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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/13/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 5, 7, and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudmann et al. (US 2015/0217524 A1) [hereinafter Rudmann ‘4] in view of University of Illinois (NPL)
Regarding Claims 1, Rudmann ‘4 teaches a die (Abstract) comprising a substrate having a surface defined by paired oppositely-oriented edges (Fig. 18, Item S), and an optical material/structure, in a non-rectangular shape, on the surface of the substrate, (Fig. 18, Items A and A’), wherein the optical material does not extend an entire length of any one of the paired oppositely-oriented edges. (Fig. 18-21).
Rudmann ‘4 does not specifically teach the non-rectangular shape of the optical material matches a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source. However, a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source can be shaped to any shape with various mirrors, wave guides or lens. (University of Illinois, Page 1). Thus, optical material of Rudmann ‘4 would inherently have a non-rectangular shape that matches a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source.
Regarding Claim 8, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the non-rectangular shape of the optical material includes two or more non-rectangular shapes that are separated one from another by a gap in the optical material, wherein the two or more non-rectangular shapes include a combination of different shapes. (Fig. 4, 22-39).
Regarding Claim 9, Rudmann ‘4 teaches a portion near the edge of the top surface of substrate is void of optical material. (Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 10, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the optical material has non-uniform thickness. (Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 14, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the total number of non-rectangular shapes can 3-8. (Fig. 22-39).
Claim 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudmann ‘4 and University of Illinois, in further view of Rudmann et al. (US 2007/0216048 A1) [hereinafter Rudmann ‘8]
Regarding Claim 2 and 4, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the die, where the optical material, in the non-rectangular shape, has a planar bottom surface that interfaces with a top surface of the substrate. (Fig. 18). Rudman ‘4 teaches the optical material can be molded into various shapes (Paragraph 0017-0018). Rudmann ‘4 does not specifically teach the surfaces, including the planar bottom of the optical material, forms the claimed three-dimensional shapes.
Rudmann ‘8 teaches optical material formed on wafer-scale (Abstract; Paragraph 0045), where optical element can be molded into different shapes, depending on the use of the optical element. (Fig. 1-10; Paragraph 0029-0030). Rudmann ‘8 teaches a cylinder symmetric optical element can also be made (Paragraph 0030). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make various shapes, including a cylinder shape, as taught by Rudmann ‘8 depending on the use of the optical element.
Regarding Claim 6, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the planar bottom surface of the optical material can cover a majority, but less than an entirety, of the top surface of the substrate. (Fig. 18, 20-21). Thus, the combination of Rudmann’ 4 and Rudmann ‘8 would have the diameter of the cylinder be less than the length of the substrate in order to ensure the optical material can cover a majority, but less than an entirety, of the top surface of the substrate.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2018/0095193 A1) in view of University of Illinois.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a die (Fig. 1; Figs. 3) comprising a substrate having a surface defined by paired oppositely-oriented edges (Fig. 1; Figs 3, Item 120) and a non-rectangular shape optical material (Fig. 3, Item 310; Paragraph 0046) on the surface of the substrate where the optical material does not extend an entire length of any one of the paired oppositely-oriented (Fig. 3).
Wang does not specifically teach the non-rectangular shape of the optical material matches a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source. However, a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source can be shaped to any shape with various mirrors, wave guides or lens. (University of Illinois, Page 1). Thus, optical material of Wang would inherently have a non-rectangular shape that matches a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source.
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches a portion near the edge of the top surface of substrate is void of optical material. (Figs. 3)
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches the optical material has non-uniform thickness. (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches a die can be a square (Fig. 3). Wang teaches the optical element can have a diameter of a fraction of a millimeter to ten millimeters. (Paragraph 0077). Wang teaches, for example, nine lens can be placed along a length of the substrate, depending on the use of the lens assembly. (Paragraph 0031). This means the substrate can range from length and width from about 10 x 10 to about 900 x 900 mm. This overlaps the claimed range. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of the substrate, depending on the desired lens assembly and the intended use of the lens assembly.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang shows the die is approximately a square, which would yield an aspect ratio of about 1:1.
Regarding Claim 14, Wang teaches at least two (Fig. 8B) or four (Fig. 3) non-rectangular shaped optical material.
Claims 2-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and University of Illinois, in further view of Rudmann ‘8
Regarding Claim 2 and 4, Wang teaches the optical material has a planar bottom surface that interfaces with the top surface of the substrate. (Figs 1-3)
Wang does not specifically teach the surfaces, including the planar bottom of the optical material, forms a cylindrical shape.
Rudmann ‘8 teaches optical material formed on wafer-scale (Abstract; Paragraph 0045), where optical element can be molded into different shapes, depending on the use of the optical element. (Fig. 1-10; Paragraph 0029-0030). Rudmann ‘8 teaches a cylinder symmetric optical element can also be made (Paragraph 0030). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make various shapes, including a cylinder shape, as taught by Rudmann ‘8 depending on the use of the optical element.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches distance between adjacent lens can be 400 microns or less while the transverse extent can be one to several millimeters. (Paragraph 0027-0031). These dimension ranges allow for the planar bottom surface of the optical to overlap the claimed coverage range of the top surface of the substrate.
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches the extent, length, of the optical member should be less than the entire extent, length, of the substrate. (Paragraph 0030-0031) Thus, the combination of Wang and Rudmann ‘8 would have the diameter of the cylindrical lens be less than the length of the substrate.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and University of Illinois, in further view of Rudmann ‘4.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches the non-rectangular shape of the optical material includes two or more non-rectangular shapes separated one from another by a gap in the optical material. (Fig. 2-3).
Wang does not specifically teach the two or more non-rectangular shapers include a combination of different shapes.
Rudmann ‘4 teaches having the two or more non-rectangular shapers include a combination of different shapes (Fig. 4) to have peculiar apertures. (Paragraph 0259). Rudmann ‘4 teaches unusual apertures are suitable for different applications for the lens. (Paragraph 0032). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have optical material have a combination of two different shapes to allow the optical material to be suited for various applications.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and University of Illinois in view of Mouws et al. (US 2016/0356995 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang does not teach the nominal thickness of the lens.
Mouws teaches fabricating wafer level assemblies. (Abstract). Mouws teaches this method of forming lens can reach a thickness of about 50 microns. (Paragraph 0061). Mouws teaches this thickness is suitable for lens integration into other devices. (Paragraph 0061).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make the lens to the claimed thickness to ensure the lens can be used in other devices.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Rudmann ‘8.
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches a wafer (Fig. 1 and 6) comprising a plurality of dies, where the plurality of dies shares a common continuous surface of a substrate. (Fig. 1). Wang teaches each of the die of the plurality of dies comprises a substrate portion in rectangular shape (Fig. 1, Item 22) and an optical material in a specific non-rectangular shape on the substrate portion, where the non-rectangular shapes can be separated by a gap (Fig. 2D, 3B; Paragraph 0046).
Wang teaches the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material includes two or more non-rectangular shapes that are separated one from another by a gap in the optical material. (Figs 2-3).
Wang does not specifically teach the two or more non-rectangular shapers include a combination of different shapes.
Rudmann ‘4 teaches having the two or more non-rectangular shapers include a combination of different shapes (Fig. 4) to have peculiar apertures. (Paragraph 0259). Rudmann ‘4 teaches unusual apertures are suitable for different applications for the lens. (Paragraph 0032). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have optical material have a combination of two different shapes to allow the optical material to be suited for various applications.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang teaches the plurality of dies are separated one form another by a dicing street. (Fig. 8B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rudmann ‘8, in further view of University of Illinois (NPL)
Regarding Claim 16, Wang does not specifically teach the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material matches a cross-sectional an incident beam from a light source. . However, a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source can be shaped to any shape with various mirrors, wave guides or lens. (University of Illinois, Page 1). Thus, optical material of Wang would inherently have a non-rectangular shape that matches a cross-section of an incident beam from a light source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights