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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1A-2B and 14A-15D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (as described in para. [0003]-[0004], [0008]-[0009], [0071]-[0075], [0078]-[0081] of the Specification as filed). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4 and 8-10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the width of the asymmetric structure" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending to be --a
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the protrusion height of the asymmetric structure" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since Claim 8 depends on Claim 5, however the claimed “protrusion height” is defined solely in preceding Claim 7. The Examiner respectfully suggests either amending Claim 8 to be dependent on Claim 7, or alternatively, amending it to be --a
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the middle position of the second region" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the maximum height of the asymmetric structure" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a
Regarding claim 9, use of the phrase “similar to” in the limitation “the asymmetric structure is a convex structure that is similar to a slide shape” in lines 1-2 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required in order for the convex structure to be considered “similar to” a slide shape, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable because it is unclear what is encompassed by the term “similar”. See Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) and MPEP 2173.05(III). Further, slides come in different shapes and sizes, and thus it is unclear what specific shape is meant by the claimed “slide shape”. For the purpose of examination, the claim has been interpreted as best understood to refer to any sloped profile.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependence on indefinite Claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al. (US 2016/0201876, hereinafter “Lv”) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2008/0100773, hereinafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 1, Lv teaches an optical module (a COB module LED street lamp lens; see Figs. 1-9; Abstract; par. [0039]), comprising a lens (light distribution curved surface lens 12; see Figs. 2-9; para. [0039]-[0049]), wherein the lens comprises a light emitting surface (the lens 12 comprises a light distribution curved surface which is also labeled 12 and defines a light emitting surface on an upper surface of the lens; see Figs. 2-9; para. [0039]-[0049]), a light entering surface (a drop-shaped incident concave surface 11; see Figs. 2-8; para. [0041], [0045]-[0047], [0049], [0054]-[0055]), and a central axis (a point Q at an apex of the lens 12 defines a location of a central axis of the lens; see Figs. 3, 5-6), wherein the light entering surface has an asymmetric structure (the light entering surface 11 is an asymmetric structure; see Figs. 2-6; para. [0011]-[0015], [0040]-[0041]; see also Claim 1); and a light emitting element, wherein the light emitting element is disposed deviated from the central axis of the lens (a COB module LED light source is disposed within a recess defined by the light entering surface 11 at a location where an optical axis OZ of the light source is deviated from the central axis of the lens 12; see Figs. 1, 3-8; para. [0010]-[0011], [0014]-[0015], [0018], [0039]-[0040], [0044]-[0049], [0054]-[0055]).
However, the teachings of Lv fail to disclose or fairly suggest a resin package having a receiving groove, the lens is disposed on the resin package, and the light emitting element is disposed in the receiving groove.
Hwang teaches an optical module (a light source unit 1000; see Figs. 1-9, 11; para. [0076]-[0080]), comprising a resin package, having a receiving groove (LED element 120 comprises a housing 121 that includes a molding member 123 for encapsulating an LED chip 122 therein; see Figs. 5-9, 11; para. [0060]-[0067]); a lens, disposed on the resin package (a lens 100 comprising a light transmissive body 10 is disposed on top of the resin package 121; see Figs. 1-9, 11; para. [0043]-[0049], [0054]-[0063], [0065], [0067], [0076]-[0077], [0080]), wherein the lens comprises a light emitting surface (convex surface 11; see Figs. 1-3, 5-9, 11; para. [0044], [0046]-[0047], [0051]-[0052], [0054], [0060], [0067], [0077]), a light entering surface (the inner curved surface of the lens 100 comprises a convex surface 13 and a concave surface 14 which together define a light entering surface; see Figs. 1-3, 5-9, 11; para. [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0051]-[0052], [0054], [0060], [0067], [0077]), and a central axis (as shown in Figs. 1-3, 5-9, 11); and a light emitting element, disposed in the receiving groove (an LED chip 122 is disposed in the receiving groove 123 of the resin package 121; see Fig. 8; par. [0067]).
Therefore, in view of Hwang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical module of Lv by providing the light source with a resin package having a receiving groove, disposing the lens on the resin package, and disposing the light emitting element in the receiving groove. One would have been motivated to modify the known optical module of Lv by providing the light source with a resin package having a receiving groove, disposing the lens on the resin package, and disposing the light emitting element in the receiving groove, as taught by Hwang, in order to position the light emitting element below or under a virtual horizontal plane connected between the ends of the light entering surface and thereby ensure light is emitted into the lens through the entire inner/light entering surface of the lens rather than only a portion of the light entering surface, thus obtaining a more uniform illuminance distribution within the lens (see Hwang, par. [0061] for the motivation).
Regarding claim 2, Lv teaches wherein the asymmetric structure comprises a first region, a second region, a third region, and a fourth region (each half of the asymmetric structure defined by the light entering surface 11 on either side of the line X-X in Fig. 2 can be divided in half, which divides the asymmetric structure into four separate regions; see Figs. 2-6; see also annotated Fig. 4 on pg. 8 of the instant Office Action for a cross-sectional view of the same regions).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Lv (US 2016/0201876), annotated to clarify where the regions are located in a cross-sectional view.
Regarding claim 3, Lv teaches wherein in a top perspective view, the asymmetric structure is symmetric in a second direction and asymmetric in a first direction (as shown in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Lv teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view, in the first region, the asymmetric structure has a first curvature; in the second region, the asymmetric structure has a second curvature; in the third region, the asymmetric structure has a third curvature; and in the fourth region, the asymmetric structure has a fourth curvature (all regions of the asymmetric structure of the light entering surface 11 have a curvature, as shown in Figs. 2-6).
Regarding claim 7, Lv teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view, along the first direction, a protrusion height of the asymmetric structure of the light entering surface in a third direction is non-uniform (a protrusion height of the asymmetric structure of the light entering surface 11 in a z-axis direction is non-uniform, as shown in Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 8, Lv teaches wherein in the cross-sectional view, along the first direction, in the first region, a protrusion height of the asymmetric structure in the third direction gradually increases (as shown in Figs. 3-6; see also the annotated Fig. 4 on pg. 8 of the instant Office Action); in a middle position of the second region, the protrusion height of the asymmetric structure in the third direction reaches a maximum height of the asymmetric structure (as shown in Figs. 3-6; see also the annotated Fig. 4 on pg. 8 of the instant Office Action); and in the third region, the protrusion height of the asymmetric structure in the third direction gradually decreases (as shown in Figs. 3-6; see also the annotated Fig. 4 on pg. 8 of the instant Office Action).
Regarding claim 9, Lv teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view, the asymmetric structure is a convex structure that is similar to a slide shape (the asymmetric structure defined by the light entering surface 11 projects away from the light emitting element and is therefore a convex structure, which has a downwardly sloped shape, as shown in Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 10, Lv teaches wherein in the cross-sectional view, a highest point of the asymmetric structure does not overlap with the central axis of the lens (as shown in Figs. 2-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is 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:
Regarding claim 4, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “The optical module as claimed in claim 2, wherein in a top perspective view, in the first region, a width of the asymmetric structure in the second direction gradually increases along the first direction; in the second region, the width of the asymmetric structure in the second direction is substantially uniform along the first direction; in the third region, the width of the asymmetric structure in the second direction is substantially uniform along the first direction; and in the fourth region, the width of the asymmetric structure in the second direction gradually decreases along the first direction” (emphasis added).
Although optical modules are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “The optical module as claimed in claim 5, wherein in the cross-sectional view, in the first region, the asymmetric structure is a convex surface; in the second region, the asymmetric structure is a convex surface; in the third region, the asymmetric structure is a concave surface; and in the fourth region, the asymmetric structure is a concave surface” (emphasis added).
Although optical modules are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siuvatti (US 11,067,246), Broughton (US 9,200,765), Lee (US 2011/0317413), and Lin et al. (US 2011/0320024) all disclose optical modules comprising a lens whose light entering surface is an asymmetric structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights