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). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/462,843, filed on 9/16/2021.
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 “at least one non-reshaped portion of the distal edge is arranged such that it forms a stray-light protection, by which illumination light coming from the at least two illumination units are kept away from the optical element” (examiner notes that while two non-reshaped portions are shown in the figures, an interpretation of this limitation is that there is only one non-reshaped portion that forms stray light protection from the two illumination units which was not shown in the figures, see 112 rejection below) in claims 6, 14 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 and Species A in the reply filed on 4/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/3/2026.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the at least one non-reshaped portion of the distal edge comprises at least one part A of the circumference of the distal edge corresponding to an angle αmax, which is spanned by straight lines between the center point of the distal face of the optical element and points of the boundary of the light-emitting face in such a way that the angle is maximal” which is best exemplified in Fig 3. Claim 7 (dependent off claim 6) recites “the at least one non-reshaped portion of the distal edge comprises at least one part B of the circumference of the distal edge between two points a and b, in such a way that the respective tangent, which touches the distal edge at these points, intersects or touches the light-emitting face and the length of the part B between a and b is maximal” which is best exemplified in Fig 6. The specification discloses that Species A can have the arrangement of shown in Fig 3 and that of Fig 6 but does not disclose that Species A exemplifies the arrangement of the at least one non-reshaped portion of distal edge shown in Fig 3 and Fig 6 in a single embodiment. As such Claims 7-8, is withdrawn. Furthermore, the examiner notes that it is not clear how such a configuration (how the distal edge can have the configuration of Fig 3 and Fig 6 in a single embodiment) can exist and if claim 7 (dependent off claim 6) were to be examined, it would be subject to possible rejections under 112.
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.
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “at least two illumination units” and then later recites “at least one non-reshaped portion of the distal edge is arranged such that it forms a stray-light protection, by which illumination light coming from the at least two illumination units are kept away from the optical element.” An interpretation of this limitation involves only one non-reshaped portion, where it is not clear how one non-reshaped portion provides stray-light protection from the at least two illumination units. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "at least one illumination unit has a light emitting face" in line15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if applicant is referring to one of the “at least two illumination units” recited earlier in claim 6 or a different illumination unit all together. For examination purposes, the examiner will treat this limitation as referring to one of the at least two illumination units.
Furthermore, at the end of Claim 6, it is not clear what the angle is “maximal” in relation to.
Claim 14 recites “at least two illumination units” and then later recites “at least one non-reshaped portion of the distal edge is arranged such that it forms a stray-light protection, by which illumination light coming from the at least two illumination units are kept away from the optical element.” An interpretation of this limitation involves only one non-reshaped portion, where it is not clear how one non-reshaped portion provides stray-light protection from the at least two illumination units. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "at least one illumination unit has a light emitting face" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if applicant is referring to one of the “at least two illumination units” recited earlier in claim 6 or a different illumination unit all together. For examination purposes, the examiner will treat this limitation as referring to one of the at least two illumination units.
Furthermore, at the end of Claim 6, it is not clear what the angle is “maximal” in relation to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 6, 14 recites “two illumination units”, “the distal edge is reshaped in two separate portions” and “non-reshaped portion …. forms stray-light protection”.
Kodama US 2021/0369087 discloses a similar device with an optical element (#47, Figs 2-3), two illumination sources (#57), a distal edge with a reshaped portion (#49) but lacks non-reshaped portions, where the distal edge is reshaped in two separate portions as claimed in claim 10, 12. While references such as Iwasaka WO 2014/111990 (see NPL Cite #27 in the IDS filed 5/23/2025) teaches a non-reshaped portion (#148), it is not clear if the resulting modification with Kodama would be produce two separate reshaped portions as claimed. As seen in the figure 2 of the current application, the reshaped portions (#26) are separate from each other by a non-reshaped portion (#27), where the reshaped portions are not directly contacting each other.
Sorenson US 2020/0060520 discloses two light sources (#7a-7b) and a non-shaped portion (#8b) that forms a stray light protection (paragraph 92) but lacks the two separate reshaped portions as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for other optical instruments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights