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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/26/2026 has been entered.
The objections over the Claims and Drawings presented in the Office Action mailed 10/24/2025 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 1/26/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the Office Action mailed 10/24/2025 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 1/26/2026.
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 1-4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0113004).
With regards to Claim 1, Wang discloses a lens [10] comprising: a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the first surface including a first convex central refractive portion [111] and a total internal reflection (TIR) portion [13] peripheral to the first convex central portion [111] (see paragraph 21 and Figures 1 and 3), the second surface including a second convex central refractive portion [141] and a peripheral refractive portion [142] having a curvature different from a curvature of the second convex central refractive portion [142] (see paragraph 20 and Figures 1 and 3), a central axis of the lens extending through a center of the first convex central refractive portion [111] and a center of the second convex refractive central portion [141] (see Figure 1; such an axis will substantially exist).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the first convex central refractive portion and the second convex central refractive portion being shaped to collimate or partially collimate light via refraction at the first convex central portion followed by refraction at the second convex central portion, such that a first light incident on the first convex central refractive portion is transmitted through the second convex central portion, the TIR portion and the peripheral refractive portion being shaped to collimate or partially collimate light by total internal reflection at the TIR portion followed by refraction at the peripheral refractive portion such that a second light incident on the TIR portion is transmitted through the peripheral refractive portion to be parallel to the first light and to cross the central axis. However, Wang does disclose the first convex central refractive portion [111] and the second convex central refractive portion [141] being shaped to collimate or partially collimate light via refraction at the first convex central portion [111] followed by refraction at the second convex central portion [141], and the TIR portion [13,16] and the peripheral refractive portion [142] being shaped to collimate or partially collimate light by total internal reflection at the TIR portion [13,16] followed by refraction at the peripheral refractive portion [142] (see Wang paragraphs 17, 19, and 20 and Figures 1 and 3). Furthermore, while Wang does not explicitly disclose a second light incident on the TIR portion is transmitted through the peripheral refractive portion to be parallel to the first light and to cross the central axis, Wang does disclose the structure of the lens as recited in the claim. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to provide a first light and a second light to the lens such that the second light incident on the TIR portion is transmitted through the peripheral refractive portion to be parallel to the first light and to cross the central axis. 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 lens of Wang such that the first convex central refractive portion and the second convex central refractive portion being shaped to collimate or partially collimate light via refraction at the first convex central portion followed by refraction at the second convex central portion, such that a first light incident on the first convex central refractive portion is transmitted through the second convex central portion, the TIR portion and the peripheral refractive portion being shaped to collimate or partially collimate light by total internal reflection at the TIR portion followed by refraction at the peripheral refractive portion such that a second light incident on the TIR portion is transmitted through the peripheral refractive portion to be parallel to the first light and to cross the central axis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a collimated light output from a given location of an incident light.
With regards to Claim 2, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Wang further discloses a central axis of the lens extends through a center of the first convex central refractive portion [111] and a center of the second convex refractive central portion [141] (see Figure 3); and the TIR portion [13] has a cross-section, taken in a plane that includes the central axis, that includes a plurality of serrations (see paragraph 17 and Figures 1 and 3).
With regards to Claim 3, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Wang further discloses each serration includes an apex and a pair of opposing sides that each extend from the apex toward the second surface of the lens (see paragraph 24 and Figures 1 and 3); the pair of opposing sides is angled such that light that enters the lens via refraction at a first side of the pair of opposing sides is directed toward the refractive peripheral portion via total internal reflection at a second side of the pair of opposing sides and refracted out of the lens by the peripheral refractive portion [142] (see paragraph 22 and Figure 3).
With regards to Claim 4, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Wang further discloses the plurality of serrations includes apexes that lie on a virtual surface that is concave when viewed in the cross-section (see paragraphs 24 and 25 and Figure 1).
With regards to Claim 6, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Wang further discloses the lens is circular (see Figure 4); the TIR portion [13,16] surrounds the first convex central refractive portion [111] (see paragraphs 21 and 22 and Figures 1 and 3); and the peripheral refractive portion [142] surrounds the second convex central refractive portion [141] (see paragraphs 19 and 20 and Figures 1 and 3).
With regards to Claim 9, Wang discloses an illumination system comprising: an array of LEDs [22] or pcLEDs (see paragraphs 3 and 28); and the lens of claim 1 (see the above discussion of the disclose of Wang as pertains to the limitations of Claim 1) arranged with its first surface facing the array to collimate or partially collimate light emitted by the array (see paragraphs 19 and 28 and Figures 2 and 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0113004) in view of Okahisa et al. (US 2020/0072439; hereafter Okahisa et al. ‘439).
With regards to Claim 5, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Wang further discloses the plurality of serrations include apexes (see paragraph 17 and Figures 1 and 3).
Wang does not disclose the apexes lie on a virtual surface that is generally planar when viewed in the cross-section.
Okahisa et al. ‘439 further discloses the plurality of serrations [21c] includes apexes that lie on a virtual surface that is generally planar when viewed in the cross-section (see paragraph 117 and Figure 12; the arrangement of serrations [21a] would substantially suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the apexes lie on a virtual surface being substantially generally planar viewed in the cross-section of Figure 12).
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 apexes of the plurality of serrations of Wang to lie on a virtual surface that is generally planar when viewed in the cross-section, as taught by Okahisa et al. ‘439. One would have been motivated to do so in order to disperse light uniformly therethrough (see Okahisa et al. ‘439 paragraph 117).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0113004).
With regards to Claim 7, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the lens is rotationally symmetric about a central axis that extends through a center of the first convex central refractive portion and a center of the second convex refractive central portion. However, Wang does disclose the lens [10] is substantially circular in a cross-section perpendicular to an optical axis thereof (see Wang Figure 4), the light from the lens [10] is collimated (see Wang paragraph 19 and Figure 3), the second convex refractive central portion [141] is surrounded by the peripheral refractive portion [142] and has a ring structure (see Wang paragraphs 19 and 20 and Figures 1 and 4), the first convex central refractive portion [111] is surrounded by the TIR portion [13,16] (see Wang paragraphs 21 and 22 and Figure 3), and the second convex refractive central portion [141] and first convex central refractive portion [111] are substantially aligned (see Wang paragraph 21 and Figures 1, 3, and 4), the surfaces of the lens are chosen to increase light output efficiency (see Wang paragraph 37 and Figure 5), and the TIR portion [13,16] includes surfaces which substantially extend around a periphery of the lens [10] (see Wang Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form the lens of Wang such that the lens is rotationally symmetric about a central axis that extends through a center of the first convex central refractive portion and a center of the second convex refractive central portion in order to provide a substantially collimated beam with increased light output efficiency. 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 lens of Wang to be rotationally symmetric about a central axis that extends through a center of the first convex central refractive portion and a center of the second convex refractive central portion in order to provide a substantially collimated beam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a substantially collimated beam (see Wang paragraph 19), with increased light output efficiency (see Wang paragraph 37).
With regards to Claim 8, Wang discloses the lens as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the first convex central refractive portion has a radius of curvature between about 0.5 mm and about 3.0 mm and has a conic constant less than or equal to -0.5; and the second convex central portion has a radius of curvature between about 0.5 mm and about 3.0 mm and has a conic constant less than or equal to -0.5. However, Wang does disclose the light from the lens [10] is collimated (see Wang paragraph 19 and Figure 3), the second convex refractive central portion [141] and first convex central refractive portion [111] are substantially aligned (see Wang paragraph 21 and Figures 1, 3, and 4), and the surfaces of the lens are chosen to increase light output efficiency (see Wang paragraph 37 and Figure 5). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form the lens of Wang such that the first convex central refractive portion has a radius of curvature between about 0.5 mm and about 3.0 mm and has a conic constant less than or equal to -0.5; and the second convex central portion has a radius of curvature between about 0.5 mm and about 3.0 mm and has a conic constant less than or equal to -0.5 in order to form a collimated light output while increasing the light output efficiency. 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 first convex central refractive portion and second convex central portion of Wang such that the first convex central refractive portion has a radius of curvature between about 0.5 mm and about 3.0 mm and has a conic constant less than or equal to -0.5; and the second convex central portion has a radius of curvature between about 0.5 mm and about 3.0 mm and has a conic constant less than or equal to -0.5. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a substantially collimated beam (see Wang paragraph 19), with increased light output efficiency (see Wang paragraph 37).
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0113004) in view of Marfeld et al. (US 2010/0258819).
With regards to Claim 10, Wang discloses the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the LEDs or pcLEDs are independently controllable.
Marfeld et al. teaches the LEDs [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] or pcLEDs are independently controllable (see paragraph 46).
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 LEDs or pcLEDs of Wang to be independently controllable, as taught by Marfeld et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a desired color mixing light output (see Marfeld et al. paragraph 46).
With regards to Claim 11, Wang discloses the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wang does not explicitly disclose each LED or pcLED is a segment of a monolithic structure.
Marfeld et al. teaches each LED [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] or pcLED is a segment of a monolithic structure (see paragraph 37 and Figure 1).
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 LEDs or pcLEDs of Wang to be a segment of a monolithic structure, as taught by Marfeld et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a desired color mixing light output at each light source location (see Marfeld et al. paragraph 37).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0113004), as modified by Marfeld et al. (US 2010/0258819), further in view of Hager (DE 102019126732; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 12, Wang and Marfeld disclose the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 11.
Wang does not disclose each LED or pcLED is or comprises a microLED.
Hager teaches each LED or pcLED is or comprises a microLED (see top of page 6).
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 LED or pcLED of Wang and Marfeld to be or comprise a microLED, as taught by Hager. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a reduced-size light source for compact illumination.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0113004) in view of Chong et al. (US 2018/0132330).
With regards to Claim 13, Wang discloses the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wang does not explicitly disclose each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 500 microns.
Chong et al. teaches each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 500 microns (see paragraph 29 and Figure 2A).
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 LED or pcLEDs of Wang to have a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 500 microns, as taught by Chong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize microLEDs of relatively small size (see Chong et al. paragraphs 29 and 38).
With regards to Claim 14, Wang discloses the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wang does not explicitly disclose each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 100 microns.
Chong et al. teaches each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 100 microns (see paragraph 29 and Figure 2A).
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 LED or pcLEDs of Wang to have a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 100 microns, as taught by Chong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize microLEDs of relatively small size (see Chong et al. paragraphs 29 and 38).
With regards to Claim 15, Wang discloses the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wang does not explicitly disclose each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 50 microns.
Chong et al. teaches each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array (see paragraph 29 and Figure 2A).
Chong et al. does not explicitly disclose the largest dimension in the plane of the array is less than or equal to 50 microns. However, Chong et al. does disclose a range of less than 100 microns and using a small size microLED (see Chong et al. paragraphs 29 and 38). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select a size of the LED or pcLEDs such that each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 50 microns to utilize microLEDs of relatively small size. 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 LED or pcLEDs of Wang to have a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less, as taught by Chong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize microLEDs of relatively small size (see Chong et al. paragraphs 29 and 38).
With regards to Claim 16, Wang discloses the illumination system as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wang does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to power the LEDs or pcLEDs.
Chong et al. teaches a controller configured to power the LEDs or pcLEDs (see paragraph 9).
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 illumination system of Wang to include a controller configured to power the LEDs or pcLEDs, as taught by Chong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to modulate light emitted from the LEDs or pcLEDs (see Chong et al. paragraph 9).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okahisa et al. (US 2022/0416134; hereafter Okahisa et al. ‘134) in view of Wang (US 2022/0113004).
With regards to Claim 17, Okahisa et al. ‘134 discloses a mobile device comprising: a camera (see paragraph 76); a flash illumination system comprising: a monolithic array of independently controllable LEDs or pcLEDs (see paragraphs 3 and 35 and Figures 1A and 1B); a lens [23] (see paragraph 45 and Figures 1A and 1B) arranged with its first surface facing the array to collimate or partially collimate light emitted by the array (see Figure 1E); and a controller configured to operate the LEDs or pcLEDs (see paragraphs 41 and 61 and Figures 1D and 1E).
Okahisa et al. ‘134 does not explicitly disclose the lens is the lens of Claim 1.
Wang teaches the lens of claim 1 (see the above discussion of the disclosure and teachings of Wang as pertains to the limitations of Claim 1).
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 lens of Okahisa et al. ‘134 to include the lens of Claim 1, as taught by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a beam angle adjustable lens for illumination (see Wang paragraph 18).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okahisa et al. (US 2022/0416134; hereafter Okahisa et al. ‘134) as modified by Wang (US 2022/0113004), further in view of Chong et al. (US 2018/0132330).
With regards to Claim 19, Okahisa et al. ‘134 and Wang disclose the mobile device as discussed above with regards to Claim 17.
Wang does not explicitly disclose each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 100 microns.
Chong et al. teaches each LED or pcLED has a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 100 microns (see paragraph 29 and Figure 2A).
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 LED or pcLEDs of Wang to have a largest dimension in the plane of the array of less than or equal to 100 microns, as taught by Chong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize microLEDs of relatively small size (see Chong et al. paragraphs 29 and 38).
With regards to Claim 20, Okahisa et al. ‘134 and Wang disclose the mobile device as discussed above with regards to Claim 17.
Wang does not explicitly disclose each LED or pcLED is or comprises a microLED.
Chong et al. teaches each LED or pcLED is or comprises a microLED (see paragraph 29 and Figure 2A).
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 LED or pcLEDs of Wang to be or comprise a microLED, as taught by Chong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize light sources of relatively small size (see Chong et al. paragraphs 29 and 38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Wang does not disclose light transmitted through the peripheral refractive portion [142] to cross the central axis, and at most discloses that any adjustment to the beam angle is made by external plates to the lens rather than being a characteristic of the lens itself, the examiner notes that Claim 1 does not recite a feature of beam adjustment. The invention as recited in Claim 1 is a lens, which does not include a light source or require a position of a light source relative the lens. Therefore, the recited structure of the lens in Claim 1 should be sufficient to provide the resulting light output recited in the claim when a first and second light are applied to the lens. Should the applicant determine that further structure of the lens is required to provide the resulting light output as claimed, language defining such structure should be included in the claim. Should the applicant determine a position of a light source relative the lens portions is imperative to achieving the resulting light output as claimed, the applicant should consider utilizing language in the claims including the light source to define the relative location of such light source relative the portions of the lens.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875