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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, Kriman et al. (USP 10667341, Kriman) teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) optical device (module 20 comprising DOE 30/60) comprising: a substrate (substrate 54); a first electrically-conductive element (trace 42) formed as a pattern on the substrate; a layer of material (grating 48) extending over at least a portion of the first electrically-conductive element and forming an optical element (diffractive optical element 60); and a second electrically-conductive element (metal-filled vias 64) extending through the layer of material and coupled to the first electrically-conductive element.
Smith (US Pub. 20110163340) teaches (in figure 7) a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising the steps of: disposing a tool (stamp 26) relative to a substrate (encapsulation glass 14) and forming a layer of material (PDMS 20) between the tool and the substrate a profile of the tool configured to define an optical element in the layer (paragraph 49).
Nishida et al. (JP20101000006, with reference made to provided machine translation, Nishida) teaches (in figure 3) a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising the steps of: dispensing conductive element (metal film 36) onto a tool (core 23); forming a layer of material (molten resin 42) between the tool and a mold (3) such that the conductive element extends through the layer of material, a profile of the tool configured to define an optical element in the layer.
the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing a method of manufacturing an optical device comprising the steps of: dispensing a curable conductive polymer onto a tool; disposing the tool relative to a substrate such that the curable conductive polymer contacts a first electrically-conductive element formed as a pattern on the substrate; curing the curable conductive polymer to form a second electrically-conductive element coupled to the first electrically-conductive element; and forming a layer of material between the tool and the substrate such that the second electrically-conductive element extends through the layer of material in combination with the other required elements of claim 13.
Claims 14, 15, and 17-21 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4, 5, 7-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriman et al. (USP 10667341, Kriman) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210280632, Kim).
As per claim 1, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) optical device (module 20 comprising DOE 30/60) comprising: a substrate (substrate 54); a first electrically-conductive element (trace 42) formed as a pattern on the substrate; a layer of material (grating 48) extending over at least a portion of the first electrically-conductive element and forming an optical element (diffractive optical element 60); and a second electrically-conductive element (metal-filled vias 64) extending through the layer of material and coupled to the first electrically-conductive element wherein the second electrically conductive element (metal-filled vias 64) is laterally surrounded by the layer of material (grating 48).
Kriman does not specifically teach that the second electrically-conductive element comprises a cured conductive polymer, wherein the second electrically conductive element is substantially spherical-frustum-shaped.
However, Kim teaches (in figures 5 and 9-12) forming electrically-conductive elements (contact electrodes 26 and 27) out of a cured conductive polymer (CPL, see paragraph 149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second electrically-conductive element out of a cured conductive polymer since a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
As such Kriman in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention with the exception of “the second electrically conductive element is substantially spherical-frustum-shaped”
However, applicant has not disclosed that the shape of the second electrically-conductive element is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected/significant result, solves any stated or long standing problem in the art, or is otherwise critical. Further it appears that any number of shapes would work equally as well.
Therefore, absent any showing of criticality, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second electrically-conductive element in a substantially spherical-frustum-shape, since it appears that the device would work equally whether or not the second electrically-conductive element has a cylindrical shape or a spherical shape.
As per claim 2, Kriman in view of Kim teaches that the second electrically-conductive element (vias 64 in Kirman filled with conductive polymer from Kim) forms a conductive path extending from a surface of the layer of material (grating 48 in Kriman) to the first electrically-conductive element (trace 42 in Kriman, see figure 4A and Col. 6 lines 21-24 in Kriman).
As per claim 4, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) that the first electrically- conductive element (trace 42) is an electrical trace for an eye safety circuit (Col. 5 lines 10-24).
As per claim 5, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) that the optical element (module 20 comprising DOE 30/60) comprises at least one of: a lens; a microlens array; a diffraction grating; a diffuser; a Fresnel lens; a filter; a waveguide (diffraction grating 48).
As per claim 7, Kriman in view of Kim teaches a spacer (housing 28 and case traces 36 in Kriman), the spacer comprising a third electrically-conductive element (case traces 36 in Kriman), the third electrically-conductive element being conductively coupled to the first electrically-conductive-element (trace 42 in Kriman) by the second electrically-conductive element (vias 64 in Kirman filled with conductive polymer from Kim).
As per claim 8, Kriman in view of Kim teaches a further substrate (substrate 22 in Kriman), the spacer (housing 28 and case traces 36 in Kriman) disposed between the substrate and the further substrate, the first electrically-conductive element (trace 42 in Kriman) coupled to a fourth electrically-conductive element (“conductive adhesive” see Col. 4 lines 56-60 and figure 1) formed on the further substrate by the second and third electrically-conductive elements (vias 64 in Kirman filled with conductive polymer from Kim and case traces 36 in Kriman).
As per claim 9, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) an active element (emitter 24), the active element comprising at least one of: a sensor and/or a radiation emitter (Col. 4 lines 22-24).
As per claim 10, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) at least one of: the layer of material (grating 48) is substantially transparent to radiation emitted by the radiation emitter and/or sensed by the sensor; and the first electrically-conductive element (trace 42) is substantially transparent to radiation emitted by the radiation emitter and/or sensed by the sensor (Col. 4 lines 27-40).
As per claim 11, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) circuitry (circuitry 34) configured to detect a variation in a resistance of a circuit formed from the first electrically- conductive element (trace 42) (Col. 5 lines 10-24).
As per claim 12, Kriman teaches (in figures 1, 3A, and 4A) that the optical device (module 20 comprising DOE 30/60) is one of: an illuminator; a proximity sensor; a spectral sensor; an ambient light sensor; a dot-projector; a light-to-frequency sensor (Col. 4 lines 27-40).
As per claim 16, Kriman in view of Kim teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one optical device according to claim 1 (see rejection above)
Kriman’s cited embodiment does not explicitly teach a camera; and processing circuitry communicably coupled to the at least one optical device and to the camera.
However, Kriman teaches that it is known in the art to provide an image capture assembly and a processor communicably coupled to the at least one optical device and to the camera in order to provide 3D mapping of an object (Col. 1 lines 24-35).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a camera and processing circuity in the cited embodiment of Kriman in order to provide a means of 3D mapping objects.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriman et al. (USP 10667341, Kriman) and Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210280632, Kim) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Smith (US Pub. 20110163340).
As per claim 3, Kriman teaches that the layer of material (grating 48 in Kriman) forms a grating (Col. 6 lines 15-16).
Kriman does not specifically teach that the grating is formed of a cured polymer or PDMS.
However, Smith teaches (in figures 5 and 7) forming a grating (20) out of PDMS (see paragraphs 42 and 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the layer of material (grating 48) in Kriman out of PDMS since a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that claims 1-5, 7-12, and 16 are allowable over the prior art because neither Kriman nor Kim explicitly teach a second electrically-conductive element having a substantially spherical-frustum-shape, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, and as shown in the rejection above, the shape of the second electrically-conducive element is considered an obvious matter of design choice as applicant has not disclosed that the shape of the second electrically-conductive element is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected/significant result, solves any stated or long standing problem in the art, or is otherwise critical. Further it appears that any number of shapes would work equally as well. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871