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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 1-4, and 14-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinderling et al. 2014/0307252.
Regarding claim 1, Hinderling discloses an illumination device, comprising: a light source (laser light source 12), configured to emit a light beam (beam 10) [104] [116-118] [FIG 2a-2c] [FIG 5] [FIG 7a-7c]; a Fresnel lens (Fresnel optics 30l), located on an optical path of the light beam to converge the light beam [139] [FIG 7a-7c]; and a microlens array (micro-lens 30z), located on the optical path of the light beam, and located downstream of the Fresnel lens, wherein when the light beam passes through the microlens array, an illumination light beam is formed and leaves the microlens array [139] [FIG 7a-7c].
Regarding claim 2, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hinderling further discloses light source is a light-emitting diode array [164].
Regarding claim 3, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hinderling further discloses a wavelength range of the light beam is 400-700nm (visible light) [104].
Regarding claim 4, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hinderling further discloses the Fresnel lens comprises a substrate and a lens structure, and the lens structure is located at a light exit surface of the substrate [139] [FIG 7a-7c].
Regarding claim 14, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hinderling further discloses the microlens array comprises a first microstructure array and a second microstructure array, the first microstructure array is located at a light incident surface of the microlens array, and the second microstructure array is located at a light exit surface of the microlens array [FIG 13a].
Regarding claim 15, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Hinderling further discloses the first microstructure array and the second microstructure array have a same focal length [FIG 13a].
Regarding claim 16, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Hinderling further discloses the first microstructure array and the second microstructure array have a same shape in projection along an optical axis of the light beam [FIG 13a].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5-11, 13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling et al. 2014/0307252.
Regarding claim 5, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. While Hinderling discloses concentric rings [0139], Hinderling fails to explicitly disclose 8 rings. However, it would have been obvious to use the number of rings for the best mode of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, Hinderling further discloses structure comprises a width and a height, the width of the structure of each concentric ring is the same, and the height of the structure of each concentric ring increases from inside to outside along a center of the lens structure [FIG 7a-c].
Regarding claim 7, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, Hinderling further discloses a width and height, and it would have been obvious to select the best width and height for the best mode of the invention [139] [FIG 7a-7c].
Regarding claim 8, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, Hinderling further discloses each concentric ring comprises a mountain-like structure, the mountain-like structure comprises a width and a height, the height of the mountain-like structure of each concentric ring is the same, and the width of the mountain-like structure of each concentric ring decreases from inside to outside along a center of the lens structure [FIG 7a-c] [139].
Regarding claim 9, Hinderling further discloses a width and height, and it would have been obvious to select the best width and height for the best mode of the invention [139] [FIG 7a-7c].
Regarding claim 10, Hindering discloses a height of each concentric ring, and it would have been obvious to select the best width and height for the best mode of the invention [139] [FIG 7a-7c].
Regarding claim 11, Hindering discloses a height of each concentric ring, and it would have been obvious to select the best width and height for the best mode of the invention [139] [FIG 7a-7c].
Regarding claim 13, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hinderling discloses a focal length of the Fresnel lens can be set to what the system needs [08] [048] [61-63] [69].
Regarding claim 17, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Hinderling discloses a plurality of microstructures. Therefore it would have been obvious an area of each of the plurality of microstructures is less than 1/100 of a total area of the first microstructure array to best suit the application [FIG 7a-c].
Regarding claim 18, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Hinderling discloses a plurality of microstructures. Therefore it would have been obvious an area of each of the plurality of microstructures is less than 1/100 of a total area of the second microstructure array [FIG 7a-7c]
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling et al. 2014/0307252 in view of Schweiger et al. 2018/0024371.
Regarding claim 12, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, fails to disclose that the Fresnel lens is plastic. Schweiger discloses the Fresnel is plastic [022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for cost effectiveness of production [027].
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling et al. 2014/0307252 in view of Di Trapani et al. 2020/0003944.
Regarding claim 19, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. However, fails to disclose first microstructure array comprises a plurality of microstructures, and each of the plurality of microstructures is an irregular polygon. Di Trapani discloses first microstructure array comprises a plurality of microstructures, and each of the plurality of microstructures is an irregular polygon [cl 17]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is well known in the art to use irregular shaped arrays.
Regarding claim 20, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, fails to disclose a light spot of the light beam is circular. De Trapani discloses a light spot of the light beam is circular [094]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is well known in the art to produce a circular light spot,
Regarding claim 21, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, fails to disclose a light spot of the illumination light beam is rectangle. De Trapani discloses a light spot of the illumination light beam is rectangle [094]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the shape the system needs to function at its optimal.
Regarding claim 22, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, fails to disclose minimum brightness of a light spot of the illumination light beam is greater than 80% of a maximum brightness of the light spot of the illumination light beam. De Trapani discloses minimum brightness of a light spot of the illumination light beam is greater than 80% of a maximum brightness of the light spot of the illumination light beam [094]. t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is well known in the art to produce a brighter spot than the beam.
Regarding claim 23, Hinderling discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, fails a divergence angle of the illumination light beam is less than 20 degrees. De Trapani discloses a divergence angle of the illumination light beam is less than 20 degrees [094]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the best angle needed for the optimal system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIFA HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7032. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4:30pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/ASIFA HABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights