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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 8/13/2026. Claims 1, 7-8, and 13 are amended and claims 1, 3-13, and 22-27 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the barrier material is a plurality of separate barrier materials, and each barrier material is embedded a different pre-determined distance into the substrate”. Claim 1, to which Claim 6 depends, recites “a barrier material … at an outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements and an inner portion of the die in between the plurality of elements”. As Claim 1 requires two barrier materials generically (i.e. either the same material or different materials), Claim 6 redundantly limits the barrier material as “a plurality of separate barrier materials”. Either “the barrier material” recited in Line 1 of Claim 6 references “a barrier material” of Line 5 of Claim 1 (i.e. outer and inner barrier materials) or references only “a barrier material … at an inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements”. Support for the latter interpretation comes from the 5/19/2025 claim set in which Original Claim 6 limited a barrier material limited as interstitial in the independent claim. These mutually exclusive limitations muddles the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as it cannot be understood if Claim 6 further limits one or all of the barrier material elements of Claim 1. This indefiniteness amounts to either capturing mutually exclusive embodiments or excluding some mutually exclusive embodiments in a manner that cannot be determined.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004069790 to Shimizu, et al. (hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a die (Fig. 10) comprising: a substrate (glass substrate 5, Fig. 10); a plurality of optical elements (vertical column of material of layers 12-14 above lenses 3, Fig. 10) arranged in a configuration on a top surface of the substrate; and a barrier material (black matrix 11, Fig. 10) chosen from an optically opaque material and an optically absorbing material and arranged on the top surface of the substrate at an outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements (Fig. 10) and at an inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements (Fig. 10) to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements (“the black matrix 11 having a light shielding function is provided so as to correspond to the position of the microlens 8”), wherein, at the inner portion of the die, each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is separated one from another by the barrier material, and wherein the barrier material located at the outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements is wider than the barrier material located at the inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements (Fig. 10).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand all of layers 12, 13, and 14 to be “on the top surface of the substrate” 5 in Shimizu. It is noted that dependent claims evidence that the scope of the claimed invention is further limited by requiring the barrier material to “[interface] with the top surface of the substrate”, “[extend] to a bottom surface of the substrate” and “[be] embedded into the substrate a pre-determined distance”. The claim does not require direct physical contact with a top surface of the substrate, but rather includes a scope of invention extending to indirect contact with a top surface, particularly arrangement directly above a top substrate surface.
Regarding claim 13, Shimizu discloses a wafer (Fig. 10-11) comprising: a substrate (glass substrate 5, Fig. 10); and a plurality of dies (Figs. 10-11) arranged in a certain configuration on the substrate, wherein the plurality of dies are separated one from another by a street (Fig. 11), wherein the street includes a layer of a barrier material (black matrix 11, Fig. 10) interfacing with a layer of the substrate (Fig. 10), wherein each die of the plurality of dies comprises: optical elements (vertical column of material of layers 12-14 above lenses 3, Fig. 10) arranged in a pattern on a surface of the substrate, wherein the optical elements are separated from each other by the barrier material wherein the barrier material is chosen from an optically opaque material and an optical absorbing material (“the black matrix 11 having a light shielding function is provided so as to correspond to the position of the microlens 8”), and wherein the layer of the barrier material on the street that separates the plurality of dies is wider than the barrier material that separates the optical elements within each die (Fig. 10).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand all of layers 12, 13, and 14 to be “on a surface of the substrate” 5 in Shimizu. It is noted that dependent claims evidence that the scope of the claimed invention is further limited by requiring the barrier material to “[interface] with the top surface of the substrate”, “[extend] to a bottom surface of the substrate” and “[be] embedded into the substrate a pre-determined distance”. The claim does not require direct physical contact with a surface of the substrate, but rather includes a scope of invention extending to indirect contact with a top surface, particularly arrangement directly above a top substrate surface.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 6924471 to Lee, et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a die (transparent member 20 and aperture mask 30, Figs. 1-3) comprising: a substrate (planar base of transparent member 20, Figs. 1-3); a plurality of optical elements (lenslets 26, Figs. 1-3) arranged in a configuration on a top surface of the substrate (Fig. 1-3); and a barrier material (aperture mask 30, Figs. 1-3) chosen from an optically opaque material (“mask 30 is constructed of an opaque material and is performed to define a plurality of small holes therethrough”; col. 2, ll. 48-58) and an optically absorbing material and arranged on the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 1-3) at an outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements and at an inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements (Figs. 1-3), wherein, at the inner portion of the die, each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is separated one from another by the barrier material, and wherein the barrier material located at the outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements is wider than the barrier material located at the inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a wafer (transparent member 20 and aperture mask 30, Figs. 1-3) comprising: a substrate (planar base of transparent member 20, Figs. 1-3); and a plurality of dies (portions of the combination of transparent member 20 and aperture mask 30, Figs. 1-3) arranged in a certain configuration on the substrate, wherein the plurality of dies are separated one from another by a street (wider portions of mask 30, Figs. 1-3), wherein the street includes a layer of a barrier material interfacing with a layer of the substrate (Fig. 3), wherein each die of the plurality of dies comprises: optical elements (lenslets 26, Figs. 1-3) arranged in a pattern on a surface of the substrate (Figs. 1-3), wherein the optical elements are separated from each other by the barrier material (Figs. 1-3), wherein the barrier material is chosen from an optically opaque material (“mask 30 is constructed of an opaque material and is performed to define a plurality of small holes therethrough”; col. 2, ll. 48-58) and an optical absorbing material, and wherein the layer of the barrier material on the street that separates the plurality of dies is wider than the barrier material that separates the optical elements within each die (Figs. 1-3).
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. 7,116,484 to Nemoto et al. (hereinafter Nemoto).
Regarding claim 1, Nemoto discloses a die (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34) comprising: a substrate (base of lens plate 30, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34); a plurality of optical elements (convex refractive elements of lens plate 30, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34) arranged in a configuration on a top surface of the substrate (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34); and a barrier material chosen from an optically opaque material and an optically absorbing (light absorbing/shading film 40, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34) material and arranged on the top surface of the substrate at an outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements and at an inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34), wherein, at the inner portion of the die, each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is separated one from another by the barrier material (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34), and wherein the barrier material located at the outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements is wider than the barrier material located at the inner portion of the die in between the plurality of optical elements (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34).
Nemoto teaches the relative widths of barrier materials internal and external to optical elements in various ways. For example, in Fig. 26, interstitial regions of the light absorbing film come to a point when the lens diameters cause lens curvatures to be proximate and there is no such adjoining of curved surfaces peripherally. In Figs. 28A-28E, there are cross sections of the three-dimensional film structure in which peripheral lengths of absorbing film material are wider than the interstitial lengths of absorbing film. It is noted that the claim does not limit the direction along which widths are measured.
Regarding claim 3, Nemoto discloses the barrier material includes a top surface that extends beyond a height of the plurality of optical elements, and a bottom surface that interfaces with the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 29-30).
Regarding claim 4, Nemoto discloses the barrier material includes a bottom surface that extends to a bottom surface of the substrate (face [2] of light absorbing film 40, Figs. 29-30).
Regarding claim 5, Nemoto discloses the barrier material is embedded into the substrate a pre-determined distance (Figs. 33-34).
Regarding claim 8, Nemoto discloses the optically opaque material is an electroformed structure (“formation of light absorbing films is performed by applying a black resist to the bottom face and side faces of the grooves 3”). This claim is directed to a product-by-process that does not distinguish the structure over the prior art structure formed by a different process.
Regarding claim 10, Nemoto discloses an interface between the substrate and the plurality of optical elements is continuous (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34).
Regarding claim 11, Nemoto discloses a cross-section of the interface is free of damage (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34). An absence of disclosure of damage is understood to be a disclosure of an absence of damage.
Regarding claim 12, Nemoto discloses the plurality of optical elements include at least one optical function chosen from a diffusing element and a light modulator (lenslets, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34).
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.
Claims 13, 22-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto in view of US Pat. No. 6,096,155 to Harden et al. (hereinafter Harden).
Regarding claim 13, Nomoto discloses a substrate (base of lens plate 20, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34); and a layer of a barrier material (light absorbing/shading film 40, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34) interfacing with a layer of the substrate (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34), wherein each die of the plurality of dies comprises: optical elements (convex refractive elements of lens plate 30, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34) arranged in a pattern on a surface of the substrate (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34), wherein the optical elements are separated from each other by the barrier material (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34), wherein the barrier material is chosen from an optically opaque material and an optical absorbing material(Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34), and wherein the layer of the barrier material on the street that separates the plurality of dies is wider than the barrier material that separates the optical elements within each die (Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34).
Nemoto discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a wafer comprising: a substrate; and a plurality of dies arranged in a certain configuration on the substrate, wherein the plurality of dies are separated one from another by a street, wherein the street includes
Harden discloses a wafer (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a substrate (a first substrate wafer 10 and a second substrate wafer 12, Figs. 1-4); and a plurality of dies arranged in a certain configuration on the substrate (Figs. 1-4), wherein the plurality of dies are separated one from another by a street (Dashed lines 8 indicate where the dicing is to occur on the wafers to provide the individual integrated elements).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to wafer level optical manufacturing as taught by Harden with the system as disclosed by Nemoto. The motivation would have been to enable mass production and ensure optical-level element alignment (col. 1, ll. 23-30).
Regarding claim 22, Nemoto discloses the barrier material includes a top surface that extends beyond a height of the plurality of optical elements, and a bottom surface that interfaces with the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 29-30).
Regarding claim 23, Nemoto discloses the barrier material includes a bottom surface that extends to a bottom surface of the substrate (face [2] of light absorbing film 40, Figs. 29-30).
Regarding claim 24, Nemoto discloses the barrier material is embedded into the substrate a pre-determined distance (Figs. 33-34).
Regarding claim 27, Nemoto discloses the plurality of optical elements include at least one optical function chosen from a diffusing element and a light modulator (lenslets, Figs. 24-26, 28A-28D, 29-30-34).
Claims 6-7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto as applied to Claims 1 and 13, and further in view of US Pat. No. 11,287,105 to Nakabayashi et al. (hereinafter Nakabayashi).
Regarding claims 6 and 25, Ohta discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the barrier material is a plurality of separate barrier materials, and each barrier material is embedded a different pre-determined distance into the substrate
Nakabayashi discloses the barrier material is a plurality of separate barrier materials (“sectioning groove 21 is filled with a sectioning member 21a containing a light reflecting material" and “light adjusting holes 23 are filled with a light transmissive member 23e”, Figs. 3, 8; col. 2, ln. 49-col. 10, ln. 25 & col. 12, ll. 16-52), and each barrier material is embedded a different pre-determined distance into the substrate (Figs. 3 & 8).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide barriers with different depths as taught by Nakabayashi with the system as disclosed by Nemoto. The motivation would have been to “optically divide” (col. 4, ll. 8-11) the optical structure while also increasing the amount of light through regions of the optical structure (col. 8, ll. 7-18).
Regarding claim 7, Nemoto discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the optically opaque material is a metallic based pigment.
Nakabayashi discloses the optically opaque material is a metallic based pigment (col. 4, ln. 49-col. 5, ln. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide metal pigment barriers as taught by Nakabayashi with the system as disclosed by Nemoto. The motivation would have been to “optically divide” (col. 4, ll. 8-11) the optical structure while also increasing the amount of light through regions of the optical structure (col. 8, ll. 7-18).
Claim 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto as applied to Claims 1 and 13, and further in view of US Pat. No. 11,287,105 to Nakabayashi et al. (hereinafter Nakabayashi).
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Nemoto discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the plurality of optical elements include a top surface that is flat or textured.
Ohta discloses the plurality of optical elements include a top surface that is flat or textured (Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide metal pigment barriers as taught by Nakabayashi with the system as disclosed by Nemoto. The motivation would have been to “optically divide” (col. 4, ll. 8-11) the optical structure while also increasing the amount of light through regions of the optical structure (col. 8, ll. 7-18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Shimizu and states “microlenses 8 are formed into the recesses 3 of the surface of the substrate 5 … not arranged in a configuration on the top surface of the substrate 5”. The crux of this argument is not clearly understood as the Applicant notes that the microlenses are formed into the substrate surface and Examiner maintains that this is an arrangement in a configuration on the top surface of the substrate. Perhaps Applicant intends for the claim to be a product by process limitations whereby an optical element is deposited onto a planar top surface of a substrate or another embodiment that is within the scope of the claim, though not specifically recited. There is no requirement beyond arranging elements on a substrate surface, and Shimizu anticipates this claimed structure. Applicant additionally argues that the black matrix 11 in Shimizu is not applied “on the top surface of the substrate” 5. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim requires the barrier material to be “arranged on the top surface of the substrate” and does not require direct physical contact. Manufacturing processes, whereby a barrier material is deposited onto an exposed top surface of a substrate, are not required in the claim.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 10-13 of the Remarks with respect to the previous rejection in view of Ohta and An have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
