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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 10/3/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
In this case, the book “Edge Emitting Laser Diodes and Superluminescent Diodes” described on pg. 11, lines 12-17 of the Specification as filed, the publication “Abdullah A. Alatawi, et al., Optics Express Vol. 26, Issue 20, pp. 26355-26364” mentioned on pg. 12, lines 4-6 of the Specification as filed, the publication “Blom, S. et al., Towards a polarized light-emitting backlight: Micro-structured anisotropic layers, DOI- 10.1889/1.1827869, Journal of the Society for Information Display, September 2002, p. 209-213” mentioned on pg. 38, lines 16-19 of the Specification as filed are not listed as references on the IDS filed 10/3/2025, and no copies of these NPL references have been provided either. Therefore, these references have not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 334 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On pg. 59, line 8 of the Specification as filed, the Specification describes “the second first ring-shaped section 2132” which is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the second .
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the central optics dichroic beam splitter is configured to transmit and/or reflect at least part of the device light, at least part of the first luminescent material light, in dependence of their spectral power distributions” in lines 32-34 of the claim is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the central optics dichroic beam splitter is configured to transmit and/or reflect at least part of the device light, and at least part of the first luminescent material light, in dependence of their spectral power distribution-- to add the missing conjunction.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein device light centroid wavelength λcd is selected from the wavelength range of 400-480 nm, the first luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc1 is selected from the wavelength range of 490-780 nm, the second luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc2 is selected from the wavelength range of 450-520 nm” in lines 14-18 of the claim is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --wherein the device light centroid wavelength λcd is selected from the wavelength range of 400-480 nm, the first luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc1 is selected from the wavelength range of 490-780 nm, and the second luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc2 is selected from the wavelength range of 450-520 nm-- to correct the typographical errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control system” and “the control system is configured to control” in Claims 1, 3, 9-10, and 13, and “a polarization control element, wherein the polarization control element is configured to control the polarization of the device light received by the polarization control element” in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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 1 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “wherein the one or more light generating devices comprise one or more of a laser diode and a superluminescent diode” in lines 5-6 of the claim requires the claimed device to include at least one of both a laser diode and a superluminescent diode, or simply at least one of either a laser diode or a superluminescent diode. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 1 as defining a device including at least one of either a laser diode or a superluminescent diode.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “the light generating system is configured to generate system light comprising one or more of (i) the first luminescent material light and (ii) the reflected device light” in lines 47-49 of the claim requires the claimed system light to include at least one of both the first luminescent material light and the reflected device light, or simply at least one of either the first luminescent material light or the reflected device light. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 1 as defining the system light including at least one of either the first luminescent material light or the reflected device light.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein d3/d1≤0.5, and wherein d3/d2≤0.5, and wherein d3 is at minimum 0.5mm” in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parameters d3, d2, and d1 are not defined by the claim, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. It is noted that in the originally filed claims filed 10/3/2025 prior to the Preliminary Amendment also filed 10/3/2025, Claim 2 originally defined d1 as “a first width”, d2 as “a second width”, and d3 as “a mutual distance” in lines 3-5 of the claim. However, the claim also does not specifically define what is meant by “a mutual distance”, merely stating that the first and second ring-shaped sections have a mutual distance, and thus it is unclear if the mutual distance is a distance between the first ring-shaped section and the second ring-shaped section, or a distance between the first and second ring-shaped sections and some other element of the light generating system, which further contributes to the indefiniteness of Claim 2.
A review of the Specification as originally filed shows that the value d3, which original Claim 2 referred to as the claimed “mutual distance”, is defined as “the distance between the first ring-shaped section 2131 and the second first ring-shaped section 2132” (see pg. 59, lines 7-10 of the Specification as filed). Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the Examiner has assumed that d1 is a first width of the first ring-shaped section, d2 is a second width of the second ring-shaped section, and d3 is a mutual distance between the first ring-shaped section and the second ring-shaped section, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending lines 3-6 of Claim 2 to recite --wherein the first ring-shaped section has a first width (d1), wherein the second ring-shaped section has a second width (d2), and wherein the first ring-shaped section and the second ring-shaped section have a mutual distance (d3) which is a distance between the first ring-shaped section and the second ring-shaped section, wherein d3/d1≤0.5, and wherein d3/d2≤0.5, and wherein d3 is at minimum 0.5mm-- or similar language in order to clearly define what d1, d2, and d3 are and clarify what the mutual distance is a distance between.
Claims 3, 6-7, 9, and 13 are rejected due to their dependence on indefinite Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first luminescent material” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is unclear which of the two different first luminescent materials defined by Claim 4 are meant by “the first luminescent material”, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has assumed this was meant to refer to both different first luminescent materials, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the first luminescent materials-- to establish proper antecedent basis and provide more clarity.
Claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “wherein one or more of the following applies: the light generating system comprises at least two different first luminescent materials, configured at different parts of the first ring-shaped section, wherein the at least two different first luminescent materials are configured to convert at least part of the device light received by the first luminescent material into first luminescent material light, wherein the first luminescent material light of the at least two different first luminescent materials have different spectral power distributions; and the light generating system comprises a second luminescent material, wherein the second luminescent material and the reflector are configured in different parts of the second ring-shaped section; wherein the device light has a device light centroid wavelength λcd, the first luminescent material light has a first luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc1, and the second luminescent material light has a second luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc2, wherein (λcd+10 nm)≤λc2≤(λc1-10 nm); wherein device light centroid wavelength λcd is selected from the wavelength range of 400-480 nm, the first luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc1 is selected from the wavelength range of 490-780 nm, the second luminescent material light centroid wavelength λc2 is selected from the wavelength range of 450-520 nm” in lines 2-18 of the claim (hereinafter referred to as “the first alternative limitation in lines 3-8 of the claim” and “the second alternative limitation in lines 9-18 of the claim”) requires the claimed device to include at least one of both the first alternative limitation in lines 3-8 of the claim and the second alternative expression in lines 9-18 of the claim, or simply at least one of either the first alternative expression in lines 3-8 of the claim or the second alternative expression in lines 9-18 of the claim. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 4 as defining a device including at least one of either the first alternative limitation in lines 3-8 of the claim or the second alternative limitation in lines 9-18 of the claim.
Claims 5 and 10-12 are rejected due to their dependence on indefinite Claims 1 and 4.
Claim 8 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “wherein the polarization changing element comprises one or more of a λ/4 waveplate and a Faraday rotator” in lines 4-5 of the claim requires the claimed polarization changing element to include at least one of both a λ/4 waveplate and a Faraday rotator, or simply at least one of either a λ/4 waveplate or a Faraday rotator. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 8 as defining a polarization changing element including at least one of either a λ/4 waveplate or a Faraday rotator.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein the first luminescent material at least comprises a luminescent material of the type A3B5O12:Ce” in lines 2-3 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., “A3B5O12:Ce”) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(E).
Further, it is noted that the limitation “the type A3B5O12:Ce” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has treated Claim 14 as reciting that the first luminescent material has a composition represented by A3B5O12:Ce, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --wherein the first luminescent material at least comprises a luminescent material represented by a formula A3B5O12:Ce-- or similar language to remove the indefinite terminology.
Claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “wherein A comprises one or more of Y, La, Gd, Tb and Lu” in lines 3-4 of the claim requires the claimed element A to include at least one of Y, La, Gd, Tb, and Lu simultaneously, or simply at least one of either Y, La, Gd, Tb, or Lu. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, the Examiner notes that the absence of a comma (“,”) prior to the conjunction “and” in line 3 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is a list of four alternatives (i.e., A can be one or more of Y, La, Gd, or Tb and Lu together), or if this is a list of five alternatives (i.e., A can be one or more of Y, La, Gd, Tb, or Lu). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 14 as defining the element A including at least one of either Y, La, Gd, Tb, or Lu.
Claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “and wherein B comprises one or more of Al, Ga, In and Sc” in line 4 of the claim requires the claimed element B to include at least one of Al, Ga, In, and Sc simultaneously, or simply at least one of either Al, Ga, In, or Sc. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the absence of a comma (“,”) prior to the conjunction “and” in line 4 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is a list of three alternatives (i.e., B can be one or more of Al, Ga, or In and Sc together), or if this is a list of four alternatives (i.e., B can be one or more of Al, Ga, In, or Sc). The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 14 as defining the element B including at least one of either Al, Ga, In, or Sc.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the optional second luminescent material" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the claimed second luminescent material is defined in Claim 4, not Claim 1. Additionally, while not contributing to indefiniteness, the comma (“,”) following the word “material” in line 5 of the claim is unnecessary. Further, the use of the word “optional” renders the claim indefinite because according to MPEP 2111.04, "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed." The recitations of Claim 14 that follow the term "optionally" are therefore not required elements of the claim and are thus given no patentable weight. Since these elements have no patentable weight because they are merely optional, no prior art is required to teach these elements in order for these claims to be rejected.
The Examiner respectfully suggests either amending Claim 1 to add language directed to the second luminescent material, or alternatively, amending Claim 14 to be dependent on Claim 4 rather than Claim 1, and additionally amending Claim 14 to recite --the
Claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “the optional second luminescent material, at least comprise one or more of Na0.5K0.5Li3SiO4:Eu2+, MSi2O-2N2:Eu2+, wherein M comprises one or more of Ba, Sr, and Ca, Sr[Be6ON4]:Eu2+, and MAl2O4:Eu2+” in lines 4-6 of the claim requires the claimed second luminescent material to include at least one of Na0.5K0.5Li3SiO4:Eu2+, MSi2O-2N2:Eu2+, Ca, Sr[Be6ON4]:Eu2+, and MAl2O4:Eu2+ simultaneously, or simply at least one of either Na0.5K0.5Li3SiO4:Eu2+, MSi2O-2N2:Eu2+, Ca, Sr[Be6ON4]:Eu2+, or MAl2O4:Eu2+. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 14 as defining the second luminescent material including at least one of either Na0.5K0.5Li3SiO4:Eu2+, MSi2O-2N2:Eu2+, Ca, Sr[Be6ON4]:Eu2+, or MAl2O4:Eu2+.
Claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “wherein M comprises one or more of Ba, Sr, and Ca” in lines 6 and 7 of the claim requires the claimed element M of the second luminescent material to include at least one of Ba, Sr, and Ca simultaneously, or simply at least one of either Ba, Sr, or Ca. The Applicant is respectfully advised that the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… and…”) is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; “at least one of… or…” (or the similar phrase “one or more of… or…”) must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, Claim 14 as defining the element M of the second luminescent material including at least one of either Ba, Sr, or Ca.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “selected from the group of a lamp, a luminaire, a projector device, a disinfection device, a photochemical reactor, an automotive lighting device, and an optical wireless communication device” in lines 1-3 of the claim renders the claim indefinite as it recites an improper Markush group. See MPEP § 2173.05(h) I. Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (Comm’r Pat. 1925). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. However, in this case there is no transitional phrase such as “comprising” or “consisting of”, and thus it is unclear if the claim is reciting a closed group of alternatives, or an open-ended group of alternatives, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --selected from the group consisting of a lamp, a luminaire, a projector device, a disinfection device, a photochemical reactor, an automotive lighting device, and an optical wireless communication device-- in order to clearly define a closed group of alternatives.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “A light generating system comprising (i) one or more light generating devices, (ii) a first luminescent material, (iii) a reflector, (iv) a rotatable element, (v) a control system, and (vi) central optics, wherein: the one or more light generating devices are configured to generate device light; wherein the one or more light generating devices comprise one or more of a laser diode and a superluminescent diode; the first luminescent material is configured to convert at least part of the device light received by the first luminescent material into first luminescent material light; the reflector is configured to reflect at least part of the device light received by the reflector into reflected device light; the rotatable element comprises a first ring-shaped section, and a second ring-shaped section; the first luminescent material is comprised by at least part of the first ring-shaped section; and the reflector is comprised by at least part of the second ring-shaped section; the light generating system is configured such that (a) in an operational mode of the light generating system the rotatable element rotates, such that over time different parts of the first ring-shaped section and/or different parts of the second ring-shaped section are irradiated by the device light, and (b) a distribution of the device light over the first ring-shaped section and the second ring-shaped section is optically controllable; and wherein the light generating system is configured to generate system light comprising one or more of the first luminescent material light and the reflected device light; the control system is configured to control a spectral power distribution of the system light by optically controlling the distribution of the device light over the first ring-shaped section and the second ring-shaped section; the one or more light generating devices are configure to generate polarized device light having a controllable polarization; the central optics comprises (i) a central optics polarizing beam splitter, and (ii) a central optics dichroic beam splitter; wherein: the central optics polarizing beam splitter is configured to transmit and/or reflect at least part of the device light in dependence of its polarization; the central optics dichroic beam splitter is configured to transmit and/or reflect at least part of the device light, and at least part of the first luminescent material light, in dependence of their spectral power distributions; the light generating system is configured such that (a) at least part of the device light, when having a first polarization, propagates from the one or more light generating devices via the central optics to the first ring-shaped section to provide the first luminescent material light, (b) at least part of the device light, when having a second polarization, different from the first polarization, propagates from the one or more light generating devices via the central optics to the second ring-shaped section to provide the reflected device light, and (c) at least part of the first luminescent material light generated by the first luminescent material and at least part of the reflected device light generated by the reflector escape from the light generating system via the central optics; the control system is configured to control the polarization of the device light; and the light generating system is configured to generate system light comprising one or more of (i) the first luminescent material light and (ii) the reflected device light” (emphasis added).
The closest Prior Art, Miyake (US 2011/0149549, previously listed on the IDS filed 10/3/2025), lacks the teachings of the light generating system comprising central optics that include a central optics polarizing beam splitter and a central optics dichroic beam splitter, the one or more light generating devices being configured to generate polarized light having a controllable polarization, the central optics polarizing beam splitter configured to transmit and/or reflect at least part of the device light depending on its polarization, the central optics dichroic beam splitter configured to transmit and/or reflect at least part of the device light and at least part of the first luminescent material light based on their spectral power distributions, the control system controlling the polarization of the device light, and the light generating system being configured such that at least part of the device light, when having a first polarization, propagates from the one or more light generating devices via the central optics to the first ring-shaped section to provide the first luminescent material light, at least part of the device light, when having a second polarization, different from the first polarization, propagates from the one or more light generating devices via the central optics to the second ring-shaped section to provide the reflected device light, and at least part of the first luminescent material light generated by the first luminescent material and at least part of the reflected device light generated by the reflector escape from the light generating system via the central optics, as required by Claim 1. While Lee et al. (US 2023/0176466) teaches a light generating system including a rotatable element that includes a first ring-shaped section having a first luminescent material and a second ring-shaped section that includes a reflector portion, and central optics comprising a central optics polarizing beam splitter and a central optics dichroic beam splitter, Lee lacks the teaching of light having a first polarization propagating from one or more light generating devices via the central optics to the first rings-shaped section to provide first luminescent material light while light having a second polarization different from the first polarization is directed to the second ring-shaped section to provide reflected light, to produce the light emitted by the light generating system, as required by Claim 1.
Accordingly, although light generating systems are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 1.
Claims 2-15 depend on Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takano et al. (US 2021/0389652), Takano et al. (US 2020/0301260), Iwanaga (US 2020/0103735), and Pan et al. (US 2019/0353995) all disclose light generating systems comprising one or more light generating devices, a first luminescent material provided on a rotatable element and a reflector provided on the rotatable element, a control system, and central optics including a central optics polarizing beam splitter and a central optics dichroic beam splitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights