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.
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 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US 2020/0224857) (hereinafter Liang).
Claim 1: Liang discloses a lens (4, fig. 3) capable of being rotated (rotated, see para [0032]) to adjust a light emitting angle (adjusting the output light, see para [0032]), comprising a lens body (4), wherein the lens body (4) is provided with a plurality of lens rings (41, 42, fig. 3) in an equal spacing manner from inside to outside (see fig. 3); each lens ring (41, 42) comprises a plurality of first lens portions (41, 42) and a plurality of second lens portions (flat portions between 41, 42, fig. 3), the first lens portions and the second lens portions of the lens ring are alternatively arranged (see fig. 3) and have different light emitting angles (see para [0085]); and the first lens portions and the second lens portions of two adjacent lens rings are staggered from each other (see fig. 3).
Claim 6: Liang discloses two symmetrical bumps (45, fig. 3) are arranged on a circumferential side of a bottom surface of the lens body (see fig. 3).
Claim 7: Liang discloses a plurality of guide grooves (grooves to side of 45, fig. 3) are provided on a circumference of the lens body (4); and
protrusions (45, fig. 3) are arranged at two ends of the guide grooves (see fig. 3).
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 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2020/0224857).
Claim 2: Liang is silent about an included angle between extension lines of sides of each first lens portion is 30 degrees, and an included angle between extension lines of sides of each second lens portion is 30 degrees.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the lens areas such that an included angle between extension lines of sides of each first lens portion is 30 degrees, and an included angle between extension lines of sides of each second lens portion is 30 degrees to adjust the light output distribution of the lens to produce a desired light output, since it has been held that the configuration of the lens body was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 8: Liang teaches an optical system (4, fig. 3) capable of being rotated to adjust a light emitting angle, comprising the lens body of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and further comprising: a light source plate (21, fig. 2), wherein the light source plate (21) is provided with a plurality of circles of light bead groups (22, 23, fig. 2); each light bead group (22, 23) comprises a plurality of light bead strings in an annular array (see fig. 2); an included angle between adjacent ends of two adjacent light bead strings (angle between 22, 23, fig. 5); and the light bead strings of two adjacent light bead groups are staggered (see fig. 5).
However, Liang is silent about the included angle between adjacent ends of two adjacent light bead strings is 30 degrees.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the spacing between light bead strings where the included angle is 30 degrees to adjust the light output from the lens of the optical system, since it has been held that the configuration of the spacing between light bead strings was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2020/0224857) in view of KR 101822582 (hereinafter KR).
Claim 3: Liang fails to teach a glue groove is provided on an outer side above the lens body.
KR teaches a glue groove (152, fig. 2) is provide on an outer side above the lens body (130, fig. 2).
Therefore, in view of KR, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a glue groove is provided on an outer side above the lens body, in order to further secure the lens body to another component outside of the lens body.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2020/0224857) in view of CN 206234639 (hereinafter CN)
Claim 4: Liang fails to teach symmetrical hooks are arranged at a middle position above the lens body.
CN teaches symmetrical hooks (37, fig. 4) are arranged at a middle position above the lens body (35, fig. 4).
Therefore, in view of CN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add symmetrical hooks are arranged at a middle position above the lens body, in order to provide another means of securing the lens body.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2020/0224857) in view of Leshniak (US 2015/0176823)
Claim 5: Liang fails to teach a mounting hole is provided at a circle center of the lens body.
Leshniak teaches a mounting hole (305, fig. 3) is provided at a circle center of the lens body (see fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Leshniak, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a mounting hole is provided at a circle center of the lens body, in order to provide another means of securing the lens body.
Claim 9: Liang fails to teach a through hole is provided in a middle position of the light source plate.
Leshniak teaches a through hole (103c, fig. 2) is provided in a middle position of the light source plate (103, fig. 2)
Therefore, in view of Leshniak, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a through hole is provided in a middle position of the light source plate, in order to provide another means of securing the lens body.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2020/0224857) as applied to claim(s) 8 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2023/0324012) (hereinafter Zhu).
Claim 10: Liang teaches An implementation method for the optical system according to claim 8, wherein the method comprises: providing first lens portions (41, fig. 4) with a light emitting angle and second lens portions (flat portions between 41) with a light emitting angle; corresponding the first lens portions to light bead groups (23, 25, fig. 5) such that a light emitting angle of an entire light; and rotating the lens body (rotated, see para [0032]).
However, Liang is silent about the first lens portions with a light emitting angle of 60 degrees, the second lens portions with a light emitting angle of 120 degrees, and a light emitting angle of the entire light is 60 degrees, and rotating the lens body by 15 degrees to correspond half of the light bead groups to the first lens portions and to correspond another half of the light bead groups to the second lens portions such that the light emitting angle of the entire light is 90 degrees; and rotating the lens body by 30 degrees such that the light emitting angle of the entire light is 120 degrees.
Zhu teaches rotating the lens by an angle of 360 degrees divided by M (see para [0033]).
Therefore, in view of Zhu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first and second lens portions of Lian where the first lens portion has a light emitting angle of 60 degrees and the second light emitting angle of 120 degrees, the light emitting angle of the entire light is 60 degrees, and rotating the lens body by 15 degrees to correspond half of the light bead groups to the first lens portions and to correspond another half of the light bead groups to the second lens portions such that the light emitting angle of the entire light is 90 degrees; and rotating the lens body by 30 degrees such that the light emitting angle of the entire light is 120 degrees, in order to adjust the light output of the optical system.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rotate the lens body by 15 degrees to correspond half of the light bead groups to the first lens portions and to correspond another half of the light bead groups to the second lens portions such that the light emitting angle of the entire light is 90 degrees; and rotating the lens body by 30 degrees such that the light emitting angle of the entire light is 120 degrees to produce a desired light output, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dorey (US 2,082,100), Dechar (US 3,201,881), Futami (US 2010/0259153), Vissenberg et al. (US 11,674,650) discloses a similar optical device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875