator body includes at least one of a curved body portion or an angularly shaped body portion (as shown in at least and of Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11).
Regarding Claim 4. Kitahara further discloses the concentrator body further includes a straight body portion (as shown in at least and of Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11).
Regarding Claim 7. Kitahara further discloses the concentrator includes a solid concentrator body configured to guide the first light beam to propagate therethrough via total internal reflection at a side surface of the solid concentrator body, and wherein the solid concentrator body is made of an isotropic and homogeneous dielectric material having an isotropic and homogenous refractive index (as shown in at least and of Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11, para 33).
Regarding Claim 11. Kitahara further discloses the concentrator includes a taper (See Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11).
Regarding Claim 12. Kitahara further discloses the taper includes an input facet where an entrance aperture of the taper is located (Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11), an output facet where the exit aperture of the taper is located (Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11), and a concentrator body disposed between the input facet and the output facet; and the concentrator body has a truncated cone shape or truncated pyramid shape (as shown in at least and of Fig. 3- Fig. 7 rod lens elements 11).
Regarding Claim 13. Kitahara further discloses the first light beam is configured to enter the taper through the entrance aperture, undergo multiple reflections at a side surface of the concentrator body, and exit the taper through the exit aperture (as shown in at least Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 14. Kitahara further discloses length between the lead end of the lens array 22 and the input end of the rod lens element) is, for example, about 41.5 mm, on a 4×7 rod lens array, with a length of approx. 11 mm and a width of approx. 10 mm (See at least para 40).
Kitahara does not specifically disclose the taper is configured with a height that is about 5 to 7 times of a width of the exit aperture.
The ratio of the height of the taper to the width of the exit aperture is a result-effective variables. In that, the height of the taper and width of the exit aperture can be modified to limit the output angle of emitted light from the light source to achieve the desired light concentration and light distribution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the taper is configured with a height that is about 5 to 7 times of a width of the exit aperture to achieve the desired light concentration and light distribution is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 15. Kitahara further discloses the concentrator includes one or more of cyclic olefin copolymer, cyclic olefin polymer, polycarbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene, polyurethane, or polypropylene (para 33).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng and Kitahara as applied to claim 2 in view of US 20190265476 A1 to Blum et al.
Regarding Claim 5. As stated above, Sheng and Kitahara renders obvious all the limitations of base claim 2.
Sheng does not specifically disclose an anti-reflection coating is disposed at each of the input facet and the exit facet of the concentrator.
However, Blum discloses an anti-reflection coating is disposed at each of the input facet and the exit facet of the concentrator (para 254 “The micro-lens array can have an anti-reflection coating on one or both sides”), as the substitution of one known element for another would yields the predictable result of reducing unwanted stray light reflecting from the lens array to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that an anti-reflection coating is disposed at each of the input facet and the exit facet of the concentrator.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230059918 A1 to Sheng et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20200174284 A1 to Chan et al.
Regarding Claim 6. As stated above, Sheng discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Sheng does not specifically disclose the concentrator includes a concentrator body having a cavity surrounded by a wall, and wherein the concentrator is configured to guide the first light beam to propagate therethrough via reflection at the wall surrounding the cavity.
However, Chan discloses the concentrator includes a concentrator body (See Fig. 6C compound parabolic concentrator 77B) having a cavity surrounded by a wall, and wherein the concentrator is configured to guide the first light beam to propagate therethrough via reflection at the wall surrounding the cavity (as shown in Fig. 6C), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results of a collimation optics assembly to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the concentrator includes a concentrator body having a cavity surrounded by a wall, and wherein the concentrator is configured to guide the first light beam to propagate therethrough via reflection at the wall surrounding the cavity.
Regarding Claim 8. Chan further discloses the concentrator includes a compound parabolic concentrator (“CPC”) (Fig. 6C and para 45).
Regarding Claim 9. Chan further discloses the CPC includes an input facet where an entrance aperture of the CPC is located, an output facet where the exit aperture of the CPC is located, and a concentrator body disposed between the input facet and the output facet; and the concentrator body has a truncated paraboloid shape (See Fig. 6C).
Regarding Claim 10. Chan further discloses the first light beam is configured to enter the CPC through the entrance aperture, undergo a single reflection at the concentrator body, and exit the CPC through the exit aperture (See Fig. 6C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights