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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/17/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-17 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 2, 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 Xia (NPL) and Liu (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 specific 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 is selected based on a shape of an incident light beam from a light source and the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material is sized to match a cross-section of the incident light beam.
However, Xia teaches incident light beams can be shaped to various sizes and shapes. (Abstract). Liu teaches incident light beams can be shaped to various shapes, including square, ring, triangle, and pentagon. (Abstract). Thus, the shape and size of any incident light beam can be shaped and sized to match the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material of Rudmann ‘4, which mean Rudmann ‘4 meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the die, where the optical material, in the specific non-rectangular shape, has a planar bottom surface that interfaces with the surface of the substrate and has one or more surface, that together with the planar bottom surface, form a three-dimensional shape. (Fig. 18; Paragraph 0017-0018).
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).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudmann ‘4, Xia and Liu in further view of Rudmann et al. (US 2007/0216048 A1) [hereinafter Rudmann ‘8]
Regarding Claim 4, Rudmann ‘4 does not specifically teach the three-dimensinoal shape of the optical material is a cylinder.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudmann ‘4, Xia and Lu, in further view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0023906 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Rudmann ‘4 teaches the shaped optical material can be a prism for use in optical devices (Paragraph 0003, 0251). Rudmann ‘4 does not specifically teach the prism optical material has the claimed shape.
Lee teaches forming hexagonal prisms for use in optical devices, cloaking devices, in cars (Abstract; Paragraph 0001-0003). Thus, as Rudmann ‘4 teaches making prisms for optical devices and Lee teaches hexagonal prisms are desired for optical devices, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make hexagonal prisms in Rudmann ‘4, as there is a market for optical hexagonal prisms.
Claims 1-3, 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 Xia and Lu.
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 is selected based on a shape of an incident light beam from a light source and the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material is sized to match a cross-section of the incident light beam.
However, Xia teaches incident light beams can be shaped to various sizes and shapes. (Abstract). Liu teaches incident light beams can be shaped to various shapes, including square, ring, triangle, and pentagon. (Abstract). Thus, the shape and size of any incident light beam can be shaped and sized to match the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material of Wang which mean Wang meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches the die, where the optical material, in the specific non-rectangular shape, has a planar bottom surface that interfaces with the surface of the substrate and has one or more surface, that together with the planar bottom surface, form a three-dimensional shape. (Fig. 2A, 3A).
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 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 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Xia, and Lu, in further view of Rudmann ‘8.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches the optical material has a planar bottom surface that interfaces with the top surface of the substrate and forms a three-dimensional shape. (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 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, Xia and Lu, 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.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xia and Liu.
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.
Wang does not specifically teach the non-rectangular shape of the optical material is selected based on a shape of an incident light beam from a light source and the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material is sized to match a cross-section of the incident light beam.
However, Xia teaches incident light beams can be shaped to various sizes and shapes. (Abstract). Liu teaches incident light beams can be shaped to various shapes, including square, ring, triangle, and pentagon. (Abstract). Thus, the shape and size of the incident light beam can be shaped and sized to match the specific non-rectangular shape of the optical material of Wang which mean Wang meets the claimed limitation.
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, Xia and Liu in view of Rudmann ‘8.
Regarding Claim 16, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
New grounds of rejection have been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
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