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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation, “…convex cambered surface has a thickness…”. The “thickness” in question is not described in the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain which direction application was measuring the lens.
Claim 7, recites the limitation, “…concave cambered surface has a thickness…”. The “thickness” in question is not described in the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain which direction application was measuring the lens.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the angle between the incident surface of the first/second/third convex surface and the horizontal plane must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (JP 2018205349 A, see Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re claim 1, Nakamura discloses on Fig. 3-5, a Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22], comprising a lens body, wherein one side surface of the lens body is a surface A (Fig. 3: light emission side) [Par 22], and another side surface of the lens body is a surface B (Fig. 4: light incident side)[Par 22], wherein a convex cambered surface (Fig. 3 and 5: first lens section 111 is convex) [Par 27] is provided at a middle position of the surface A (Fig. 3: light emission side) [Par 22], and a third convex surface (Fig. 5: second lens portions 112 comprise a concentric portion closest to portion 111, henceforth referred as 112 (3))[Par 29-30], a second convex surface (Fig. 5: second lens portion having annular portion 112 (2))[Par 29-30], and a first convex surface (Fig. 5: second lens portion 112 having annular portion 112 (1), closest to portion 140)[Par 29-30] are provided successively at an outer side of the convex cambered surface (Fig. 3 and 5: first lens section 111 is convex) [Par 27]; a concave cambered surface (Fig. 5: first light incident surface 101a) [Par 34-35] is arranged at a middle position of the surface B (Fig. 4: light incident side)[Par 22]; the lens body is capable of being turned over to adjust a light-emitting angle of the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100 can be utilized in spotlights or downlights both of which are of a size that can reverse, rotated, or physically manipulated) [Par 003].
Re Claim 3, Nakamura discloses, the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22] according to claim 1, and Nakamura further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the first convex surface, the second convex surface, and the third convex surface are all of a zigzag structure (Fig. 5: second lens portion 112 has a zigzag structure)[Par 29-30].
Re Claim 5, Nakamura discloses, the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22] according to claim 1, and Nakamura further discloses (See Fig. 5, for the specific embodiment and Fig. 7-8 only for the illustration of the light paths), wherein each of the first convex surface, the second convex surface, and the third convex surface (Fig. 5: second lens portions 112)[Par 29-30] comprises an incident surface (112b) and an emitting surface (112a), and the incident surface is provided opposite to the emitting surface (112a and 112b are opposite to each other) [Par 30].
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Takeshi (CN 1828339 A, See Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 2, Nakamura discloses, the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22] according to claim 1.
But Nakamura does not explicitly disclose, wherein the convex cambered surface has a thickness of 0.6 mm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Takeshi teaches, on Fig. 6, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to optimize the thickness of the convex cambered surface (“The diameter of the Fresnel lens 1, the diameter of the convex lens portion 11, and the width of the flange portion 13 can be arbitrarily determined according to the size and weight of the lighting device to be used, and the present invention is not limited to these values.”) [Par 60]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nakamura with Takeshi in order to provide lighter weight and ease of manufacture, as taught by Takeshi [Par 60].
Re Claim 7, Nakamura discloses, the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22] according to claim 1, and a concave cambered surface (surface 101a)[Par 34-35].
But Nakamura does not explicitly disclose, wherein the concave cambered surface has a thickness of 0.7 mm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Takeshi teaches, on Fig. 6, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to optimize the thickness of a cambered surface (“The diameter of the Fresnel lens 1, the diameter of the convex lens portion 11, and the width of the flange portion 13 can be arbitrarily determined according to the size and weight of the lighting device to be used, and the present invention is not limited to these values.”) [Par 60]. Thus Takeshi explicitly teaches controlling the thickness (or diameter) of different fresnel lens portions. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nakamura with Takeshi, such that the concave cambered surface has a thickness of 0.7 mm, in order to provide lighter weight and ease of manufacture, as taught by Takeshi [Par 60].
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Takeshi and Wook (KR 20170120459 A, see attached Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re claim 4, Nakamura discloses, the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22] according to claim 3.
But Nakamura does not explicitly disclose, wherein a distance between a convex point of the first convex surface and a central point of the lens body is about 4.8 mm, a distance between a convex point of the second convex surface and the central point is about 3 mm, and a distance between a convex point of the third convex surface and the central point is about 1.6 mm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Takeshi teaches, on Fig. 6, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to optimize the thickness of the “flanged portion”, in other words, the sum of the first, second, and third surface (“The diameter of the Fresnel lens 1, the diameter of the convex lens portion 11, and the width of the flange portion 13 can be arbitrarily determined according to the size and weight of the lighting device to be used, and the present invention is not limited to these values.”) [Par 60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nakamura with Takeshi in order to provide, lighter weight and ease of manufacture, as taught by Takeshi [Par 60].
But Nakamura in view of Takeshi does not explicitly teach, wherein a distance between a convex point of the first convex surface and a central point of the lens body is about 4.8 mm, a distance between a convex point of the second convex surface and the central point is about 3 mm, and a distance between a convex point of the third convex surface and the central point is about 1.6 mm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wook teaches, on Fig. 5d, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to optimize the with of each of the optical path conversion units, or in other words the width of the convex portions, which together dictate the distance between a convex point and a central point of the lens body (“In detail, the width (do~d23) of each optical path conversion part (U0~U23) may be 10 micrometers to 1 millimeter…”, such that the distance between the convex point of the first convex surface and a central point of the lens body can be as large as 2.5 mm, a distance between a convex point of the second convex surface and the central point can be as large as 1.5 mm, and a distance between a convex point of the third convex surface and the central point can be as large as 0.5 mm.) [Par 84], and that said widths constitute result effective variables; Increasing the field of view while reducing the weight [Par 29].
Together, Takeshi and Wook teach that is known in the art prior to the filing date of the invention that the distance between a convex point and a central point of the lens body is a result effective variable [Wook: 84], and further, optimizing the annular convex region of a Fresnel lens is an arbitrary optimization [Takeshi: Par 60].
Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nakamura in view of Takeshi with Wook, such that a distance between a convex point of the first convex surface and a central point of the lens body is about 4.8 mm, a distance between a convex point of the second convex surface and the central point is about 3 mm, and a distance between a convex point of the third convex surface and the central point is about 1.6 mm, in order to increase the field of view while reducing the weight as taught by Wook [Par 29].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wook.
Re Claim 6, Nakamura discloses, the Fresnel lens (Fig. 5: lens 100) [Par 22] according to claim 5.
But Nakamura does not explicitly disclose, wherein an angle between the incident surface of the first convex surface and a horizontal plane is 135°, an angle between the incident surface of the second convex surface and the horizontal plane is 120°, and an angle between the incident surface of the third convex surface and the horizontal plane is 100°.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wook teaches, on Fig. 6b-6c, that it is desirable in frensel lenses, to optimize the angle between the incident surface of the first convex surface and a horizontal plane (
θ
11
/
21
, note that incident surface of the convex surfaces of Wook are the (b) side, the angle of which can vary)[Par 94], an angle between the incident surface of the second convex surface and the horizontal plane (
θ
12
/
22
)[Par 94], and an angle between the incident surface of the third convex surface and the horizontal plane (
θ
13
/
23
) [Par 94], and further the relationship between each angle is such that, as it moves toward the edge region, the angle gradually increases, so that the angle (θ23) formed by the optical path converter (U23) with respect to the horizontal plane in the edge region may be the largest [Par 95].
Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nakamura with Wook in order to, increase field of view and decrease weight (see Fig. 10B for optical path illustration), as taught by Wook [Par 07].
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anton (US 20100116319 A1).
Re Claim 8, Nakamura discloses, a method of adjusting the light-emitting angle of the Fresnel lens according to claim 1.
But does not explicitly disclose, comprising the steps of: selecting one of the surface A and the surface B of the lens body as a light incident surface to allow the Fresnel lens to emit light at a first light-emitting angle; and turning over the lens body to enable the other of the surface A and the surface B of the lens body to be a light incident surface to allow the Fresnel lens to emit light at a second light-emitting angle, thereby adjusting the light-emitting angle of the Fresnel lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Anton teaches, on Fig. 21 and 34, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to select one of the surface A and the surface B of the lens body as a light incident surface to allow the Fresnel lens to emit light at a first light-emitting angle (Fig. 21: angle of light emission by portion 3021-2); and turning over the lens body to enable the other of the surface A and the surface B of the lens body to be a light incident surface to allow the Fresnel lens to emit light at a second light-emitting angle (Fig. 34: angle of emission by 3302-2), thereby adjusting the light-emitting angle of the Fresnel lens (“These obscuration losses may be mitigated by the use of a Fresnel lens primary concentrator 3302-1 as shown by example in FIG. 33 or, alternatively, by providing an inverted Fresnel lens 3302-2 (i.e., the orientation of the structured surface towards the short conjugate) as the primary concentrator as illustrated by example in FIG. 34, discussed further below.”, providing an inverted lens is the same as flipping over the lens body hence the light emitting angle of the Fresnel lens will inherently change because the incident and emission surfaces of the lens have changed as seen in Fig. 34) [Par 89].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Nakamura with Anton in order to provide, mitigate obscuration losses as taught by Anton [Par 89].
Re Claim 9, Nakamura in view of Anton teaches, the method of claim 8, and Nakamura further discloses wherein first light rays are incident into the lens body through the convex cambered surface (Fig. 3 and 5: first lens section 111 is convex) [Par 27] and then emitted (if Nakamura is flipped as described by Anton, section 111 would be on the incident side),
and Anton further discloses, on Fig. 21 and 34, wherein when the surface A (Fig. 21: light incident side 3021-2) [Par 89] of the lens body is the light incident surface (See Fig. 21), , second light rays are converged through the first convex surface (Fig. 21: light rays converge through all convex portions 3021-2), the second convex surface (Fig. 21: light rays converge through all convex portions 3021-2), and the third convex surface (Fig. 21: light rays converge through all convex portions 3021-2), and then emitted at the first light-emitting angle (Fig. 21 shows portions 3021-2 emitting light into light transport layers 3091-3092 at an angle), and wherein the first light-emitting angle is a smaller angle than the second light-emitting angle (the angle of emission in Fig. 21 is significantly smaller than the overall angle of emission from Fig. 34, and Fig. 34 includes a convex chambered surface to show the effect of different convex portions on the optical path)[Par 89].
Re Claim 10, Nakamura in view of Anton teaches, the method of claim 8, and Nakamura further discloses on Fig. 8 (in relation to the function of Fig. 5), wherein when the surface B (Fig. 4: light incident side)[Par 22] of the lens body is the light incident surface, first light rays are incident into the lens body through the concave cambered surface (Fig. 8: first light incident surface 101a) [Par 34-35] and then emitted at the convex cambered surface (Fig. 3 and 8: first lens section 111 is convex) [Par 27] of the light-emitting surface, second light rays are incident via the concave cambered surface (Fig. 8: first light incident surface 101a) [Par 34-35] and then diffused through the first convex surface (Fig. 8: second lens portion 112 having annular portion 112 (1)) [Par 29-30], the second convex surface (Fig. 5: second lens portion having annular portion 112 (2))[Par 29-30], and the third convex surface (Fig. 5: second lens portions 112 comprise a concentric portion closest to portion 111, henceforth referred as 112 (3))[Par 29-30], and then emitted at the second light-emitting angle (See Fig. 8 where the diffused optical rays pass through portions 112a at an angle), and wherein the second light-emitting angle (this is the angle if the portions 112 were the light incident surface and the light is emitted by surface 101a and 121-122) is a larger angle than the first light-emitting angle (Fig. 8 the nature of this Fresnel lens disperses light emitted from source 220, and would condense light incident on surfaces 111 and 112 from the opposite direction because this is the optical nature of convex incident surface i.e. if light is incident on surface 112a and 111a the optical paths of Fig. 8 would travel in reverse from the point of incidence, which would inherently give it a larger emitting angle than the alternative which is shown in Fig. 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shimura (US 20050024746 A1) teaches a Fresnel lens with convex annular portions and a convex central portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights