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 .
Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) with US Provisional Application No. 63/673,976. Accordingly, the earliest effective fling date for the claimed invention was recognized as 07/22/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 2005 and 2010. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is not explained how a singular individual LED die may have more than one color as described as each LED die has an optical spectrum as described in ¶ 0008.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Re Claim 1-2:
On line 5 of claim 1, the claim recites “wherein each LED die has an optical spectrum”; however, it is unclear how each LED die (i.e. a singular LED die) may have a spectrum and not a singular color. Further, on line 2 of claim 2, the claim recites, “arrays of LED die”; however, there is only “an array of LED die” recited on line 4 of claim 1. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. Upon careful review, it appears Applicant appears to have interchanged LED die and an array of LED die, specifically noting that ¶ 0008 describes each LED die has an optical spectrum and ¶ 00010 describes the optical spectrum of at least one of the LED die may be different from the optical spectrum of at least one other LED die in the array. Conversely, for each array of LED die, all of the LED die may have the same optical spectrum; however, ¶ 00063 describes FIG. 17 shows a top view of the LED printed circuit board 140 of FIG. 2. In a preferred embodiment, there are nineteen arrays of two-by-two LED die arranged in a hexagonal close packed geometry and LED array elements 1910 are balanced by similar optical spectrum LEDs in LED array element 1915, LED array elements 1920 are balanced by LED array elements 1925, etc. The four circular areas denoted by 1935 represent the position where the taper array 220 pins touch to control the gap between the LED die and the input aperture of the tapers, and ¶ 00065 describes FIG. 18A shows a diagrammatic isometric view of two of the LED arrays of the LED board of FIG. 17. FIG. 18B shows a top view of the upper LED array of FIG. 18A. Wire bonds are not required to cross over another LED die. An equivalent Etendue system with a single closely packed LED array is equivalent to a nine-by-nine die array with the four corner LED die and the center LED die removed, which also includes 76 LED die as in this preferred embodiment. This ambiguity is complicated by refence characters 2005 and 2010 of Fig 18A being omitted from description in the specification. As best understood by the Examiner, weighing the entire disclosure, Applicant intended to recite at least one array of LED die, represented by the structure 2010 in which appears to be a two-by-two array of individual die, wherein each individual LED die appears to be 2005 in Fig 18A. As also best understood by the Examiner, Applicant intends to leave the possibility for reciting multiple arrays of LED die as shown in the hexagonal pattern in Fig 17. Further, it is known in the art that a singular, individual LED die may only emit one singular, individual color. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted “an array of LED die” on line 4 of claim 1 as – at least one the at least one array of LED die has an optical spectrum –, and “arrays of LED die” on line 2 of claim 2 as – the at least one array of LED die – in order to execute compact prosecution while keeping the broadest reasonably scoped interpretation.
Re Claims 2-19:
The claims are indefinite due to their dependence on base claim 1.
Re Claim 3:
The claim is indefinite due to its dependence on intervening claim 2.
Re Claim 4:
On lines 2-3, the claim recites, “the optical spectrum of at least one of the LED die is different from the optical spectrum of at least one other LED die in the array”; however, it is unclear how a singular LED die may emit a spectrum or range of color. For similar reasons to the reasons explained in claims 1-2, above, the Examiner has interpreted “for each array of LED die, the optical spectrum of at least one LED die is different from the optical spectrum of the at least one other LED die in the array” as – the number of at least one array of LED die is at least two, wherein the optical spectrum of at least one array of LED die is different from the optical spectrum of the at least one other array LED die in the at least two array of LED die – in order to execute compact prosecution.
Re Claim 5:
On lines 1-2, the claim recites, all of the LED die have a same optical spectrum; however, it is unclear how a singular LED die may emit a spectrum or range of color. For similar reasons to the reasons explained in claims 1-2, above, the Examiner has interpreted “for each array of LED die, all of the LED die have a same optical spectrum.” as – fthe number of at least one array of LED die is at least two, wherein the at least two arrays of the LED die have a same optical spectrum. – in order to execute compact prosecution.
Re Claim 8:
On lines 4-5, the claim recites “the optical spectrum of the LED die is the same as an LED die in the array of LED die for a diametrically-opposite one”; however, it is unclear how a singular LED die may emit a spectrum or range of color. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Further, to not have the same scope of claim 5, the number of array of LED die in order for there to be at least one diametrically-opposite pair is four. Accordingly, the Examiner has interpreted “wherein, for each LED die in each array of LED die for a tapered non-imaging collection optic that is positioned off axis in the multispectral illuminator, the optical spectrum of the LED die is the same as an LED die in the array of LED die for a diametrically-opposite one of the tapered non-imaging collection optics” as – wherein, the number of at least one array of LED die is four, and wherein, for at least one array of LED die for a tapered non-imaging collection optic that is positioned off axis in the multispectral illuminator, the optical spectrum of another array of LED die is the same for a diametrically-opposite one of the tapered non-imaging collection optics – in order to execute compact prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brukilacchio (US 20150003061 A1).
Re Claim 1:
Brukilacchio disclose a multispectral illuminator (LED line source system 10; shown in at least Figs 1-3; described in at least ¶¶ 0028-0029, specifically including the description of use multiple colors one at a time or together in any combination and relative intensity to enhance contrast, as different types of defects show maximum contrast for different spectral conditions depending on their wavelength dependent reflectivity in ¶ 0028; further description provided below), comprising:
an array of tapered non-imaging collection optics (non-imaging acrylic optical tapers 36; Figs 2-3; ¶ 0031) each having an input face and an output face (input aperture 52 and surface of 36 facing toward diffusers 56 and 58; shown in Fig 4 and described in ¶ 0033; referred to as input and output with respect to the claimed input face and output face);
for each of the tapered non-imaging collection optics (for each 36), an array of LED die disposed proximate to the input face (array of LED group 50; shown in Fig 7 transposed with Figs 2-4; described in at least ¶¶ 0033 and 0040-0041), wherein each LED die has an optical spectrum (described affirmatively and conversely by at least (the) degree of diffusing that is required for a given application is dependent on the number of individual colors LEDs in the LED group and their relative position at the input aperture 52 of the taper 36. For example, if only a single color LED is used and substantially fills the entire input aperture, then the far field is sufficiently uniform as to require no diffusers in the positions 56 and 58 in ¶ 0039 ); and
a lens system (lens 46) configured to receive light emitted (shown in at least Figs 5A-5B) from the output faces of the tapered non-imaging collection optics (output9) and to generate a composite image at an illumination plane (image plane 124; shown in at least Figs 11A-11B; described in at least ¶ 0048), the composite image comprising an image of each output face at the illumination plane wherein the images are superimposed on each other (shown in at least Fig 12; described as at least FIG. 12 for which all channels are ray traced to show the composite beam impinging on illumination plane 124 in ¶ 0048).
Re Claim 2:
Brukilacchio further discloses a control module (LED “Chip-on-Board” (COB) metal core PCB 80; shown in Fig 8; described in at least ¶ 0044) in communication with the arrays of LED die (via electrical connector 88; Fig 8; ¶ 0044), the control module (80) configured to control an intensity of each LED die (described in at least ¶ 0042 as current to each LED can be adjusted to maximize the uniformity of the line intensity profile along the X-Axis to account for differences in the outputs from the individual LEDs and to account for alignment tolerance and finite differences in optical elements; the Examiner notes the functionality is enabled by the configuration of connector 88) and wherein the control module is programmable to provide a predetermined optical spectrum for the composite image (described in at least ¶ 0044 as the cathodes from each of three color LEDs for each of nine channels are independently addressed by connection to a unique pin on electrical connector 88 transposed with ¶ 0028 as (a) further advantage is the ability to use multiple colors one at a time or together in any combination and relative intensity to enhance contrast, as different types of defects show maximum contrast for different spectral conditions depending on their wavelength dependent reflectivity).
Re Claim 3:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein the control module (80) comprises one or more current drivers to supply an electrical current to the LED die (described in at least ¶ 0006 as (the) LED or LED arrays are mounted to a high thermal conductivity circuit board comprising chip on board (COB) technology which can include both the LED and electronic drive components resulting in a more compact and reliable design with improved thermal and optical performance at lower cost relative to pre-packaged based LED systems and other non LED systems such as the industry standard tungsten halogen lamp coupled to optical fibers arranged in a line and ¶ 0042 as current to each LED can be adjusted to maximize the uniformity of the line intensity profile along the X-Axis to account for differences in the outputs from the individual LEDs and to account for alignment tolerance and finite differences in optical elements).
Re Claim 4:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein, for each array of LED die, the optical spectrum of at least one of the LED die is different from the optical spectrum of at least one other LED die in the array (described in at least at least ¶ 0044 as the cathodes from each of three color LEDs for each of nine channels are independently addressed by connection to a unique pin on electrical connector 88 and in at least ¶ 0028 (a) further advantage is the ability to use multiple colors one at a time or together in any combination and relative intensity to enhance contrast, as different types of defects show maximum contrast for different spectral conditions depending on their wavelength dependent reflectivity).
Re Claim 5:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein, for each array of LED die, all of the LED die have a same optical spectrum (described in at least at least ¶ 0044 as the cathodes from each of three color LEDs for each of nine channels are independently addressed by connection to a unique pin on electrical connector 88 and in at least ¶ 0028 (a) further advantage is the ability to use multiple colors one at a time or together in any combination and relative intensity to enhance contrast, as different types of defects show maximum contrast for different spectral conditions depending on their wavelength dependent reflectivity).
Re Claim 6:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein the lens system (46) comprises at least one lens array (cylindrical lenses 116; Figs 10A-10C) disposed proximate to the output faces of the array of tapered non-imaging collection optics (proximation to output shown in at least Fig 2-6) and is configured to image each of the output faces to infinite (configuration shown in Figs 2-6; described in at least ¶¶ 0009 as (a) plurality of cylindrical lenses each having a focal length in a first plane is disposed on one of the optical axes at a distance from the output aperture of a respective one of the tapers by substantially a focal length to thereby image light from the output aperture to infinite and 0047 as there is shown a diagrammatic isometric view of the lens 46 of system 30 of FIG. 4. The lens is comprised of nine individual cylindrical lenses 116, one per channel…(the) far field angle in the X-Z plane is determined by the width of the aperture 60 in FIG. 4 in the X-Z plane, the distance between the aperture 60 and the cylindrical lens 116 on hybrid lens 46 and the channel to channel separation. The nine far field imaging lenses 116 are shown from a diagrammatic top view in FIG. 10B) and wherein the lens system (46) further comprises at least one lens (common front lens element 118; Figs 10A-10C; described in at least ¶ 0048) disposed to receive light from the at least one lens array (shown in at least Figs 5A-5B) and to generate the composite image at the illumination plane (shown in at least Figs 10A-10C transposed Figs 11A-12; described in at least ¶ 0048 as near field intensity at the output of a taper is very uniform, however, the far field is not, so the purpose of placing the diffuser near the output of the taper is to act to redistribute the far field from each point in the output face of the taper such as to achieve substantially uniform light in the far field from the perspective of the light which reaches the illumination plane as imaged by lens 116 of composite lens 46. Another view of FIG. 11B is shown in FIG. 12 for which all channels are ray traced to show the composite beam impinging on illumination plane 124; stated differently, the composite image formed in at least part by 116 is further modified and generated to the illumination plane 124 by 118).
Re Claim 7:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein the at least one lens array (116) comprises a lens array (shown in Figs 10A-10B) having a plurality of lenses each having an aspheric surface (Figs 10A-10B; described in at least ¶ 0047 as the lens has an aspheric shape).
Re Claim 16:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein at least one of the tapered non-imaging collection optics (36) is a hollow tapered non-imaging collection optic (described in at least ¶ 0046 as (other) embodiments of a collection optic include stepped tapers, that is, taper sections at different angles with respect to the optical axis. Additionally, hollow mirrored versions of all these optics are feasible)
Re Claim 17:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein the hollow tapered non-imaging collection optic includes a high reflectance surface (described in at least ¶ 0046 as (other) embodiments of a collection optic include stepped tapers, that is, taper sections at different angles with respect to the optical axis. Additionally, hollow mirrored versions of all these optics are feasible).
Re Claim 18:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein at least one of the tapered non-imaging collection optics (36) is formed of a molded plastic (described in at least ¶ 0031 as a non-imaging acrylic tapers 36 transposed with ¶ 0033 which describes molded taper collection optic 36).
Re Claim 19:
Brukilacchio further discloses wherein at least one of the tapered non-imaging collection optics () is formed of an ultraviolet transmitting material (described in at least ¶ 0007 as light from the typically ultraviolet, blue, green, amber, red, infrared or phosphor coated blue (for white light) LED or LED arrays is collected by a linear array of non-imaging concentrators and subsequently imaged to a high intensity line by a hybrid lens incorporating individual lenses per channel to image uniformly to the far field from the region near the output of the collection optic on the LED side and by a common focusing lens on the output side to the illumination plane).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 8:
The closest prior art of record (Brukilacchio) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the optical spectrum and the diametrically-opposite one of the tapered non-imaging collection optics as interpreted in the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) section, above.
Re Claim 9:
The closest prior art of record (Brukilacchio) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the hexagonal array as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 10:
The closest prior art of record (Brukilacchio) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the input and output faces as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 11-12:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 10.
Re Claim 13:
The closest prior art of record (Brukilacchio) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the input and output faces as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 14-15:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brukilacchio (US 20120099308 A1) discloses an illuminator comprising non-imaging and imaging optics for near field as well as an imaged down stream illumination plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875