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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/05/2026. Claims 1 and 13 are amended and claims 1-13 and 21-27 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are 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 1 recites “a barrier material located at an outer portion of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements … to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements, …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”. Further, in the 5/5/2026 Response, Applicant argues “the seal 105 is not a barrier material used ‘to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements’ … seal 105 is used to attach and seal”. It is noted that the seal 105 in An is described as “transparent” and functions to permit precise cutting for subsequent tiling (“only the black matrix is opaque whereas the glass and the seal are transparent, cutting becomes easy when the outer border of the edge black matrix is used as a reference line for cutting” and “LCD panels are tiled by filling the gap between the panels with a filling material 135”). In the manufacturing of the optical device, the sealant material 105 is positioned on an outer portion and functions such that cross-talk is inhibited in the constructed display (Figs. 8A-8C). In arguing that the prior art structure does not teach the claimed structure, Applicant muddles the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the structure captured by the claims. The originally-filed Specifications provides en haec verba support for limiting the outer barrier material as inhibiting or reducing cross-talk, though there is no context nor specification of the structure performing this function. On the one hand, an artisan may understand the claim language to merely require the material composition to exhibit optical reflection or absorption to any degree. On the other hand, an artisan may understand the claim language to require a physical separation of optical elements that inherently reduces optical density and thus the likelihood of cross-talk. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “cross-talk” to be a feature of light propagating through an optical system and not a matter of inherent characteristics of the optical system. In other words, an optical system illuminated by a first form of illumination may exhibit cross-talk whereas a same optical system illuminated by a second form of illumination may not exhibit cross-talk. The claims do not require an illumination source nor illumination propagating through the die thus the metes and bounds of the functional limitation on the barrier material cannot be determined as they are divorced from illumination.
It is further noted that the adverbial clause “to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements” is not grammatically structured to necessarily modify both “at an outer portion” and “at an inner portion”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the clause may be understood as only modifying “at an inner portion”, the more proximal of the two.
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) located 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).
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 the substrate, wherein the optical elements are separated from each other by the barrier material to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the optical elements (“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).
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 1-5, 7-13, 21-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No, 8,823,254 to Ohta et al. (hereinafter Ohta) in view of US Pat. No. 5,851,411 to An et al. (hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 1, Ohta discloses a die (lens unit 20, Fig. 2-9, 13, 14) comprising: a substrate (base 28, Figs. 2-9,. 13-14); and a plurality of optical elements (lenses 22, Figs. 2-9, 13-14) arranged in a configuration on a top surface of the substrate; a barrier material located 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 to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements (Figs. 2-9); wherein at an inner portion each optical element, of the plurality of optical elements, is separated one from another by a barrier material (partitions 25 in black trench 29, Fig. 2-9, 13-14).
Ohta discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: wherein the barrier material located at the outer portion of the die is wider than the barrier material located at the inner portion of the die.
An discloses the barrier material located at the outer portion (seal 105, Fig. 5B & 6A, also Figs. 7-17) of the die surrounding the plurality of optical elements is wider (NW-S and NW--E -total 200µm to 800µm, Fig. 5B; col. 7, ll. 22-55 & col. 8 , ln. 1-col. 9, ln. 9) than the barrier material (black matrix 111, Fig. 5B & 6A, also Figs. 7-17) located at the inner portion of the die (NWBMD of black matrix 111 is 30-75 µm and black matrix 111a is half of the 111 width, Table 1; col. 7, ll. 22-55 & col. 8 , ln. 1-col. 9, ln. 9).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a wider barrier as taught by An with the system as disclosed by Ohta. The motivation would have been to aid in device cutting (col. 8 , ln. 1-col. 9, ln. 9).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Ohta discloses the barrier material is chosen from an optically opaque material and an optically absorbing material (“the partitions 25 absorb the light emitted from the organic luminescent layer and prevents the stray light”, Fig. 2-9, 13-14; col. 15, ll. 36-67).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, Ohta discloses the barrier material includes a top surface that extends beyond a height of the optical element, and a bottom surface that interfaces with a top surface of the substrate (Figs. 2-9, 13-14).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, Ohta discloses the barrier material includes a bottom surface that extends to a bottom surface of the substrate (partition 25 includes a bottom surface extending to a bottom surface of trench 29 of base 28, Figs. 2-9, 13-14).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, Ohta discloses the barrier material is embedded into the substrate a pre-determined distance (Fig. 9; col. 19, ll. 8-17).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ohta discloses the barrier material is chosen from an optically absorbing material (“the partitions 25 absorb the light emitted from the organic luminescent layer and prevents the stray light”, Fig. 2-9, 13-14; col. 15, ll. 36-67), and thus is not required to teach, for anticipation, the optically opaque material is a metallic based pigment and the optically opaque material is an electroformed structure.
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Ohta discloses the plurality of optical elements include a top surface that is flat of textured (Figs. 2-9, 13-14).
Regarding claim 10, Ohta discloses an interface between the substrate and the optical element is continuous (Figs. 2-9, 13-14).
Regarding claim 11, Ohta discloses a cross-section of the interface is free of damage (Figs. 2-9, 13-14).
Regarding claim 13, Ohta discloses a wafer (Figs. 16) comprising: a substrate (base 28, Fig. 16) a plurality of dies (portions to the left and right of lens-free regions of Figs. 16) arranged in a certain configuration on the substrate wherein the plurality of dies are separated one from another by a street (lens-free region of Figs. 16; col. 21, ln. 17-col. 23, ln. 14), wherein the street includes a layer of a barrier material (partitions 25, Fig. 16) interfacing with a layer of the substrate (Fig. 16), wherein each die of the plurality of dies comprises optical elements arranged in a pattern on the substrate, wherein the optical elements are separated from each other by the barrier material (Figs. 2-9 and 16).
Ohta discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: wherein the barrier material located at the outer portion of the die is wider than the barrier material located at the inner portion of the die.
An discloses the barrier material located at the outer portion (seal 105, Fig. 5B & 6A, also Figs. 7-17) of the die is wider (NW-S and NW--E -total 200µm to 800µm, Fig. 5B; col. 7, ll. 22-55 & col. 8 , ln. 1-col. 9, ln. 9) than the barrier material (black matrix 111, Fig. 5B & 6A, also Figs. 7-17) located at the inner portion of the die (NWBMD of black matrix 111 is 30-75 µm and black matrix 111a is half of the 111 width, Table 1; col. 7, ll. 22-55 & col. 8 , ln. 1-col. 9, ln. 9).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a wider barrier as taught by An with the system as disclosed by Ohta. The motivation would have been to aid in device cutting (col. 8 , ln. 1-col. 9, ln. 9).
Claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of An, 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 Ohta. 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 with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments filed 5/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section above, the phrasing “to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements” does not limit the claim in the intended matter, as gleaned from Applicant’s Remarks pages 7-8. In particular, the barrier material that surrounds the plurality of optical elements would not function to inhibit or reduce cross-talk between the plurality of optical elements it surrounds. Additionally, the function of inhibiting or reducing optical cross-talk would be understood by artisans as an indirect limitation on the degree to which material absorbs light, the degree to which material reflects light itself, the degree to which material reflects light at an interface with adjacent materials, the width of a material in physically separating devices, among other structures. As it related to An, cited above, the sealing material is disclosed as transparent but provides a boundary by which light reflects, provides a width by which devices may be physically separated, and provides a means by which elements are cut for subsequent joining with absorbent materials therebetween. In these ways, at least, the wider sealing material inhibits and reduces cross-talk between optical elements.
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 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
Prosecution Insights