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
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 19 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-14 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ono (JP 2012011145 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a light source apparatus (Figs. 1-33), comprising: a light source unit (Fig. 19) that divides excitation light into a plurality of light beams (EX1, EX2) and outputs the plurality of light beams (as shown in Fig. 19); a light guide member (31) including, on an inner side thereof, a hollow light guide path (as shown in Fig. 19, and as noted in the corresponding description, i.e., “...the light pipe 31 is a cylindrical member formed of a metal pipe, an aluminum-coated glass pipe, or the like, and constitutes one of optical waveguides serving as a transmission path for illumination light from the illumination light source unit 21...” and thus constitutes a hollow light guide path therein) having a first opening (a first opening adjacent 25) and a second opening on a side opposite to the first opening (as shown in Fig. 19), the light guide member having a plurality of wavelength converters (32a, 32b) provided on at least a portion of a side surface of the light guide path (as shown in Fig. 19), the plurality of wavelength converters being configured to emit light beams having wavelength bands different from each other (“...the first fluorescent carrier 32a is coated with a yellow phosphor (YAG: Ce) here. On the other hand, the second fluorescent carrier 32b is coated with a green phosphor (ZnS: Cu, Al) here...” and thus the plurality of wavelength converters 32a and 32b are configured to emit light beams having wavelength bands different from each other); and a light condenser device (the plurality of elements 22, collectively) that guides each of the plurality of light beams output from the light source unit to a corresponding one of the plurality of wavelength converters (as shown in Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 2, Ono discloses (Figs. 1-33) the light source unit divides the excitation light into as many light beams as the plurality of wavelength converters and outputs the plurality of light beams (as shown in Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 6, Ono discloses (Figs. 1-33) the light guide member comprises a light pipe (as shown in Figs. 1-33).
Regarding claim 14, Ono discloses (Figs. 1-33) a diffusion plate (33) on the second opening side of the light guide member (as shown in Figs. 1-33).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono.
Regarding claim 3, Ono teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-33) the plurality of wavelength converters (32a, 32b) includes a first wavelength converter (32a) that performs wavelength conversion of the excitation light into light of a first band (yellow); a second wavelength converter (32b) that performs wavelength conversion of the excitation light into light of a green band (“...the second fluorescent carrier 32b is coated with a green phosphor (ZnS: Cu, Al)...”); the light source unit includes a first light source block (21) that irradiates the first wavelength converter (e.g., as shown in Fig. 19), a second light source block (21) that irradiates the second wavelength converter (e.g., as shown in Fig. 19); wherein the light source block further includes a third light source block and a fourth light source block (Figs. 29 and 31).
Ono does not explicitly teach said first band is red, wherein the plurality of wavelength converters further includes a third wavelength converter that performs wavelength conversion of the excitation light into light of a blue band, a fourth wavelength converter that performs wavelength conversion of the excitation light into light of a near infrared region, wherein the third light source block that irradiates the third wavelength converter, and the fourth light source block that irradiates the fourth wavelength converter.
Ono at least teaches that the device is not limited to two phosphors (e.g., “...light pipe 31 is not limited to two fluorescent carriers formed on the inner peripheral surface...”) and various different colors can be utilized (e.g., “...the yellow phosphor: is exemplified fluorescence carrier 32 (YAG Ce), without limitation thereto, for example, a red phosphor .sub.(Y 2 O 2 S: EU ), green phosphor (ZnS: Cu, Al), blue phosphor {(Sr, Ca, Ba, Mg) .sub.10 (PO .sub.4 ) .sub.12 C: Eu)} or the like is applied alone or mixed to the inner peripheral surface of the light pipe 31. And you may use the illumination light source part 21 which light-emits ultraviolet excitation light....”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of said first band is red, wherein the plurality of wavelength converters further includes a third wavelength converter that performs wavelength conversion of the excitation light into light of a blue band, a fourth wavelength converter that performs wavelength conversion of the excitation light into light of a near infrared region, wherein the third light source block that irradiates the third wavelength converter, and the fourth light source block that irradiates the fourth wavelength converter, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and/or since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In the instant case one skilled in the art would have been motivated to improve, or otherwise increase, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by increasing the color gamut of output light emission).
Regarding claim 4, Ono does not explicitly teach the first light source block, the second light source block, the third light source block, and the fourth light source block are independently controlled by currents.
Ono at least teaches (e.g., Fig. 27) driving light source units independently to vary the intensity of excitation light to the desired quantity (“...the amount of light of the narrow-angle illumination light emitted from the first rod lens 41a and the wide-angle illumination light emitted from the second rod lens 41b is changed to obtain illumination light having desired spectral characteristics. And the light distribution balance of the entire illumination light can be changed...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of the first light source block, the second light source block, the third light source block, and the fourth light source block are independently controlled by currents, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In the instant case one skilled in the art would have been motivated to improve, or otherwise increase, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a configuration by which the amount of excitation light from each of the excitation light sources can be varied so as to produce an illumination light with variable light distribution balance).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Fujita et al. (US 2018/0024425 A1, herein referred to as: Fujita).
Regarding claim 5, Ono does not explicitly teach that the light guide member has, on the inner side, four side surfaces that are opposed to each other vertically and horizontally, and any one of the first wavelength converter, the second wavelength converter, the third wavelength converter, and the fourth wavelength converter is provided on a corresponding one of the four side surfaces.
Fujita teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraph [0040]) the light guide member has, on the inner side, four side surfaces that are opposed to each other vertically and horizontally (as shown in Figs. 1A-1B), and any one of the first wavelength converter, the second wavelength converter, the third wavelength converter, and the fourth wavelength converter is provided on a corresponding one of the four side surfaces (as described in paragraph [0040], e.g., four side surfaces can be coated with phosphors. There is no limitation on the type of phosphor applied, and one can apply any such phosphor to produce the desired color or color combination, as noted in paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of the light guide member has, on the inner side, four side surfaces that are opposed to each other vertically and horizontally, and any one of the first wavelength converter, the second wavelength converter, the third wavelength converter, and the fourth wavelength converter is provided on a corresponding one of the four side surfaces, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a device with a broader illumination output gamut).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2016/0116123 A1, herein referred to as: Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 7, Ono does not explicitly teach a ball lens disposed at the second opening of the light guide member.
Yamanaka teaches or suggests (Fig. 14) a ball lens (454) disposed at the second end of the light guide member (as shown in Fig. 14, the end of the fiber to which the ball lens 454 is attached reasonably forms a light exit opening of the fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of a ball lens disposed at the second opening of the light guide member, such as taught or suggested by Yamanaka, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to collect and focus the light beam emitted from the second opening).
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, in view of Fujita.
Regarding claim 8, Ono does not explicitly teach a heat sink disposed on an outer side surface of the light guide member.
Fujita teaches or suggests (Fig. 9) a heat sink (23) disposed on an outer side surface of the light guide member (as shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of a heat sink disposed on an outer side surface of the light guide member, such as taught or suggested by Fujita, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to increase heat dissipation from the light guide member).
Regarding claim 9, Ono does not explicitly teach a first dichroic mirror disposed at the first opening of the light guide member, the first dichroic mirror transmitting the excitation light and reflecting light subjected to wavelength conversion in the plurality of wavelength converters.
Fujita teaches or suggests (Fig. 8) a first dichroic mirror (21) disposed at the first opening of the light guide member (as shown in Fig. 8), the first dichroic mirror (21) transmitting the excitation light (LE) and reflecting light subjected to wavelength conversion (LF) in the plurality of wavelength converters (paragraph [0041], element 21 utilizes a glass base 21a and a thin film coating 21b thereon to pass excitation light and reflect wavelength converted light, thus constituting a dichroic mirror).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of a first dichroic mirror disposed at the first opening of the light guide member, the first dichroic mirror transmitting the excitation light and reflecting light subjected to wavelength conversion in the plurality of wavelength converters, such as taught or suggested by Fujita, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to increase absorption of the excitation light and prevent stray converted light from reflecting or transmitting back through the first opening).
Regarding claim 10, Ono does not explicitly teach a second dichroic mirror disposed at the second opening of the light guide member, the second dichroic mirror reflecting the excitation light and transmitting light subjected to wavelength conversion in the plurality of wavelength converters.
Fujita teaches or suggests (Fig. 8) a second dichroic mirror (22) disposed at the second opening of the light guide member (as shown in Fig. 8), the second dichroic mirror (22) reflecting the excitation light (LE) and transmitting light subjected to wavelength conversion (LF) in the plurality of wavelength converters (as shown in Fig. 8 and as described in paragraph [0078], i.e., element 22 utilizes a glass base 22a and a thin film coating 22b thereon to pass wavelength converted light and reflect excitation light, thus constituting a dichroic mirror).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of a second dichroic mirror disposed at the second opening of the light guide member, the second dichroic mirror reflecting the excitation light and transmitting light subjected to wavelength conversion in the plurality of wavelength converters, such as taught or suggested by Fujita, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to increase absorption of the excitation light by reflecting the excitation light back toward the phosphor elements, and allow transmission of wavelength converted light from the second opening).
Regarding claim 13, Ono does not explicitly teach the light guide member has, on the inner side, four side surfaces that are opposed to each other vertically and horizontally, and any one of the plurality of wavelength converters is provided on a corresponding one of three side surfaces out of the four side surfaces, and none of the plurality of wavelength converters are provided on one side surface out of the four side surfaces.
Fujita teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraph [0040]) the light guide member has, on the inner side, four side surfaces that are opposed to each other vertically and horizontally (as shown in Figs. 1A-1B), and any one of the plurality of wavelength converters is provided on a corresponding one of three side surfaces out of the four side surfaces (as described in paragraph [0040]), and none of the plurality of wavelength converters are provided on one side surface out of the four side surfaces (as described in paragraph [0040], e.g., three side surfaces can be coated while one remains a reflective surface. There is no limitation on the type of phosphor applied, and one can apply any such phosphor to produce the desired color or color combination, as noted in paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of the light guide member has, on the inner side, four side surfaces that are opposed to each other vertically and horizontally, and any one of the plurality of wavelength converters is provided on a corresponding one of three side surfaces out of the four side surfaces, and none of the plurality of wavelength converters are provided on one side surface out of the four side surfaces, such as taught or suggested by Fujita, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to produce the desired color, or color combination, as suited for the application, while maintaining luminous efficiency of the converted light emitted from the device).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, in view of McGuire et al. (US 2007/0019408 A1, herein referred to as: McGuire).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ono teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-33) each of the plurality of wavelength converters includes a phosphor (e.g. “...first and second fluorescent carriers 32a and 32b are divided into the above two directions (here, up and down) in the outer diameter direction in which the illumination light source unit 21 moves, with the front-rear direction along the longitudinal axis as a line segment. Different phosphors are applied to the inner peripheral surface of the divided light pipe 31. The light pipe 31 is not limited to two fluorescent carriers formed on the inner peripheral surface...”)
Ono does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of wavelength converters has a concentration gradient of the phosphor in a longitudinal direction of the light guide member (as recited in claim 11); or wherein each of the plurality of wavelength converters includes, in a longitudinal direction of the light guide member, a plurality of wavelength conversion blocks having conversion wavelengths different from each other within a predetermined wavelength range (as recited in claim 12).
McGuire teaches or suggests (Figs. 3A-3C, paragraph [0055]) each of the plurality of wavelength converters has a concentration gradient of the phosphor in a longitudinal direction of the light guide member (paragraph [0055]); or wherein each of the plurality of wavelength converters includes, in a longitudinal direction of the light guide member, a plurality of wavelength conversion blocks (e.g., Figs. 3B-3C) having conversion wavelengths different from each other within a predetermined wavelength range (paragraphs [0029]- [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ono and incorporated the teachings of each of the plurality of wavelength converters has a concentration gradient of the phosphor in a longitudinal direction of the light guide member (as recited in claim 11); or wherein each of the plurality of wavelength converters includes, in a longitudinal direction of the light guide member, a plurality of wavelength conversion blocks having conversion wavelengths different from each other within a predetermined wavelength range (as recited in claim 12), such as taught or suggested by McGuire, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to produce the desired color, or color combination, as suited for the application).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see DE 102009005839 A1 to Hoegele, pertinent to various disclosed elements (e.g., element 13 of the instant application).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights