Patent aspheric focusable flashlight

[Walterk]

Okay, who filed a patent here?

Found this:
Aspherical lens for LED, United States Patent Application 20100002441


An illuminate device with an optical lens includes an aspherical lens and a LED.
The aspherical lens, which has a flat end and an aspheric convex end, is held at the distance between 13.5 to 16.3 mm from the light center of the LED to the vertex of the aspheric surface of the lens.
Light emitted from the LED enters the flat end of the lens and is refracted by the aspheric end of the lens to create a zoomable spot.
An axial cross-section curve of the aspherical lens contents with a set of rectangular coordinates, which are
( 12,8.00),
( 11,8.05),
( 10,8.20),
( 9,8.44),
( 8,8.79),
( 7,9.25),
( 6,9.82),
( 5,10.51),
( 4,11.33),
( 3,12.29),
( 2,13.42),
( 1,14.75),
( 0,16.30),
(−1,14.75),
(−2,13.42),
(−3,12.29),
(−4,11.33),
(−5,10.51),
(−6,9.82),
(−7,9.25),
(−8,8.79),
(−9,8.44),
(−10,8.20),
(−11,8.05),
(−12,8.00).


Isn't this how we do it for years over here?!:shrug:
Would be nice to make your own lens with the coordinates by the way.
Anyone care to fabricate a mould?

 

[wyager]

LOL, someone patented the aspheric LED technique? That's like patenting gears or something...

 

[ma_sha1]

Someone in Taiwan is wasting company money, it'll be rejected if the patent office does semi decent prior-art search. Not only CFP has shown applications before 2008 filing date, the LED lenser has been using Aspheric lens on led for years, just didn't call it by that name.

If the stupid patent do go through while patent office wasted tax payer's money & not doing their job, commercial companies will just need to change the name call it PCX condenser lens, or by the vintage name of Bubble lens or Fish eye lens . It won't have any effect on one-of custom mods & DIYs.


Ho, Yen-wei (Taichung, TW)

Application Number:
12/230642

Publication Date:
01/07/2010

Filing Date:
09/03/2008

Export Citation:

Assignee:
GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO., LTD.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

You know that's not how patents work. Read the claims. Their description is screwy - saying that a component consumes 'electricity' is not a good description. Patents must be Useful, Novel, and Non-Obvious.

From http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0002441.html :
1. An optical device for illumination, the optical device comprising: a light emitter placed at the origin of the rectangular coordinate, and a lens with the rotative symmetry having a flat end and a convex end, wherein the rectangular coordinates of a curve on the axial convex cross-section of the lens are as following: (12,8.00), (11,8.05), (10,8.20), (9,8.44), (8,8.79), (7,9.25), (6,9.82), (5,10.51), (4,11.33), (3,12.29), (2,13.42), (1,14.75), (0,16.30), (−1,14.75), (−2,13.42), (−3,12.29), (−4,11.33), (−5,10.51), (−6,9.82), (−7,9.25), (−8,8.79), (−9,8.44), (−10,8.20), (−11,8.05), (−12,8.00) and its curvatures set between 1 to −1 mm, and therefore a beam of the light emitter refracting through the convex end of the lens to perform a minimum included angle.

2. An optical device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the thickness of the lens, measuring from the vertex of the convex end to the flat end, sets the length between 6 to 10 mm.

3. An optical device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the light emitter places at between 13.5 to 16.3 mm from the center of the light emitter to the vertex of the convex end of the lens on the optic axis of the lens for the optimum performance of the light spot.

4. An optical device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the light emitter is a LED.

5. An optical device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the lens zooms its proportion for the equivalence of optical effect.

6. An optical device for illumination, the optical device comprising: a lens with the rotative symmetry having a flat end and a convex end, and a light emitter placed at the distance between 13.5 to 16.3 mm from the center of the light emitter to the vertex of the convex end of the lens on the optic axis of the lens for changing the included angles of the beam that refract through the convex end of the lens.

7. An optical device in accordance with claim 6, wherein the light emitter is a LED.

8. An optical device in accordance with claim 6, wherein the convex end of the lens is a rotative symmetrical aspherical surface.

9. An optical device in accordance with claim 6, wherein the thickness of the lens, measuring from the vertex of the convex end to the flat end, sets the length between 6 to 10 mm.

10. An optical device in accordance with claim 6, wherein a cross-section curve of the convex end contents the following rectangular coordinates: (12,8.00), (11,8.05), (10,8.20), (9,8.44), (8,8.79), (7,9.25), (6,9.82), (5,10.51), (4,11.33), (3,12.29), (2,13.42), (1,14.75), (0,16.30), (−1,14.75), (−2,13.42), (−3,12.29), (−4,11.33), (−5,10.51), (−6,9.82), (−7,9.25), (−8,8.79), (−9,8.44), (−10,8.20), (−11,8.05), (−12,8.00) and its curvatures set between 1 to −1 mm.

11. An optical device for illumination, the optical device comprising: a lens with the rotative symmetry having a flat end and a convex end with thickness between 6 to 10 mm, measuring from the vertex of the convex end to the center of the flat end, wherein a axial cross-section curve of the convex end contents the following rectangular coordinates: (12,8.00), (11,8.05), (10,8.20), (9,8.44), (8,8.79), (7,9.25), (6,9.82), (5,10.51), (4,11.33), (3,12.29), (2,13.42), (1,14.75), (0,16.30), (−1,14.75), (−2,13.42), (−3,12.29), (−4,11.33), (−5,10.51), (−6,9.82), (−7,9.25), (−8,8.79), (−9,8.44), (−10,8.20), (−11,8.05), (−12,8.00) and its curvatures set between 1 to −1 mm, and a light emitter placed at the distance between 13.5 to 16.3 mm from the center of the light emitter to the vertex of the convex end of the lens on the optic axis of the lens for changing the included angles of the beam.

12. An optical device in accordance with claim 11, wherein the light emitter is a LED.

The questions are:
Is this self-obvious from prior art a year or more before the filing date?
Was a product meeting these claims on sale in the US a year or more before that date?


I think that they may have a patent which is useful and novel, but not non-obvious. The question is, will the patent office realize it? This patent is no threat to aspheric lenses that it doesn't describe.

 

[MikeAusC]

The aspherical lens, which has a flat end and an aspheric convex end, is held at the distance between 13.5 to 16.3 mm from the light center of the LED to the vertex of the aspheric surface of the lens.

It'll be easy to bypass this one -
- use an aspheric lens where the rear isn't flat
- use a distance other than 13.5 to 16.3 mm

Even a bush patent-attorney would have been able to do a much better job of writing this application.

 

[DIWdiver]

A patent only gives the holder the ability to come after you if you infringe on his business. Most modders wouldn't fit this first criteria.

Second, you'd have to have enough money to make it worth suing you.

Third, you'd hire a lawyer only long enough for him to say "prior art", show a few posts, and you'd be done.

And all that is only if you use the specific lens mentioned in the patent.

And, of course, the patent has to be valid in the country you operate in.