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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “away from light source” is suggested as “away from the light source”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the scattering unit” lacks antecedent basis and is suggested as “a scattering unit”. Appropriate correction is required, whereby the best-deemed interpretation has been applied in the prior art rejection below.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the boundary shapes” lacks antecedent basis and is suggested as “boundary shapes”. Appropriate correction is required, whereby the best-deemed interpretation has been applied in the prior art rejection below.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the random distribution” lacks antecedent basis and is suggested as “a random distribution”. Appropriate correction is required, whereby the best-deemed interpretation has been applied in the prior art rejection below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-10, 15, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,163,658 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent commonly recite the same structural limitations to the system/method/diffuser with the obvious exception that the claimed elements are found in different claim combinations [note table below].
18/967,307
U.S. Patent 12,163,658 B2
Claim 6
A plurality of light sources,
A diffuser including a distribution of microlenses,
Each light source aligned with a single microlens,
The system is in a static configuration.
Claim 13
Wherein the scattering unit…
Claim 14
Wherein the random distribution of microlenses…
Claim 1
A plurality of light sources
A diffuser including a random distribution of microlenses, wherein each microlens includes a scattering unit;
Wherein each light source is aligned with a single microlens.
Claims 7-10
Claims 2-5
Claim 15
Emitting light from a plurality of light sources, wherein each light source is aligned with a single corresponding microlens;
Receiving the emitted light from a single light source;
The system is in a static configuration.
Claim 17
The diffuser includes a random distribution of microlenses, wherein each microlens includes a scattering unit and has a boundary shape.
Claim 6
Emitting light from a plurality of light sources, wherein each light source is aligned with a single corresponding microlens;
Receiving the emitted light from a single light source;
The system is in a static configuration,
Wherein the diffuser includes a random distribution of microlenses, wherein each microlens includes a scattering unit.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. Patent 9,620,688 B2).
With regards to Claim 1, Lee discloses a diffuser [Figures 1-18] including:
A random distribution of microlenses [e.g., (166)], wherein each microlens includes a scattering unit [e.g., (166b)] and a boundary shape [note Figures 4-5: various shapes formed by (166a, 166b)],
Wherein the random distribution of microlenses includes a randomized distribution of the boundary shapes [note Figures 4-5]; and
Wherein each scattering unit is randomly distributed across a surface of the diffuser at different scales [note Figures 4-5].
With regards to Claim 2, Lee discloses the scattering unit [e.g., (166b)] has a surface profile characterized by slopes that are configured to spread a light beam from an associated light source away from the microlens [note Figures 1-18].
With regards to Claim 3, Lee discloses the boundary shapes of the microlenses are defined by polygonal curves [e.g., Figure 9: (170a); Figure 18: (C)].
With regards to Claim 4, Lee discloses scattering unit being a sag profile [e.g., Figure 10: (170a) – in between the units; Figure 16: (188b)].
With regards to Claim 5, Lee discloses the random distribution of microlenses include a randomized distribution of sag profiles [note Figure 10 – the sag profiles are randomized].
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chakmakjian et al. (U.S. Patent 7,918,583 B2).
With regards to Claim 6, Chakmakjian discloses a system [note Figures 1-18] including:
A plurality of light sources (14); and
A diffuser (16, 18) including a distribution of microlenses [e.g., (16) and/or (18a)];
Wherein each light source of the plurality of light sources is aligned with a single microlens of the diffuser [note Figures 14A-C], and
Wherein the system is in a static configuration [note Figures 1-18].
With regards to Claim 7, Chakmakjian discloses each light source (14), of the plurality of light sources, is individually coherent [note Figures 1-18; Column 5, Lines 32-36].
With regards to Claim 8, Chakmakjian discloses the plurality of light sources (14) are mutually incoherent.
With regards to Claim 9, Chakmakjian discloses the microlenses (16) are present on a first surface of the diffuser oriented towards the light source [note Figures 1-18].
With regards to Claim 10, Chakmakjian discloses the microlenses (18a) are present on a second surface of the diffuser oriented away from (the) light source.
With regards to Claim 11, Chakmakjian discloses (the) a scattering unit [e.g., (18a)] having a surface profile characterized by slopes that are configured to spread a light beam from an associated light source away from the microlens [note Figures 14A-C].
With regards to Claim 12, Chakmakjian discloses (the) boundary shapes of the microlenses [e.g., (16) and/or (18a)] are defined by polygonal curves [note Figures 1-18, as broadly interpreted, whereby the polygonal curves are not defined to restrict/limit structure].
With regards to Claim 13, Chakmakjian discloses the scattering unit [e.g., (18a)] is a sag profile [note Figures 14A-C].
With regards to Claim 14, Chakmakjian discloses (the) a random distribution of microlenses [e.g., (16) – choosing randomly] including a randomized distribution of sag profiles [e.g., (18a)].
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chakmakjian et al. (U.S. Patent 7,918,583 B2).
With regards to Claim 15, Chakmakjian discloses a method of using a system [note Figures 1-18] including:
Emitting light from a plurality of light sources (14), wherein each light source of the plurality of light sources is aligned with a single corresponding microlens [e.g., (16) and/or (18a)] of a plurality of microlenses of a diffuser (16, 18); and
Receiving the emitted light from a single light source of the plurality of light sources in the corresponding microlens of the plurality of microlenses of the diffuser [note Figures 1-18];
Wherein the system is in a static configuration [note Figures 1-18].
With regards to Claim 16, Chakmakjian discloses each light source (14), of the plurality of light sources, is individually coherent [note Figures 1-18; Column 5, Lines 32-36].
With regards to Claim 17, Chakmakjian discloses the plurality of light sources (14) are mutually incoherent.
With regards to Claim 18, Chakmakjian discloses the diffuser includes a random distribution of microlenses [e.g., (16) and/or (18a) – choosing randomly], wherein each microlens includes a scattering unit [e.g., (18a)] and has a boundary shape [note Figures 1-18].
With regards to Claim 19, Chakmakjian discloses each scattering unit [e.g., (18a)] is randomly distributed across a surface of the diffuser at different scales [note Figures 14A-C].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but is not considered exhaustive: U.S. Patent 6,859,326 B2 to Sales that teaches a random microlens array [Figures 1-42].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
Friday, November 14, 2025
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875