Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/388,115

OPTICAL DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN OPTICAL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING AN OPTICAL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 29, 2021
Examiner
JORDAN, DANIEL JEFFERY
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Optotune AG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
62%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
30 granted / 48 resolved
-5.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 48 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/27/2025 has been entered. Claim Objections 3. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: In claim 11, line 23 (third line from the bottom), “the optical element” should read “the transmissive optical element”, in order to maintain proper antecedent basis Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments 4. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 10/27/2025) with respect to claims 1-2, 4-15 have been considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection. On page 9, while addressing Hino, the applicant cites Figure 7, which represents Hino’s third embodiment. However, the examiner’s previous rejection had relied upon Hino’s Figs. 1A-B, which represent its first embodiment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 6. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden et al. (EP 2884637 A1, of record) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 8089692 B2). Regarding claim 1, Aschwanden discloses optical device comprising an optical element ([0077], 10), which is mounted on a carrier ([0078]-[0079], 90) by means of a platform (Fig. 9, wherein the platform comprises 501 and 60), the platform comprises a base ([0080], 501) and an elastic structure ([0079], 60), wherein the base is connected to the optical element ([0080]), the elastic structure connects the base and the carrier ([0079]-[0080]), the platform extends along an x-y plane defined by an x-direction and a y-direction (Fig. 8, along the depicted x- and y-axes), an actuator is arranged to apply a force to the base ([0077], 20) in a direction along the x-y-plane (Fig. 8, along the depicted x- and y-axes), the elastic structure is elastic in the x-direction and in the y-direction (Fig. 9, 60, along the x-and y-axes as depicted by Fig. 8), and the optical element is a transmissive optical element ([0008], the optical element acts as a diffusor), wherein the elastic structure comprises an x-spring (Fig. 9, bottom-right of the four springs shown adjacent with 501) and a y-spring (Fig. 9, top-right of the four springs 60 shown adjacent with 501), wherein the x-spring comprises at least one bending beam of a first kind (Fig. 9, 60) and the y-spring comprises at least one bending beam of a second kind (Fig. 9, 60), wherein in an undeflected state the bending beam of the first kind extends perpendicularly to the x-direction (Fig. 9, 60), and in an undeflected state the bending beam of the second kind extends perpendicularly to the y-direction (Fig. 9, 60), and wherein the base and the elastic structure are formed by a common bent metal sheet ([0080], 50 comprises 501; [0087], 50 and 60 are made from a single metal sheet), wherein the base comprises a first portion of the metal sheet (Fig. 9, 501) and the elastic structure comprises a second portion of the metal sheet (Fig. 9, 60), wherein the first portion is bent with respect to the second portion (Fig. 9, 501 is bent with respect to 60), and wherein the actuator comprises multiple coils ([0058], “plurality of coils [30] … of the reluctance actuator means 20”) that are integrated in the carrier (Fig. 24, coils 30 in carrier frame 100). Aschwanden does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic structure extends at an angle to the x-y plane. However, Watanabe teaches a similar optical despeckling device (column 1 lines 6-19), and discloses wherein elastic structures (Figs. 12-14, springs 71-73) extend at an angle to an x-y plane (Figs. 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Aschwanden and Watanabe such that the elastic structure was to extend at an angle to the x-y plane, motivated by reducing speckle without causing distortion (column 11 lines 2-3, “scintillation can be reduced without causing distortion”). Regarding claim 2, modified Aschwanden discloses wherein the platform has a first resonance frequency along the x-direction and a second resonance frequency along the y-direction (Aschwanden - [0058], wherein a Lissajous figure necessitates a superposition of oscillations in both x- and y-directions) and a deviation between the first and the second resonance frequency is less than 1% or less than 0.1% from an average frequency of the first and the second resonance frequency (Aschwanden - Fig. 9 and [0019], when the elastic structure is symmetric in x- and y-directions and four springs of identical shape and material are used), or the first and the second resonance frequency differ from each other between 1% and 5% (Aschwanden - [0058], where the frequencies may differ by such an amount when controlled). Regarding claim 4, modified Aschwanden discloses wherein the base has an outer contour (Aschwanden - Fig. 9, outer contour of 501), the bending beam of the first kind extends along a first region of the outer contour (Aschwanden - Fig. 9, wherein the x-spring extends along a region of 501), the bending beam of the second kind extends along a second region of the outer contour (Aschwanden - Fig. 9, wherein the y-spring extends along a region of 501). Regarding claim 6, modified Aschwanden discloses comprising a sensor which is arranged to detect a position of the base with respect to the carrier (Aschwanden - [0066]), and a controller which is arranged to control a frequency and/or amplitude of the relative motion of the base with respect to the carrier (Aschwanden - [0058] and [0066]-[0067]). Regarding claim 8, modified Aschwanden discloses comprising a transmission element (Aschwanden - [0024]-[0027], control circuit), wherein the transmission element is arranged to limit the maximum deflection of the base with respect to the carrier in all directions along the x-y-plane (Aschwanden - [0026]), wherein the maximum deflection in all directions along the x-y-plane is essentially the same (Aschwanden - Fig. 9, when the elastic structure is symmetric in x- and y-directions and four identical springs are used, as depicted). Regarding claim 9, modified Aschwanden discloses wherein the base and the elastic structure are fabricated in a once-piece manner (Aschwanden - as illustrated in Figs. 9 and 15). Regarding claim 10, modified Aschwanden discloses comprising an optical axis extending through the optical element (Aschwanden - any of Figs. 25-28, wherein the optical axis of each system extends through the optical element of 1). Regarding claim 13, Aschwanden discloses a method for driving an optical device comprising an optical element ([0077], 10) which is mounted on a carrier ([0078]-[0079], 90) by means of a platform (Fig. 9, wherein the platform comprises 501 and 60), the platform extending along an x-y plane defined by an x-direction and a y- direction (Fig. 8, along the depicted x- and y-axes) and comprising an elastic structure ([0079], 60), the elastic structure comprising an x-spring (Fig. 9, bottom-right of the four springs shown adjacent with 501) and a y-spring (Fig. 9, top-right of the four springs 60 shown adjacent with 501), wherein the x-spring comprises at least one bending beam of a first kind (Fig. 9, 60) and the y-spring comprises at least one bending beam of a second kind (Fig. 9, 60), wherein in an undeflected state the bending beam of the first kind extends perpendicularly to the x-direction (Fig. 9, 60), and in an undeflected state the bending beam of the second kind extends perpendicularly to the y-direction (Fig. 9, 60), wherein an actuator ([0077], 20) exerts a force to deflect the optical element with respect to the carrier ([0077]-[0079]), and wherein the actuator comprises coils ([0058], “plurality of coils [30] … of the reluctance actuator means 20”) that are integrated in the carrier (Fig. 24, coils 30 in carrier frame 100), the actuator is driven with a periodic excitation signal having an excitation frequency ([0058] and [0066]), the platform has a first resonance frequency in the x-direction and a second resonance frequency in the y-direction ([0058], wherein a Lissajous figure necessitates a superposition of oscillations in both x- and y-directions), wherein either the excitation frequency is larger or smaller than both the first and the second resonance frequency ([0058] and [0066]), or the excitation frequency is in between the first and the second resonance frequency. Aschwanden does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic structure extends at an angle to the x-y plane. However, Watanabe teaches a similar optical despeckling device (column 1 lines 6-19), and discloses wherein elastic structures (Figs. 12-14, springs 71-73) extend at an angle to an x-y plane (Figs. 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Aschwanden and Watanabe such that the elastic structure was to extend at an angle to the x-y plane, motivated by reducing speckle without causing distortion (column 11 lines 2-3, “scintillation can be reduced without causing distortion”). Regarding claim 14, modified Aschwanden discloses wherein the optical device comprises a sensor which is arranged to detect a position of the base with respect to the carrier (Aschwanden - [0066]), and a controller which is arranged to control a frequency and /or amplitude of the relative motion of the base with respect to the carrier (Aschwanden - [0058] and [0066]-[0067]), wherein the movement path of the base in relation to the carrier is controlled with a position based closed-loop control circuit comprising the sensor and the controller (Aschwanden - [0058] and [0066]-[0067]). 7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over modified Aschwanden in view of Hino et al. (US 20190131891 A1, of record). Regarding claim 5, modified Aschwanden does not disclose wherein the stiffness of the elastic structure for movements in a direction obliquely with respect to the x-y-plane is at least 10 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic structure for movements in a direction along the x-y-plane. However, Hino discloses an optical device ([0001]), and teaches wherein the stiffness of the elastic structure for movements in a direction obliquely with respect to the x-y-plane is higher than the stiffness of the elastic structure for movements in a direction along the x-y-plane ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Aschwanden and Hino such that the stiffness of the elastic structure for movements in a direction obliquely with respect to the x-y-plane was at least 10 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic structure for movements in a direction along the x-y-plane, motivated by reducing speckle. 8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over modified Aschwanden in view of Heo et al. (CN 105022135 A, of record). Regarding claim 7, modified Aschwanden does not disclose wherein the actuator is a voice coil actuator, wherein the voice coil actuator is the sensor. However, Heo discloses an optical device (column 2 lines 7-15), and teaches wherein the actuator is a voice coil actuator (column 1 lines 17-18), wherein the voice coil actuator is the sensor (column 6 lines 19-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Aschwanden with Heo such that the actuator was a voice coil actuator, and such that the voice actuator was the sensor, motivated by allowing for accurate detection of an object’s position. 9. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hino in view of Watanabe. Regarding claim 11, Hino discloses a method for manufacturing an optical device comprising an optical element ([0034], “in the actuator 100, the movable portion 10 is a member having a plane portion… including an optical element such as a light diffusion plate attached to the plane portion”), a platform (Fig. 1B, 20) with a base (Fig. 1B, FS) and an elastic structure (Fig. 1B, 11a, 11b, 12a, and 12b), the elastic structure comprising an x-spring (Fig. 1B, 12a & 12b) and a y-spring (Fig. 1B, 11), wherein the x-spring comprises at least one bending beam of a first kind (Fig. 1B, 12a) and the y-spring comprises at least one bending beam of a second kind (Fig. 1B, 11a), the platform extending along an x-y plane defined by an x-direction and a y-direction (Fig. 1B, x- and y-directions are depicted), and the base comprising an outer contour (Fig. 1B, the edges defining the square-shaped face of FS), wherein the base and the elastic structure are fabricated from a common metal sheet (Fig. 1B; [0038]; per page 6 lines 10-14 of applicant’s spec, “common metal sheet” is interpreted to mean that the base and elastic structure are made from a single metal sheet, as opposed to “common” describing the quality of the metal) such that in an undeflected state the bending beam of the first kind extends perpendicularly to the x-direction (Fig. 1B, 12a extends perpendicularly to the x-direction), and in an undeflected state the bending beam of the second kind extends perpendicularly to the y-direction (Fig. 1B, 11a extends perpendicularly to the y-direction), and the bending beam of the first kind extends along a first region of the outer contour (Fig. 1B, 12a extends parallel along the nearest edge of FS, which is considered to be a first region of the outer contour) and the bending beam of the second kind extends along a second region of the outer contour (Fig. 1B, 11a extends parallel along the nearest edge of FS, which is considered to be a second region of the outer contour), wherein in a undeflected state the bending beam of the first kind extends parallel along the first region of the outer contour (Fig. 1B, 12a) and the bending beam of the second kind extends parallel along the second region of the outer contour (Fig. 1B, 11a), and the bending beam of the first kind and the bending beam of the second kind partially frame the base (Fig. 1B, 12a and 11a partially frame FS), the base comprises a first portion of the metal sheet (Fig. 1B, FS) and the elastic structure comprises a second portion of the metal sheet (Fig. 1B, 11a, 11b, 12a, and 12b), and wherein the elastic structure is manufactured by bending the first portion by 90° with respect to the second portion (Fig. 1B, where FS is bent 90° with respect to 11a, 11b, 12a, and 12b), and wherein the optical element is connected to the base (Figs. 1A-B, 10 and FS), and wherein the optical element is mounted to a carrier by means of the platform (Figs. 1A-B, optical element 10 is mounted to a carrier [11a-b and 12a-b taken together] by means of platform 20) , the carrier comprises coils integrated in the carrier (Figs. 1A-B, carrier 11a-b&12a-b comprises coils COa and COb). Hino fails to disclose wherein the optical device comprises a transmissive optical element. However, Watanabe teaches a similar optical despeckling device (column 1 lines 6-19), and discloses wherein the device comprises a transmissive optical element (Fig. 5-7, lens 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hino and Watanabe such that the optical device was to comprise a transmissive optical element, motivated by allowing the device to transmit light. Regarding claim 12, modified Hino discloses wherein the elastic structure comprises an x-spring (Hino - Fig. 1B, 12a & 12b) with a bending beam of a first kind (Hino - Fig. 1B, 12a) and a y-spring (Hino - Fig. 1B, 11) with a bending beam of a second kind (Hino - Fig. 1B, 11a), wherein the bending beam of the first kind and the bending beam of the second kind are fabricated in a one-piece manner (Hino - [0038]). 10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over modified Aschwanden in view of Niederer et al. (WO 2015086166 A1, of record). Regarding claim 15, modified Aschwanden fails to disclose wherein the carrier is a printed circuit board and the coils are integrated in the printed circuit board (PCB). However, Niederer teaches a similar optical despeckling device, wherein coils are integrated into a PCB (page 28 lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Aschwanden and Niederer such that coils were integrated in a PCB, motivated by optimizing the size of the device. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p. 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. /D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 29, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 28, 2024
Response Filed
May 04, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591113
LENS ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12566316
CAMERA OPTICAL LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12461343
OPTICAL IMAGING LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12429711
OPHTHALMIC DEVICE WITH BUILT-IN SELF-TEST CIRCUITRY FOR TESTING AN ADJUSTABLE LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Patent 12429715
Synthesis and Application of Light Management with Thermochromic Hydrogel Microparticles
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
62%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 48 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month