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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson (US 7,190,324 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson teaches an electromagnetic flux controlling member, comprising a plurality of protrusions (See, e.g. the protruding structures formed by corrugations 36 in Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the plurality of protrusions includes a piece parting transfer line which is a protruding line generated by transferring a piece parting boundary line which is a recessed line (See, e.g., Fig. 2 and note here the piece parting transfer line is taken to be the line corresponding to the top surface of the cited protrusions & the piece parting boundary line is taken to be the line corresponding to the bottom surface of the corrugations 36 in Fig. 2, this in this way the recessed line generates the protruding line and the recesses are between multiple protrusions), an entrance through which molding material cannot pass, but air and/or gas can pass and be vented from a mold, and the recessed line exists between two or more separate pieces of the mold configured to mold the electromagnetic flux controlling member (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows the recessed line is between the two pieces of the mold).
Regarding claim 2, Henderson teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein each of 50% or more of the plurality of protrusions includes a piece parting transfer line (See, e.g., Fig. 2 and note all of the cited protrusions include a transfer line as explained above, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Henderson teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein in plan view, at least a part of the piece parting transfer line is disposed inside an outer edge of each of the plurality of protrusions (Note as the cited transfer lines are defined as the top surface of the protrusions, the horizontal/lateral ends of the surface which touch the upper corners are “disposed inside an outer edge” and meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Henderson teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least a part of the piece parting transfer line is disposed at a top surface of each of the plurality of protrusions (See, e.g., Fig. 2 & the rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US 7,190,324 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Henderson teaches the device set forth above, and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a rectangular shape (See, e.g., Fig. 2), but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the rectangular shape is a chamfered prism shape or a chamfered pyramidal trapezoidal shape.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, in the instant case, it would have been obvious to modify the rectangular shape of Henderson to be chamfered, thus creating a chamfered rectangular prism shape, either as a design choice, or for the purpose of having more EMR pass the corrugation pattern (Note the act of chamfering the corners and making the protrusion more of a prism shape doesn’t change the function of the device here, merely adjusts the amount of EMR passing the device).
Regarding claim 6, Henderson teaches the device set forth above, and further teaches wherein the electromagnetic flux controlling member contains inorganic filler (See, e.g., column 3 lines 50-60 which explain that the lens 18 can be formed of a syntactic foam composite), but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the filler is 10vol.% or more.
However, the vol.% of the filler corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the percentage of filler by volume directly impacts weight/density/optical transmission of the lens among other things. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vol% of the filler to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the density, weight, and/or transmission properties of the optical article.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlhauser et al. (US 5,831,582) in view of Henderson (US 7,190,324 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Muhlhauser teaches a mold configured to mold an electromagnetic flux controlling member including a plurality of protrusions (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this), but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein at least one of a plurality of recesses corresponding to the plurality of protrusions includes two or more separate pieces, wherein a piece parting boundary line which is a recessed line, an entrance through which molding material cannot pass, but air and/or gas can pass and be vented from the mold, and exists between the two or more separate pieces.
However, in an analogous optical field of endeavor Henderson teaches an electromagnetic flux controlling member including a plurality of protrusions (See, e.g. the protruding structures formed by corrugations 36 in Fig. 2), wherein at least one of a plurality of recesses corresponding to the plurality of protrusions includes two or more separate pieces (See, e.g., Fig. 2 and note that insofar as the recesses touch neighboring protruding structures this limitation is met), wherein a piece parting boundary line which is a recessed line, an entrance through which molding material cannot pass, but air and/or gas can pass and be vented from the mold, and the recessed line exists between the two or more separate pieces (See, e.g., Fig. 2 and note here the piece parting boundary line is taken to be the line corresponding to the bottom surface of the corrugations 36 in Fig. 2, which also shows the recessed line is between the two pieces in the combination of Henderson and Muhlhauser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the EM flux controlling member of Muhlhauser to be the EM flux controlling member of Henderson for the purpose of reducing the profile of the device (See, e.g., column 2 lines 37-40 of Henderson which explains this advantage).
Regarding claim 8, Muhlhauser in view of Henderson teaches the device set forth above, and as modified above further teaches wherein each of 50% or more of the plurality of recesses includes two or more pieces (Note as cited above the recesses each touch two or more pieces, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Muhlhauser in view of Henderson teaches the device set forth above, and as modified above further teaches wherein in plan view, a piece parting boundary line which is a boundary between a plurality of pieces is provided inside an outer edge of the recess (See, e.g., Fig. 2 of Henderson which shows this).
Regarding claim 10, Muhlhauser in view of Henderson teaches the device set forth above, and as modified above further teaches wherein the recess has a rectangular shape, but both Muhlhauser and Henderson lack an explicit disclosure wherein the rectangular shape is a chamfered prism shape or the recess has a chamfered pyramidal shape.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, in the instant case, it would have been obvious to modify the rectangular shape of Henderson, in the combination of Muhlhauser and Henderson, to be chamfered, thus creating a chamfered rectangular prism shape, either as a design choice, or for the purpose of having more EMR pass the corrugation pattern (Note the act of chamfering the corners and making the protrusion more of a prism shape doesn’t change the function of the device here, merely adjusts the amount of EMR passing the device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on March 4th, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments rely on the premise that the recessed line is also the entrance through which molding material cannot pass, but air and/or gas can pass and be vented from the mold. This is not persuasive and unclear because a line is a two dimensional “structure” and not a three-dimensional channel/hole/passage etc.. As the previous 112 rejections were directed towards this limitation, to this point it has not been clear exactly what structure the “recessed line” has been. This argument is helpful in ascertaining the actual structure of the device however, and applicant is advised to change this claim language to more accurately show the structure of the device.
Conclusion
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 MITCHELL OESTREICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights