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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 09/25/2025) regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 6 have been fully considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel et al. (“Modular spiral phase plate design for orbital angular momentum generation at millimetre wavelengths,” of record).
Regarding claim 1, Schemmel discloses a light flux controlling member (Fig. 3) comprising:
a vortex surface having a continuous or stepwise spiral shape (Fig. 3); and
a plurality of ridges radially disposed around a center of a spiral in the vortex surface (Fig. 3, each radial segment),
wherein the vortex surface has one or more steps (Fig. 3, each of the two large discontinuities is a step),
a number of the plurality of ridges is more than a number of the steps (Fig. 3, there are 32 ridges and 2 steps),
the plurality of ridges is disposed at different positions in the vortex surface from the one or more steps (Fig. 3),
when the vortex surface has one step, the plurality of ridges is disposed about the one step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral (Fig. 2; page 14715, “the smooth SPP surface [of Fig. 2] may be approximated by a series of discrete steps” similarly to Fig. 3),
when the vortex surface has two or more steps, the plurality of ridges is disposed between one of the steps and the next step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral (Fig. 3), and
the plurality of ridges extend from an outer edge of the vortex surface to the center (Fig. 3) and a height of the plurality of ridges decreases toward the center (Fig. 3, each ridge becomes narrower toward the center).
Schemmel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of ridges is disposed such that in plan view, an angle between ridges adjacent to each other is 0.01° or greater and 0.5° or smaller.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the ridges of Schemmel, such that in plan view, an angle between ridges adjacent to each other was 0.01° or greater and 0.5° or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the ridges, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel in view of Tsunetomo et al. (US 20190339423 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Schemmel discloses a light flux controlling member (Fig. 3) “manufactured from polypropylene” (Abstract) and including a vortex surface having a continuous or stepwise spiral shape (Fig. 3),
wherein the vortex surface includes a plurality of ridges radially disposed around a center of a spiral (Fig. 3, each radial segment), the plurality of ridges extending from an outer edge of the vortex shaping surface to the center (Fig. 3) and having a height that decreases toward the center (Fig. 3, each ridge becomes narrow toward the center),
the vortex surface has one or more steps (Fig. 3, each of the two large discontinuities is a step),
a number of the plurality of ridges is more than a number of the steps (Fig. 3), and
when the vortex surface has one step, the plurality of ridges is disposed about the one step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral (Fig. 2; page 14715, “the smooth SPP surface [of Fig. 2] may be approximated by a series of discrete steps” similarly to Fig. 3),
when the vortex surface has two or more steps, the plurality of ridges are disposed between one of the steps and the next step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral (Fig. 3).
Schemmel fails to disclose wherein the light flux controlling member is shaped using a shaping metal mold including a vortex shaping surface & grooves.
However, Tsunetomo teaches a mold which is used to form a vortex profile on a surface of an optical component ([0079], “mold 91 for a vortex profile”), wherein a shaping metal mold with a vortex shaping surface is used ([0079], “These master molds, which are metal molds”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Schemmel and Tsunetomo such that a shaping metal mold was used to shape a light flux controlling member, motivated by using a mold which is durable.
Modified Schemmel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of grooves are disposed such that in plan view, an angle between grooves adjacent to each other is 0.01° or greater and 0.5° or smaller.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the grooves of modified Schemmel, such that in plan view, an angle between grooves adjacent to each other was 0.01° or greater and 0.5° or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the grooves, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oemrawsingh et al. (“Production and characterization of spiral phase plates for optical wavelengths,” of record) in view of Tsunetomo, and further in view of Schemmel.
Regarding claim 4, Oemrawsingh discloses a shaping mold (3. Production, “a mold that is, naturally, the negative of the SPP that we wish to produce”) comprising:
a vortex shaping surface having a continuous or stepwise spiral shape (Fig. 1, SPP); and
a plurality of grooves radially disposed around a center of a spiral in the vortex shaping surface (Fig. 1, the grooves of the mold correspond to the ridges of the SPP, wherein each radial slice depicted in Fig. 1 is a ridge), the plurality of grooves extending from an outer edge of the vortex shaping surface to the center and having a depth that decreases toward the center (Fig. 1),
wherein the vortex shaping surface has one or more steps (Fig. 1, the large height discontinuity is considered to be a step, which the step of the shaping surface corresponds to),
a number of the plurality of grooves is more than a number of the steps (Fig. 1), and
when the vortex shaping surface has one step, the plurality of grooves is disposed about the one step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral (Fig. 1).
Oemrawsingh fails to explicitly disclose a shaping metal mold.
However, Tsunetomo teaches a shaping metal mold for forming lenses with vortex surfaces ([0034] and [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Oemrawsingh and Tsunetomo such that a shaping metal mold was used, motivated by using a mold which is durable.
Modified Oemrawsingh fails to disclose when the vortex shaping surface has two or more steps, the plurality of grooves are disposed between one of the steps and the next step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral.
However, Schemmel teaches a spiral phase plate having a vortex surface with two or more steps (Fig. 3), and discloses wherein a plurality of ridges are disposed between one of the steps and the next step in a circumferential direction relative to the center of the spiral (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Oemrawsingh and Schemmel such two or more steps were used, motivated by manipulating different modes (page 14715).
Modified Oemrawsingh fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of grooves are disposed such that in plan view, an angle between grooves adjacent to each other is 0.01° or greater and 0.5° or smaller.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the grooves of modified Oemrawsingh, such that in plan view, an angle between grooves adjacent to each other was 0.01° or greater and 0.5° or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the grooves, motivated by enabling a lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oemrawsingh, Tsunetomo, and Schemmel, in view of Jang et al. (US 20210308922 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified Oemrawsingh fails to explicitly disclose injecting a shaping material into a cavity including a surface including the vortex shaping surface of the shaping metal mold; and solidifying the shaping material in the cavity.
However, Jang teaches a method of manufacturing lenses by using a mold, and discloses the method comprising: injecting a shaping material into a cavity including a surface ([0002], injecting a polymer compound); and solidifying the shaping material in the cavity ([0002], hardening the polymer compound).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Oemrawsingh and Jang such that a manufacturing method of a light flux controlling member was to comprise injecting a shaping material into a cavity including a surface including the vortex shaping surface of the shaping metal mold according to claim 4, motivated by allowing for options of materials to be injected into the mold.
8. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel in view of Johnson (US 8994920 B1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schemmel discloses wherein:
the light flux controlling member further comprises an incident surface disposed on a side opposite to the vortex surface (Figs. 3-4, bottom surface).
Modified Schemmel fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first end of the step is positioned farther from the incident surface than a second end of the step, the first end being located on a center side of the vortex surface, and the second end being located on an outer edge side of the vortex surface.
However, Johnson teaches a stepped spiral-phase lens (column 4 line 13 & Fig. 21), and discloses wherein a first end of a step is positioned farther from an incident surface than a second end of a step (Fig. 21), the first end being located on a center side of the vortex surface (Fig. 21), and the second end being located on an outer edge side of the vortex surface (Fig. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Schemmel and Johnson such that a first end of the step was positioned farther from the incident surface than a second end of the step, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
Regarding claim 12, modified Schemmel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height of the plurality of ridges at an outer periphery portion of the vortex surface is 30 nm or less.
However, Johnson teaches a stepped spiral-phase lens (column 4 line 13 & Fig. 21), and discloses step heights of 0-5.142 μm (Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Schemmel and Johnson such that the height of the plurality of ridges at an outer periphery portion of the vortex surface is 30 nm or less, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
9. Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel in view Tsunetomo, and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 10, modified Schemmel discloses wherein:
the shaping metal mold further comprises an incident surface shaping surface disposed on a side opposite to the vortex shaping surface (Tsunetomo - Figs. 12-13, 90).
Modified Schemmel fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first end of the step is positioned farther from the incident surface shaping surface than a second end of the step, the first end being located on a center side of the vortex shaping surface, and the second end being located on an outer edge side of the vortex shaping surface.
However, Johnson teaches a stepped spiral-phase lens (column 4 line 13 & Fig. 21), and discloses wherein a first end of a step is positioned farther from an incident surface than a second end of a step (Fig. 21), the first end being located on a center side of the vortex surface (Fig. 21), and the second end being located on an outer edge side of the vortex surface (Fig. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Schemmel and Johnson such that a first end of the step was positioned farther from the incident surface than a second end of the step, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
Regarding claim 13, modified Schemmel fails to explicitly disclose wherein a depth of the plurality of grooves at an outer periphery portion of the vortex shaping surface is 30 nm or less.
However, Johnson teaches a stepped spiral-phase lens (column 4 line 13 & Fig. 21), and discloses step heights of 0-5.142 μm (Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Schemmel and Johnson such that the depth of the plurality of grooves at an outer periphery portion of the vortex shaping surface was 30 nm or less, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
10. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oemrawsingh in view of Tsunetomo and Schemmel, and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 11, modified Oemrawsingh discloses wherein:
the shaping metal mold further comprises an incident surface shaping surface disposed on a side opposite to the vortex shaping surface (Tsunetomo - Figs. 12-13, 90).
Modified Oemrawsingh fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first end of the step is positioned farther from the incident surface shaping surface than a second end of the step, the first end being located on a center side of the vortex shaping surface, and the second end being located on an outer edge side of the vortex shaping surface.
However, Johnson teaches a stepped spiral-phase lens (column 4 line 13 & Fig. 21), and discloses wherein a first end of a step is positioned farther from an incident surface than a second end of a step (Fig. 21), the first end being located on a center side of the vortex surface (Fig. 21), and the second end being located on an outer edge side of the vortex surface (Fig. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Oemrawsingh and Johnson such that a first end of the step was positioned farther from the incident shaping surface than a second end of the step, motivated by enabling the lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, modified Oemrawsingh fails to explicitly disclose wherein a depth of the plurality of grooves at an outer periphery portion of the vortex shaping surface is 30 nm or less.
However, Johnson teaches a stepped spiral-phase lens (column 4 line 13 & Fig. 21), and discloses step heights of 0-5.142 μm (Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Oemrawsingh and Johnson such that the depth of the plurality of grooves at an outer periphery portion of the vortex shaping surface was 30 nm or less, motivated by enabling a lens to accommodate different wavefront characteristics.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. 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