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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2025 and 1/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 (Figs. 2-9); wherein 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 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 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or 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