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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 26, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 11-17 and 22.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19, 2023.
Claims 11-17 and 20-22 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14, 17, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Kato et al (US 2002/0030890 A1).
Claim 11 has been amended and claim 22 has been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Kato et al et al teaches, with regard to claim 11 and claim 22, teaches an optical element that serves as the sub-micron 3D optical material structure wherein the element is comprised of a first material layer ( first layer immediate to the substrate 2, Figure 4) formed on the top surface of the substrate (2) has a first top surface with a plurality of first voids extending through the first material layer and asymmetrically arranged about an entire surface of the first material layer (with regard to the amendment to claims 11 and 22), a second material layer (layer on top of the first material layer, Figure 4) formed on the first top surface of the first material layer wherein the second material layer has a second top surface with a plurality of second voids extending through the second material layer and asymmetrically arranged about the entire area of the second material layer, (with regard to the amendment to claims 11 and 22), and a third material layer (on top of the second material layer, Figure 4) formed on the second top surface of the second material, wherein the third material layer has a plurality of third voids extending through the third material layer and asymmetrically arranged about an entire surface area of the third material layer, (with regard to amendment to claims 11 and 22, please see Figure 4).
Kato et al teaches that the first, second and third material layers collectively form an asymmetrical stair-step structure, (please see Figure 4). All of the plurality of first voids are vertically aligned with all of the plurality of second voids and wherein a portion of the plurality of second voids asymmetrically arranged about the entire surface area of the second material layer are larger in size than respective first voids formed underneath.
Claims 11 and 22 have been amended to include the phrase “wherein the asymmetric stair-step structure includes at least three aligned trailing sidewalls, a first leading sidewall, a second leading sidewall and a third leading sidewall, wherein the first leading sidewall extends beyond the second leading sidewall and the second leading sidewall extends beyond the third leading sidewall”.
Kato et al teaches that the optical element comprises an asymmetric stair-step structure that includes at least three aligned trailing sidewalls, a first sidewall corresponds to the first material layer, a second sidewall corresponds to the second material layer and a third sidewall corresponds to the third material layer, wherein the three sidewalls are aligned and first leading sidewall extends beyond a second leading sidewall and a third leading sidewall and the second leading sidewall extends beyond the third leading sidewall, (please see Figure 4).
With regard to amended claim 12, Kato et al teaches that the plurality of first voids of the first material (for the first step) have different sizes, (please see Figure 10A).
With regard to claim 14, Kato et al teaches that at last a portion of the plurality of second voids are vertically aligned with a portion of the plurality of first voids and at least a portion of the plurality of third voids are vertically aligned with a portion of the plurality of second openings, (please see Figure 10C).
With regard to claim 17, Kato et al teaches that at least a portion of the plurality of first voids are formed on sidewalls (read as adjacent first material portions) of the first material layer, (please see Figure 4).
With regard to claim 20, Kato et al teaches that the whole structure has a height or thickness of Ha, (please see Figure 2A) that may have a value of 0.433 microns, this means each step height or thickness for each of the first material layer, second material layer and third material layer may be 0.05 microns.
This reference has anticipated the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-17, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Channon et al (US 2018/0143350 A1).
Claims 11 and 22 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Channon et al teaches, with regard to claim 11 and claim 22, a wafer level microstructure (42, Figure 3K) for an optical lens serves as the sub-micron 3D optical material structure that is comprised of a first material layer (50, Figure 3K) formed on the top surface of the substrate (32, Figure 3K) has a first top surface with a plurality of first voids extending through the first material layer, (with regard to amendment to claims 11 and 22), a second material (54) formed on the first top surface of the first material layer wherein the second material layer has a second top surface with a plurality of second voids extending through the second material layer (with regard to amendment to claims 11 and 22) and a third material layer (58) formed on the second top surface of the second material wherein the third material layer has a plurality of third voids extending through the third material layer, (with regard to amendment to claims 11 and 22), wherein the first, second and third material layers collectively form an asymmetrical stair-step structure, (please see Figure 3K).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 and claim 22 further include the amended phrase “wherein all of the plurality of first voids are vertically aligned with all of the plurality of second voids”. Claim 11 has also been amended to include the phrase “a portion of the plurality of second voids asymmetrically arranged the entire surface area of the second material layer are larger in size than respective first openings formed underneath”
As shown in Figures 3J, 3K and 5, all of the plurality of first voids are vertically aligned with all of the plurality of second voids and wherein a portion of the plurality of second openings are larger in size than respective first openings formed underneath.
Claims 11 and 22 have been amended to include the phrases “first voids asymmetrically arranged about entire surface area of the first material layer, “second voids asymmetrically arranged about an entire surface area of the second material layer” and/or “third voids asymmetrically arranged about an entire surface area of the third material layer”.
As shown in Figure 3K, Channon et al teaches that the plurality of voids of the second material layer (54) and the plurality of voids of the third material layer (58) may each have different sizes asymmetrically arranged in the entire surface areas of the second material layer and/or third material layer. As for the plurality of voids or regions without first material (50), Channon et al in a different embodiment (Figures 2B and 8) the size of the plurality of voids may also be asymmetrically arranged in entire surface area of the first material layer. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Channon et al to modify the plurality of voids of first material layer to be asymmetrically arranged about an entire surface area of the first layer for the benefit of allowing the optical lens have the desired optical properties.
Claims 11 and 22 have been amended to include the phrase “wherein the asymmetric stair-step structure includes at least three aligned trailing sidewalls, a first leading sidewall, a second leading sidewall and a third leading sidewall, wherein the first leading sidewall extends beyond the second leading sidewall and the second leading sidewall extends beyond the third leading sidewall”.
Channon teaches that the optical element comprises an asymmetric stair-step structure that includes at least three aligned trailing sidewalls, a first sidewall corresponds to the first material layer, a second sidewall corresponds to the second material layer and a third sidewall corresponds to the third material layer, wherein the three sidewalls are aligned and first leading sidewall extends beyond a second leading sidewall and a third leading sidewall and the second leading sidewall extends beyond the third leading sidewall, (please see Figure 3K, as demonstrated above).
With regard to amended claim 12, Channon et al teaches in a different embodiment (please see Figures 2B, 5 and 6) that the plurality of first openings of the first material (for the first step) have different sizes and constructed across an entire length and width of the top surface of the first material layer.
Wirth regard to claim 13, Channon et al teaches that the plurality of second voids are a greater number than the plurality of first voids and the plurality of third openings are a greater number than the plurality of second openings, (please see Figure 3J).
With regard to claim 14, Channon et al teaches that at last a portion of the plurality of second voids are vertically aligned with a portion of the plurality of first voids and at least a portion of the plurality of third voids are vertically aligned with a portion of the plurality of second voids, (please see Figure 3K).
With regard to claim 15, Channon et al teaches that at least a portion of the plurality of second voids of the second material layer are adjacent the plurality of first voids of the first material to form multiple first stair shapes therebetween, (please see Figure 3K).
With regard to claim 16, Channon et al teaches at least a portion of plurality of third voids of the third material layer are adjacent the plurality of second voids of the second material layer to form multiple second stair shapes therebetween, (please see Figure 3K).
With regard to claim 17, Channon et al teaches that at least a portion of the plurality of first voids are formed on sidewalls of the first material layer, (please see Figures 3J and 3K).
With regard to claim 20, Channon et al teaches that the microstructure (34, including the first material layer, second material layer and third material layer, Figure 4) may have a thickness between 10 nm and 1mm, (please see paragraph [0052]). This means the thickness of each of the first material layer, the second material layer and the third material layer may at most have a thickness between 10 nm and 1mm.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Channon et al as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of the US patent application publication by Lee et al (US 2017/0106690 A1).
Claim 21 has been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
The 3D material structure taught by Channon et al as described in claim 11 has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 21, this reference does not teach explicitly that the first material layer, the second material layer and the third material layer are each formed from a resist material. Lee et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a security device that is comprised of 3D optical material structure wherein the structure having stair step shape wherein the structure material layers that may comprise resist, (please see paragraph [0118]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well known material to form the structure.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al in view of the US patent application publication by Lee et al (US 2017/0106690 A1).
The 3D material structure taught by Kato et al as described in claim 11 has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 21, this reference does not teach explicitly that the first material layer, the second material layer and the third material layer are each formed from a resist material. Lee et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a security device that is comprised of 3D optical material structure wherein the structure having stair step shape wherein the structure material layers that may comprise resist, (please see paragraph [0118]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well known material to form the structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the cited Channon et al reference teaches that the microstructure may comprise asymmetrical stair-step structures as shown in Figure 3J, 3K, 5, 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B Allen can be reached on 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872